0

Only within a species - dogs getting bigger/smaller etc. I don't accept the evolution of new species through mutations. In 4000 years of history no human has seen a reproducable mutation. It would take to much faith for me to accept biologists speculations on that issue.

Secondly I find it illogical. How does a creature without wings, who survives without wings, suddenly grow them simply because a need for them arises?

Such is the thinking behind apes going into water for example. A species that drowns because of it's nasal shape, suddenly grows the downturned nose of humanity that blocks water, because it needs to swim?

Evolution makes no sense to me.

<font color="#ffccff">Legolas See my post about merging the two. Conversations I have had with a couple of Jesuits that my dad knows has shown me that not everyone takes the Genesis book as literal and I think I have a rather comfortable fusion of science and religion in my life :D </font>

"ape" and "monkey" are not synonymous. Apes, such as gorillas and chimpanzees, have evolved along parallel lines with human beings, and are quite close to us in a number of respects (chimpanzees and humans share 98 percent of their genetic material). On the evolutionary tree, apes are no more monkeys than we are.

True. [img]smile.gif[/img] The stronger and healthier animal has more chance of survival.

But, sure, survival depends a lot on your luck, but the stronger you are, and healthier, and smarter, etc., the easier you will get out of a tough situation. [img]smile.gif[/img]
Let's say that two puppies fall into the same river under the same circumstances, except that one is weaker than the other. (Poor puppies.) The stronger puppy would probably have an easier time to swim to the shore, while the weak puppy would probably drown. [img]smile.gif[/img] Silly example, I know. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Edit --- Grammar.

[ 02-24-2003, 09:45 AM: Message edited by: Spelca ]

The read about simians the more I see the differences outweigh the similarities.

Bipedalism alone is a huge difference and totally changes everything about the two species. Apes simply cannot stand up on two legs for long. The spines cannot take that strain.

So is the opposable thumb and the apes foot.

http://www.priweb.org/ed/ICTHOL/ICTH...papers/22.html
[ 02-24-2003, 09:59 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

I remember when I was a kid about 10 or 11 and our Sunday school teacher (very, very fixed and unmoveable in his beliefs, a zealot in many ways but a wonderful man) bought this subject up.

He said "no one animal can change or become another". Seeing as were doing moths and things at normal school I asked him "what about a caterpillar then?"
I don't recall what happened but know or at least remember no satisfactory answer, kinda still leaves me a little confused.

Many many moons later I visited him (he's still at that old church every Thursday and Sunday to this day) and we began to discuss things as adults.

He again mentioned how no one specie can become another. I mentioned Gaia and evolution and allsorts.
This guy is a bachelor of science......he blew me out of the water with all manner of things. Actually, it wasn't a discussion, I just listened.

I do believe in evolution, it must exist or nothing could evolve.
Man coming from monkeys I'm not 100% on. Why has this massive leap left all the living ancestry of its evolution behind. Why are there still "lesser apes" if you will, roaming the forests. Why didn't they evolve too, maybe they have but does it mean that their species will one day evolve into mankind?

Are their other living things today whose evolution can be nailed down from one distinct species into another?

[img]smile.gif[/img]

It's the same animal at a different phase in it's existence. Like a human baby is inside the womb. Blind, doesn't breath air, doesn't eat or drink orally, can't walk or vocalise. With certain definitions an in-utero baby is a defferent species. Or, it's the same species at a different phase in it's life.

Legolas did you not read Magik's post before yours? He is a person with Christian beliefs who is also a believer of evolution.

The two are not mutually exclusive ideas.

As a Christian I can be an evolutionist, or a creationist. Neither theory is necessary to my theology.

However, can an athiest be either creationistic or evolutionistic? If there is necessity of belief and mutual exclusivity, it would seem to be on the side of atheism, not religion. ;) :D

0

Only within a species - dogs getting bigger/smaller etc. I don't accept the evolution of new species through mutations. In 4000 years of history no human has seen a reproducable mutation. It would take to much faith for me to accept biologists speculations on that issue.

Secondly I find it illogical. How does a creature without wings, who survives without wings, suddenly grow them simply because a need for them arises?

Such is the thinking behind apes going into water for example. A species that drowns because of it's nasal shape, suddenly grows the downturned nose of humanity that blocks water, because it needs to swim?

Evolution makes no sense to me.</font>[/QUOTE]I see. But you are assuming that mutations are drastic and instantaneous. When the genetic code is altered in any substantial way, it almost universally results in the death of the organism. Mutations and changes to a species occur over millions of years, not just short thousands.
Evolution does not come from a species' gentic code saying 'you know, I could use some wings, let's grow 'em'. It occurs when a species accidentally mutates a trait that might someday, if eccentuated a great deal, resemble wings. It could be an extra layer of cells on their arms, an ever-so-slight bone protrusion or an irregularity in their spinal shape. If the organism survives and is able to pass this mutated trait onto it's offspring, then the process repeats itself in the next generation. This goes on for millions of years. If the trait is eccentuated ,you might end up with a device that is capable of catching the wind and allowing the organism to fly, then again, maybe not. There is a great deal of luck and chance involved, and that's what makes it interesting.

In the human world: a lean, muscular, olive skinned man with a high IQ and good eyesight is more likely to pass on his genes to the next generation (and thus continue his genetic code) than a short, fat simpleton with blotchy skin and inch-thick glasses. Mating and breeding is pretty much what genetic evolution is all about. Why do you think sex is so ingrained in our everyday thoughts? It's an inbuilt mechanism that ensures that we try to get out there and distribute/continue our genes. If you don't pass on your genes, your species does not evolve in your image. Game over, thanks for playing.

And remember, it's a graaaaaadual process. Millions of years gradual. You'll never see it in motion without a mathematical computer program, and even then it won;t be exact. Because our generational lifetimes are so short we tend to try to find observable, here-and-now answers. But conception, birth, mating and death are simply mechanisms by which life shuffles itself around and morphs to its surroundings.

Sorry bro, but you're just a vessel for your genes, pass them on quick before your body dies and they're lost forever ;)

[ 02-24-2003, 10:07 AM: Message edited by: The Hierophant ]

By Yorick :
This is never sudden. This can't be sudden. It takes a hell lot of times. Bit by bit.

Back to the topic, you believe in mutation within the same species. So you can agree with me that if it keeps mutating too much it becomes a whole different species (after a while of course). Cause mutations don't only affect size, shape and color, but also everything else : system of reprodruction, system of mobility etc...

Mutations appear randomly, so we can have one branch of a species that evolves into something while another branch evolves into something else. We have then 2 different species that share the same ancestor.

Now look at human being, all these different colors, sizes, shape, eye types etc...Those are mutations. And if there are mutations within our species then it is highly possible that we evolved from something and we will evolve to something else.

But keep in mind that it takes time, a lot of time. And this is maybe why it's so hard to accept : we can't have direct visible proofs of all that.

EDIT : Just saw The Hierophant post, he says it better than me [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 02-24-2003, 10:09 AM: Message edited by: Masklinn ]