evolution sticker in textbook ruled unconstitutional

[spinningfreemanny]

nice try...however have you noticed that life adapts to its enviroment ?...animals that live in cold areas tend to have thick fur or thicker layers of fat..etc.

cave fish are blind but still have the eye sockets from their ancestors

adapted or designed?

sorry, due to time constraints; I will answer your other response later.

[worldpease]

Yes, and it´s interesting you mentioned it, in fact I think its amazing the adaptive capacity of the ¨creation¨, ...
You see, your cave fish there, is not evolutionating, its mutating. Its just a variation of that organism, not a new one.
When Darwin whent to the Galapagos Island, he saw certain kind of birds wich had an original ancestor in America, but there were some diferences in theyr aspect, for example, ther peaks were little diferen one from the other, so he tought that it was ¨evolution in progres¨, but in reality it only was variation in that spicies, something alowed within the genetic composition of the creature.
The birds were not converting into other kind of animal and never will.

[Skiz]

Yes, and it´s interesting you mentioned it, in fact I think its amazing the adaptive capacity of the ¨creation¨, ...
You see, your cave fish there, is not evolutionating, its mutating. Its just a variation of that organism, not a new one.
When Darwin whent to the Galapagos Island, he saw certain kind of birds wich had an original ancestor in America, but there were some diferences in theyr aspect, for example, ther peaks were little diferen one from the other, so he tought that it was ¨evolution in progres¨, but in reality it only was variation in that spicies, something alowed within the genetic composition of the creature.
The birds were not converting into other kind of animal and never will.

I'm a religious person but you're splitting hairs there Worldpease. Vidcc is correct about these thingsnot happening overnight (obviously). You say it was just a variation in the species, right? Well over 100 years or 1000 years or whatever there are minor changes that occur no matter how minute. Put these changes together over a stretch of 1000's of years or even millions and... viola, you have a different animal.

[manker]

There is no such thing as 'micro-evolution' and 'macro-evolution', there is only evolution. Splitting it up into two parts is a not so clever little trick of the creationists. They cannot argue about the whole theory, so they make out that there are actually two of them.

That's pretty poorly thought out since obviously micro means on a small scale and macro means on a lage scale. In this context it clarifies the difference between slight changes within a species and a leap from one species to another. What the fellows earlier were trying to explain was that evolution has been observed irrefutably on a small scale, as with the moths, but proving, irrefutably (and that's the key word here) that, for example, man descended from apes - ie a totally new species evolving to adapt to it's surroundings - just hasn't been done.

You can't pigeon hole people by saying creationists believe this and non-religious folk believe the other. It is not black and white. I don't believe we were designed yet can see the flaws in Darwinism.

What they fail to understand, or refuse to admit, is that in the timescale of life on Earth their so-called 'micro evolution' is all that is needed to achieve 'macro-evolution'.

No it isn't, a bird's beak becomes broader over a period of time to adapt to the larger seeds prevalent in it's surroundings, a moth's wing increases it's pigmentation because of pollution. How can those subtle differences irrefutably explain the aesthetic and DNA chasm separating a shrew and homo sapiens sapiens. It simply cannot be done.

I understand what you're saying about the millions of years worth of evolutionary time that's passed and agree that it is the most likely explanation but to state unequivocally that micro evolution explains macro evolution is entirely inaccurate - and Mr Darwin agrees with me.

(As an aside here, if Hobbes and Jpaul have nothing to offer this discussion apart from an obvious attempt to hijack it, could they please continue their little game in the lounge?)

4r5e.

[TheDave]

show of hands, who believes in evolution? who believes in creation?

[UKResident]

That's pretty poorly thought out since obviously micro means on a small scale and macro means on a lage scale. In this context it clarifies the difference between slight changes within a species and a leap from one species to another. What the fellows earlier were trying to explain was that evolution has been observed irrefutably on a small scale, as with the moths, but proving, irrefutably (and that's the key word here) that, for example, man descended from apes - ie a totally new species evolving to adapt to it's surroundings - just hasn't been done.

Maybe you should read up on creationist's claims BEFORE you misrepresent what l said. It is they who claim they are two seperate arms of science, not l. Does evolution make claims of one species to another? l would think evidence of a toad turning into an elephant would be a good argument AGAINST evolution. Man being a descendent of apes is NOT a completely new species. And what do you mean by 'just hasn't been done'? What hasn't been done? We weren't once an ape? Can you prove that irrefutably (your word) l suggest you read up on genetics and DNA sequencing.

You can't pigeon hole people by saying creationists believe this and non-religious folk believe the other. It is not black and white. I don't believe we were designed yet can see the flaws in Darwinism.

Creationism versus evolution IS black and white, just because you happen to be grey does not alter that.

No it isn't, a bird's beak becomes broader over a period of time to adapt to the larger seeds prevalent in it's surroundings, a moth's wing increases it's pigmentation because of pollution. How can those subtle differences irrefutably explain the aesthetic and DNA chasm separating a shrew and homo sapiens sapiens. It simply cannot be done.

Once again, l suggest you read up on genetics and DNA sequencing, it CAN be done. (your ignorence is beginning to show, maybe you should stay in the lounge!)

I understand what you're saying about the millions of years worth of evolutionary time that's passed and agree that it is the most likely explanation but to state unequivocally that micro evolution explains macro evolution is entirely inaccurate - and Mr Darwin agrees with me.

l did not say it did, again you use misquotes to prove a point, l talked about the timescale needed and the rate of change of so-called micro evolution being enough to account for macro evolution. l should also remind you, in case you are unaware, that science has come a long way since Darwin.

Worldpease -- could you explain what you mean by your analogy? Are you saying that mankind arrived here and everything was set up waiting for him? Is that your contribution?

[manker]

Maybe you should read up on creationist's claims BEFORE you misrepresent what l said. It is they who claim they are two seperate arms of science, not l. Does evolution make claims of one species to another? l would think evidence of a toad turning into an elephant would be a good argument AGAINST evolution. Man being a descendent of apes is NOT a completely new species. And what do you mean by 'just hasn't been done'? What hasn't been done? We weren't once an ape? Can you prove that irrefutably (your word) l suggest you read up on genetics and DNA sequencing.

So if I tell you that your absolute isn't valid - you said there is no such thing as macro and micro evolution - you then say that I need to read up on DNA sequencing. Righty-ho.

A speices jump means they cannot interbreed. Dark winged moths can interbreed with lighter winged moths - that's an example of micro-evolution; Apes cannot breed with homo sapiens sapiens - unproven example of macro evolution. Do you understand it now?

I can't irrefutably (my word) prove macro-evolution one way or the other - that's my whole point. No-one can.

Creationism versus evolution IS black and white, just because you happen to be grey does not alter that.

So it's a black and white issue yet you acknowledge my grey stance, nice one.

In any case, I was stating that you can't pigeon hole people like you attempted to. It's not a clever trick of creationists, if a creationist coined the argument, fine - but people who reject creationism also embrace the idea of macro and micro evolution. In fact most people who understand the term would have no problem with the concept. It's logical to separate changes within a species and changes resulting in the creation of a whole new species.

Once again, l suggest you read up on genetics and DNA sequencing, it CAN be done. (your ignorence is beginning to show, maybe you should stay in the lounge!)

I see a pattern here, when you can't prove something, you hint at my ignorance. Humour me, tell me who has irrefutably (my word) proved the shrew/homo sapiens sapiens evolutionary path.

I know that no-one has.

l did not say it did, again you use misquotes to prove a point, l talked about the timescale needed and the rate of change of so-called micro evolution being enough to account for macro evolution.

You say that you didn't say that micro evolution explains macro evolution, that I misquoted you - then you say it again. Please, try to concentrate.

l should also remind you, in case you are unaware, that science has come a long way since Darwin.

I was aware but thanks.

We've come a long way but we still can't irrefutably (my word) prove macro evolution. Unless of course you're about to do it, for which I would doff my cap.


/waits

[Barbarossa]

Well, it's clear that the whole subject is pretty complicated.

The way I see it, evolution is a consequence of "lucky" mutation in a small population that is not especially thriving.

let me elaborate. In nature, the successful individuals in a population are the ones that get to breed, and pass on their genetic identity to future generations. The less successful individuals over time are eliminated from the gene pool, and their less successful traits with them.

Mutations happen all the time. If a mutation introduces a dominant trait which makes an individual more successful, then that mutation will be passed on to the descendents of that individual, and over time distributed across the whole population as it grows.

If a mutation introduces a trait which makes an individual less successful, then this clearly won't happen.

Also, if the population is large enough and successful enough anyway, then in these circumstances evolution won't happen either. That is why some species have been around for millions of years without noticeable change.

I would point to the fact that there has always been an explosion in "new species" being identified in the periods following a mass extinction event in the Earth's history: During these times life was clearly difficult for a great number of species, the populations were probably quite small and struggling to survive, conditions that are perfect for evolved new and more successful traits becoming adopted.

The sorts of mutations I'm talking about can simply be characteristics of species, but also minute changes to the DNA and gene structure. These MUST be small changes by definition, or the new individual would not be genetically compatible with the rest of the species. Over many many generations, I see no reason why these small changes could not result in entirely new species, even a new order of species...

The lack of evidence of "missing link" fossils is a major stumbling block to the theory. The only creature that even comes close to being a missing link, is the Archeopteryx, and this is still a major cause for heated debate, with some paleontologists believing it to be the link between dinosaurs and birds, others believing it to be an offshoot of dinosaurs which then became extinct. The only defence for the lack of evidence appears to be the very sketchy nature of the fossil record.. An tiny number of living things actually leaves a fossil record; there are probably millions of species of animals and plants that have evolved, thrived, and been made extinct, that we will never know about.

(I'm quite surprised that monotremes such as the platypus or echidna aren't cited as examples of possible evolution from reptiles to mammals, but I guess paleontologists aren't interested in them as they're not dead... )

The way I see large scale evolution being effective, is in initially small populations, over hundreds of generations. It is an exceptionally slow process, which is why many many species become extinct before they can adapt to changes in circumstances or environment.

To summarize:

The timescales involved for evolution are so enormous that it is very hard from our point of view to observe, especially with the very limited fossil record that we have. The best we can do at the moment is observe the quite clear evidence of small adaptations, and extrapolate the effects of these over longer periods of time.


Well... thats my theory anyway. I've just spent an two hours on it, and that's all I've got to say..

[vidcc]

adapted or designed?

sorry, due to time constraints; I will answer your other response later.

Do you believe that at one point all the land on earth was pretty much one mass and separated to become the continents we have today?
If so do you believe each continent took it's own climat with it or just moved to warmer/colder climates?

@colin

worth the time you spent writing...

[manker]

@colin

worth the time you spent writing...

Undoubtedly.

An excellent post. Thanks, Colin


However, I think UKResident is about to provide proof of the missing link so you'll have to update it later.