Adam and Eve or Evolution? (1 Viewer)

[Kwayera]

wow, really? thats why i asked if primates engage in it

Meerkats are not primates.

And I think the point HalcyonSky was trying to make is that humans are the only creatures that engage in senseless violence (am I right?) - except we aren't.

Chimpanzees, for example, will occasionally kill entire troops of monkeys (even those that are not direct competitors, which one would expect to be the motivation) for no apparent reason.

 

[Stevo.]

Chimpanzees commit Infanticide.

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

It's hard to argue they're any more moral when they don't have the choice to make the moral decisions we do.

 

[katie_tully]

maybe there isnt anything senseless about killing another of your species.



ahhh, to be carefree like a sociopath

 

[Stevo.]

IT'S MY LIFE!
It's now or never.
I AIN'T GONNA LIVE FOREVER!
I'm just want to live while I'm alive.

 

[BradCube]

Wow, it has been a long time since I have made a post on the bored-of-studies forums! Interestingly enough, I was almost going to create my own thread on that of evolution (and there is possibility that I still should)

Before going any further, I would like to point out that I am coming to you guys for no other reason than to seek your own opinions and knowledge you have found throughout your travels - that is, I have no prior agenda apart from that of extending my own knowledge based on sound reasoning and fact.

I would also like to highlight that I did not do biology nor any sciences in my Yr 11 and 12 years of study - and haven't done any further post-graduating study in these fields. So please, excuse what may appear as ignorance in many of my questions. It is simply due to the fact that I do not understand.

My question concerns the proofs we have for evolution - namely that of macro evolution. Now I do understand the theory behind mutation and natural selection. What I do not understand is what "seems" to me to be the lack of proof in the fossil records to support a theory such as macro evolution based on these principles alone. I would also point out that I currently see no problems with the theory's and proofs behind micro-evolution.

In my mind, if such a theory of macro evolution were true should we not be finding fossil records of thousands of transitional species? When I researched this point I could only find a few examples of these discoveries that were repeated over and over (ie, Tiktaalik Rosae, Archaeopteryx, Ambulocetus Natans, Thrinaxodon and australopithecus). Some of which have questionable connections with the proposed species before and after (Archaeopteryx for example is quite controversial).

Also what is the current scientific explanations for periods such as the Cambrian explosion? Does a theory such as macro-evolution lose credibility when taking this period into account?

Can someone explain to me our seemingly current lack of fossil records that would provide evidence of macro-evolution? Is there somewhere that has record of all transitional species found today? (in my mind should there not be thousands?)

Any advice or explanations offered would be greatly appreciated

 

[Stevo.]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossils
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

 

[Captain Gh3y]

Every time you find a transitional fossil there's just twice as many gaps as there was before, between the transitional fossils

Evolution proves itself ever more wrong, Inshallah

 

[Stevo.]

No Dean! Bad Dean!

 

[katie_tully]

oh wikipedia

where would my university degree be without you?

 

[Captain Gh3y]

At a real university?

 

[BradCube]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossils
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

Cheers for that

I must comment however that while there are certainly more "transitional" fossils than what I expected to find based on my own limited research, there are certainly less than what I would expect to find in order to show a direct link between these fossils and what macro-evolution seeks to show. "Captain Gh3y" raises an important question in my mind - where are the transitions between these transitional fossils? Although this may seem to be a vicious cycle of endless transitional gaps, I have to wonder why they do not seem to exist. For if the slight mutations in these species caused them to be naturally selected - should they not increase in population size to at least that of the previous species?

Do we have one branch of Darwin's tree that successfully shows all of the changes over millions of years from the origin of life to a species we see today? ie - not big jumps between estimated forms and species, but fossils showing very slight but definite changes? Furthermore - is this evidence even possible to find or show? If not, what other reasons do we have for trusting the theory of macro-evolution that are more valid than actual fossils (or lack thereof)?

 

[Stevo.]

Finding fossils ain't easy. Most are destroyed. They require the right enviroment and circumstances to fossilise. You seem to have this idea that everything that died in the primeval era has a fossil. Not everything fossilises.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

i'm not raising an important question, i'm ridiculing the argument that goes like

"sure there's heaps of evidence for this theory and it's the best theory we've got and no one can come up with an alternative theory that fits the available evidence but there isn't 100% of all possible evidence available due to the very nature of the problem so i'll use that as an argument against the theory since there aren't really any others"

 

[Stevo.]

Did you even look at these?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_mammalian_auditory_ossicles

 

[Slidey]

Cheers for that

I must comment however that while there are certainly more "transitional" fossils than what I expected to find based on my own limited research, there are certainly less than what I would expect to find in order to show a direct link between these fossils and what macro-evolution seeks to show. "Captain Gh3y" raises an important question in my mind - where are the transitions between these transitional fossils? Although this may seem to be a vicious cycle of endless transitional gaps, I have to wonder why they do not seem to exist. For if the slight mutations in these species caused them to be naturally selected - should they not increase in population size to at least that of the previous species?

Look up the definition of fossil. It's fucking rare for them to exist (with it being impossible for a lot of species), and we're extremely lucky many of them do, of the ones that have actually been found. Heck, many of the fossils we've found could in fact be transitional fossils not representative of the average animal of their species.

And no, their populations needn't reach comparable levels. Often creatures evolved away from each other and some of them were LESS fit, but fit enough to survive. Those which evolved away also tended to evolve into niche areas, otherwise they would compete with that which they evolved from (often leading to one or the other going extinct). Also, when a creature evolves from another creature, that doesn't mean the older creature suddenly died - they often coexisted.

Further, Evolution at the smallest level is a discrete process. Small mutations in genes can cause profound changes which some people would believe require some intermediate mutation, but in fact don't.

What evidence do we have? Well you could always read the thread, otherwise, I'll link you to the American Botanical Society's statement on evolution, instead: http://www.botany.org/outreach/evolution.php

Here's a bit of trivia for you: did you know all the house cats around today all come from one species 10,000 years ago when they self-domesticated themselves? In fact, they're still one species. Transitional organisms often still fall under their normal species moniker.

And one day people will have to admit that humans aren't one species anymore, as data shows our evolution away from each-other racially is accelerating. Still, while we can all reproduce without a certain % of failed births, we're for the most part one species.

And here's a question for YOU: If you don't believe in evolution, what DO you believe? That god created evolution, then every now and then changed an animal's DNA, only to wipe most of these experiments out later?

 

[BradCube]

Finding fossils ain't easy. Most are destroyed. They require the right enviroment and circumstances to fossilise. You seem to have this idea that everything that died in the primeval era has a fossil. Not everything fossilises.

Again, as I have said, I have no scientific background - so educating me on things such as this is very important Thanks

 

[BradCube]

Look up the definition of fossil. It's fucking rare for them to exist (with it being impossible for a lot of species), and we're extremely lucky many of them do, of the ones that have actually been found. Heck, many of the fossils we've found could in fact be transitional fossils not representative of the average animal of their species.

And no, their populations needn't reach comparable levels. Often creatures evolved away from each other and some of them were LESS fit, but fit enough to survive. Those which evolved away also tended to evolve into niche areas, otherwise they would compete with that which they evolved from (often leading to one or the other going extinct). Also, when a creature evolves from another creature, that doesn't mean the older creature suddenly died - they often coexisted.

Further, Evolution at the smallest level is a discrete process. Small mutations in genes can cause profound changes which some people would believe require some intermediate mutation, but in fact don't.

What evidence do we have? Well you could always read the thread, otherwise, I'll link you to the American Botanical Society's statement on evolution, instead: http://www.botany.org/outreach/evolution.php

Here's a bit of trivia for you: did you know all the house cats around today all come from one species 10,000 years ago when they self-domesticated themselves? In fact, they're still one species. Transitional organisms often still fall under their normal species moniker.

And one day people will have to admit that humans aren't one species anymore, as data shows our evolution away from each-other racially is accelerating. Still, while we can all reproduce without a certain % of failed births, we're for the most part one species.

And here's a question for YOU: If you don't believe in evolution, what DO you believe? That god created evolution, then every now and then changed an animal's DNA, only to wipe most of these experiments out later?

Wow, angry or what dude?

As I stated in my original post, I come here with no prior motive than that of extending my current knowledge so please don't falsely assume that I am arguing against evolution or your own personal beliefs. All I am trying to do is better understand that which I currently have very little knowledge in at all. I did not once say that I don't believe in evolution.

Putting that aside, I thank you for your link. I'll have a thorough read through it as it may answer many of the questions I have currently already asked or will ask. Cheers.

 

[pattii]

a history of god- karen armstrong

its a good starting point.

 

[BradCube]

Looks like a fantatsic read. It's too bad that all of these books cost money