Evolution - A serious question.

[Scat]

Also, classification is hard when you get into the family and subfamilies. It's unclear when exactly all extant great apes diverged from each other. We know now from the genome that humans are closer to chimpanzees, then gorillas, and least related to orangutans. The new fossils that have been discovered in the past decade garble the family section of the code, as well as the genus portion of the human line.

What is the possibility that the great apes are not related but because it is such a successful model that very different species are converging rather than diverging from a common ancestor?

 

[PearlWatson]

Free agency probably wasn't the best example.

Basically what I was driving at is God can set the wheels in motion but once moving they are allowed to go where they may.

You set up and organize a little league baseball league. You make all the rules, you teach all the players how to play, you set everything up according to certain parameters. You've done everything you can to make it run according to a plan. The problem is that the second the ump yells, "Play ball" you have no control over the specific outcome. You can't control how the kids will play. All you can do is enforce the specific rules and let the kids play it out.

God set up the rules, laid the ground work and put into play certain parameters and then yelled, "play ball".

So you believe we all came from the goo or that God created each type of animal separately for them to adapt within paramenters?

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Your definition makes more sense than a lot that I have heard over the years but on the surface it seems to take into account only small specific trait differences that improve survival whereas according to most "evolutionists" all life forms on earth that have ever been, are or will be came from the same "organic goo". That means man came from the same original goo that crocodiles did that sharks did that dung beetles did.

I can see how a finch that shows a mutation in beak size can become a a more successful specie as it is allowed to eat a before now inedible food giving it an advantage over other finches thereby making it more successful. Or a turtle that has a slightly different shell shape allowing it to stretch its neck upwards allowing it to eat foods out of reach to other turtles. Saying that these minor mutations over time will allow these animals to turn into some totally unrelated and unrecognizable life form over time is where you start to lose people.

It's because humans fail to grasp the enormity of time life has been on planet earth. Life on this planet has been estimated to started about 3.6 BILLION years ago. And it took a couple BILLION years to get anything but single celled organisms. Another thing that is generally ignored is how sexual reproduction really ups the mutation rate in organisms. Splitting yourself in two is quite efficient in not creating mutations, but get half of the genetic code from one organism combining with have the code of another, and changes keep happening.

So, let's try to use human generations in terms of how long evolution based on sexual reproduction mutation has been going on. We think 2000 years is a long time. 20 years for a human generation is nice and round. That's 100 generations just for 2000 years. For one billion years, that's fifty million generations, five hundred THOUSAND times the generations of 2000 years. You're then getting past the hundreds of quadrillion possibilities for mutations, and that's just using the extremely long human generation of 20 years. And you're saying that tremendous change CAN'T happen with that high, seemingly infinitesimal amount of mutation opportunities?

 

[Darkwing Duck]

So, because Hopper disagrees with you, you give up? Well played, that'll show him.

Seriously, why don't you just forget about him and give the rest of us your thoughts and opinions? Try telling us your feelings/beliefs, not what you KNOW. I bet you get a better reaction, discussion, etc.

Hopper is just an example. I see the same bad arguments no matter the board.

And you're asking about a scientific topic, which really has nothing to do with feelings, unless you're talking about the science of feelings. If you want someone's beliefs, start a religion thread.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

What is the possibility that the great apes are not related but because it is such a successful model that very different species are converging rather than diverging from a common ancestor?

Nil.

All great apes share the same traits that require them to be primates; and all primates share the traits that require them to be mammals; and mammals share the same traits that require them to be animals.

 

[PearlWatson]

I see the same bad arguments no matter the board.

Me too.

 

[Bronco70]

I would honestly like to know if YOU believe in evolution.

That was the first post of the thread.

If you want someone's beliefs, start a religion thread.

You started by nit-picking Trout's third sentence, which is not surprising. Whether of not the sentence was accurate in any way was mostly irrelevant to the question posed. His beliefs and/or understandings do not impede the discussion. In fairness, you weren't the only one to bring this up. But you have been the one to dwell on it. I think most of us understood where the discussion was supposed to go.

Also, you plainly stated that you didn't want to participate in the thread, and yet you won't seem to go away.

Now you are dictating the parameters of the discussion? Bold.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

That was the first post of the thread.



You started by nit-picking Trout's third sentence, which is not surprising. Whether of not the sentence was accurate in any way was mostly irrelevant to the question posed. His beliefs and/or understandings do not impede the discussion. In fairness, you weren't the only one to bring this up. But you have been the one to dwell on it. I think most of us understood where the discussion was supposed to go.

Also, you plainly stated that you didn't want to participate in the thread, and yet you won't seem to go away.

Now you are dictating the parameters of the discussion? Bold.

lol, so I get chastised for not wanting to get involved, and then when I do, get chastised for getting involved.

Why not start a thread on whether people believe in gravity, or continental drift, or snow?

 

[Beantown]

Trout, evolution has nothing to do with humans coming from apes. That is a huge misconception.

Apes are just a close relative to humans on the phylogeny chart. Our branches are right by eachother but our branch did not grow from their branch.

 

[LogGrad98]

Trout, evolution has nothing to do with humans coming from apes. That is a huge misconception.

Apes are just a close relative to humans on the phylogeny chart. Our branches are right by eachother but our branch did not grow from their branch.

Where do they meet?

 

[Scat]

I see the same bad arguments no matter the board.

Me too.

Admittance is the first step to recovery. Baby steps. Congrats.

 

[LogGrad98]

It's because humans fail to grasp the enormity of time life has been on planet earth. Life on this planet has been estimated to started about 3.6 BILLION years ago. And it took a couple BILLION years to get anything but single celled organisms. Another thing that is generally ignored is how sexual reproduction really ups the mutation rate in organisms. Splitting yourself in two is quite efficient in not creating mutations, but get half of the genetic code from one organism combining with have the code of another, and changes keep happening.

So, let's try to use human generations in terms of how long evolution based on sexual reproduction mutation has been going on. We think 2000 years is a long time. 20 years for a human generation is nice and round. That's 100 generations just for 2000 years. For one billion years, that's fifty million generations, five hundred THOUSAND times the generations of 2000 years. You're then getting past the hundreds of quadrillion possibilities for mutations, and that's just using the extremely long human generation of 20 years. And you're saying that tremendous change CAN'T happen with that high, seemingly infinitesimal amount of mutation opportunities?

With the inherent efficiency of splitting to reproduce, when and how did it diverge into sexual reproduction? Wouldn't the single-celled organisms that lost the ability to reproduce via splitting simply die? What advantage is there in sexual reproduction vs aesexual reproduction?