Evolution

[Charlie]

Originally posted by Yorick: Quote: Originally posted by Charlie: 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.

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.[/QUOTE]I'm with all that now mate but I didn't understand metamorphosis back then.
Metamorphosis/Evolution = kind of confusing.

We seem fixated with either proving or disproving the man/ape link.

I still didn't think these questions got answered.

"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?"

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Sever: Seriously though, in light of all that we've learned, it seems to me that an incredible amount of naivete is required to believe the Creation theory over Natural Selection. Sorry.

And I would say the reverse is true. Sorry.

In schools where I grew up they spoon fed evolution. To be a creationist I had to think for myself. To self educate and look at things outside the box instead of mutely accepting the speculations my teachers parroted.

Be careful when you start pointing a finger Sever...

[Masklinn]

You have to take it the other way around Yorick.

It's random.
But, this randomness (is that a word ? lol) serves a purpose : natural selection.

When after a lot of random mutations some underwater species were allowed to breath on the land, well, they did get on the land.
These mutations didn't happen cause they needed to go on the land.

But look at your nails : are they really useful to us ? Still we have them. You know why ? They are the remaining, after a lot of mutations, of our ancestor claws.
Some random mutations will maybe make us loose them for good...in 1 million years, who knows.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Moiraine: Yorick, about your post about animals suddenly growing stuff - evolution doesn't work that way. I have a norwegian cat - these are supposedly the descendants of the cats that the vikings brought with us on their ships to kill the rats, and have been left alone in cold forests for 1000 years. Now they have evolved a heavy fur. But it doesn't mean that one morning one of those cats suddenly grew fur ! It means that most of these cats died except the ones with the biggest individual fur - and those bred and transmitted the gene, who grew stronger with time. [img]smile.gif[/img]

I know this, but we are talking about Apes that die if they swim in water. We are talking about noses that reshaped due to the necessity of swimming underwater. Noses that allow us to hold our breath. If no such species exist, how does a species develop due to specific need and then survive.

The first ape born with a downturned nose would have had the instinct of water= death would they not? What would happen if that ape mated with a normal ape?

I mean, if a person is born without a limb, their child doesn't necessarily have the same flaw. Gene codes self-correct do they not?

The instinct bit is interesting as well. Humans have no instincts like every other animal does. All we do is learned through mimicry or trial and error, not instinctivness.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Masklinn: You have to take it the other way around Yorick. It's random. But, this randomness (is that a word ? lol) serves a purpose : natural selection. When after a lot of random mutations some underwater species were allowed to breath on the land, well, they did get on the land. These mutations didn't happen cause they needed to go on the land. But look at your nails : are they really useful to us ? Still we have them. You know why ? They are the remaining, after a lot of mutations, of our ancestor claws. Some random mutations will maybe make us loose them for good...in 1 million years, who knows.

So you take the line that if a generation after generation of humans chopped off a limb say, that eventually humans would be born without it?

Why then are Jews still born with full foreskins? Seemingly useless and removed in circumcision for the last 3000 or so years. Is 3000 years to short a time span for something like that?

It seems convenient that any time it's mentioned that this or that hasn't been seen, the fall back of "oh it takes much longer" is used.

None of us will see it. It's no less a matter of faith than any religion is. You're asking me to "just believe that it takes that time"

I'm sorry but in the here and now I see design and art and order and expressive beauty, so I see a creator. This is direct evidence for me. It resonates with the artistic person within me. I recognise it.

With creationism, I'm not asked to accept anything I haven't experienced.

[Masklinn]

If no such species exist, how does a species develop due to specific need and then survive.

Gah read my post above : take it the other way around !
Species evolve in a lot of different direction, only a small part of it stay alive.

Imagin a bunch of non-swimming creatures being stuck on an island. After a while (a HUGE while), some funny random genetic mutation made one of these creatures able to swin (with a weird nose and all). He makes a baby creature or two. Luckily they get his genes when it comes to be able to swim. Now, after a bit there is not enough ressource for the creatures to live on that island, what happens ? Those who can swim can escape, the others die.

Now we say that they needed to be able to swim to survive. And indeed only those who could survived. They didnt evolve that way cause they knew they would need to swin. This is not how it works.

There you have your new specie, all able to swim, coming from a line of creatures that wasnt able to.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Charlie: Quote: Originally posted by Yorick: Quote: Originally posted by Charlie: 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.

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.[/QUOTE]I'm with all that now mate but I didn't understand metamorphosis back then.
Metamorphosis/Evolution = kind of confusing.

We seem fixated with either proving or disproving the man/ape link.

I still didn't think these questions got answered.

"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?"[/QUOTE]Charles it's different because every butterfly born, starts as a caterpillar. It's no different to an egg, larval, foetal, stage of any other animal. The tadpole is another example.

These all start in one fashion and end in another.

We're talking about things born a particular way. Mutations begin their existence as different to their parent. The caterpillar starts life exactly as it's parent started. In a larval stage.

[ 02-24-2003, 10:55 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Masklinn]

So you take the line that if a generation after generation of humans chopped off a limb say, that eventually humans would be born without it?

Not at all Yorick...
Again : it's the other way around.

Gaaargl...

Do I speak english THAT bad that you can't understand what I say at all ?

[ 02-24-2003, 11:00 AM: Message edited by: Masklinn ]

[Moiraine]

Yorick. People whose 'recent' roots originate from hot dry countries have dark hair, dark eyes, dark skin. While people originating from cold countries have the opposite hair, eyes and skin characteristics. You do tan when you go under the sun, don't you ? [img]smile.gif[/img] Evolution is exactly the same process - only it takes longer to make it permanent. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 02-24-2003, 11:14 AM: Message edited by: Moiraine ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Masklinn: Quote: If no such species exist, how does a species develop due to specific need and then survive.

Gah read my post above : take it the other way around !
Species evolve in a lot of different direction, only a small part of it stay alive.

Imagin a bunch of non-swimming creatures being stuck on an island. After a while (a HUGE while), some funny random genetic mutation made one of these creatures able to swin (with a weird nose and all). He makes a baby creature or two. Luckily they get his genes when it comes to be able to swim. Now, after a bit there is not enough ressource for the creatures to live on that island, what happens ? Those who can swim can escape, the others die.

Now we say that they needed to be able to swim to survive. And indeed only those who could survived. They didnt evolve that way cause they knew they would need to swin. This is not how it works.

There you have your new specie, all able to swim, coming from a line of creatures that wasnt able to.[/QUOTE]Masklinn "the other way round" is not what evolution theory presents. See the link I provided on page 1. An environment change precipitates a physical change. A need arises, then change ensues. What you are presenting is quite different.