Evolution? How?

am i ignorant because i dont believe exactly what you believe?

I do understand that species can adapt and grow special features that they may need. but honestly the fact that I might evolve from a totally different species doesn't work for me.

i have gotten straightforward answers but not complete answers.

Honestly though no matter what I say or what you say none of us are going to change our opinions. So quit calling everyone who disagrees with you stupid and ignorant because the only ones that are ignorant then are you. we all have different opinions so what does it do for you to speak to everyone in such a demeaning and arrogant fashion. if it really makes you feel better about yourself go ahead. I'll even give you permission to use me as your target.

And anyways anything anybody says on here is twisted and misconstrued so you ( generally speaking, somebody might misconstrue it and think im attacking.) can try to disprove someone. which is ridiculous because you( once again generally speaking.) can't take something at face value but you (generally speaking) must jumble it up. and it only makes yourself( generally speaking) look bad.

honestly, no sarcasm intended, I hope all of you have a wonderful day, week, rest of the year.

You are not getting "complete answers," because you're not hearing what you want to hear.

you are absolutely right. im not hearing answers that i want because they don't seem logical to me. if the sun was made up of a globule or whatever it was how was the globule formed and how was the stuff in the globule formed?

or the matter that formed the earth how was it formed?

Generally speaking, I think anyone who is totally convinced of evolution is putting too much faith in human thinking. On the other hand, anyone who is convinced of creation is putting too much faith in something they cant possibly comprehend.

While we're 'generally speaking' I also think beer tastes good. Reason I say generally is because I haven't tasted all beers and therefore should reserve judgement somewhat. Perhaps you creationists and evolutionists should consider doing the same with regard to your theories.

beer eval = evolution/creationism. I'll have to think about that one! LOL
Edited: Besides, it's probably a lot more fun to evaluate the beers of the world.

Re: Evolution? How?


Evolution is believable for a number of reasons, but perhaps most simply, it just makes sense. Not only is it a perfect match for all the evidence we see around us, but it's pretty obvious just from looking around at living things.

If you really prefer to believe that magical beings *poofed* things into existence, then you have no need to try to understand the world around you at all. But if you have a serious interest in trying to make sense of things, without believing in magic, then biological evolution, as well as cosmic and atomic evolution make a whole lot of real-world-in-your-face-down-to-earth sense, and there's just no way around it.

So the first thing you have to ask yourself is, do you really care about trying to understand how nature works, or would you simply prefer to believe in magic. Because if it's Magic, then you may go happily on your way and ignore the thorns on the roses, because the rules of science and knowledge are meaningless to you.

rosborne979,

By beleiving in evolution, you are just as much beleiving in magic. How can something come from nothing? Matter evolving and coming allive and starting to have a conciousness, a concience, a sense of social need, the ability to reason logically - Magic!

If I place a pile of timber and nails on the ground and wait 10 million years, the theory of evolution says I will end up with a house.

PFFF!!!

Think about it man, you cant discount the POSSIBILITY of higher intelligence. I am not a beleiver in any particular theory, I dont let other people tell me what to think. Think for yourself man.

In the same way that the HIV/AIDS virus continues to evolve into new strains.

Imposter, that is micro-evolution not macro that we have been refering too.

head, Everything starts out as micro. Have you ever studied chemistry and know the basics about protein?

vol fan-I hope your diatribe was not aimed at me, for some of us have remained courteous no matter the task.
Im sorry though, there is a wonderful logical world of the progression of life that is supported by data in genetics , radiochemistry etc etc. We understand so much about how life has evolved so that to call it "magical" is kind of funny.
Nowhere does science assume light before a star exists.
Science doesnt have the mammals appear before the fish.
Nowhere does evidence support a worldwide flood

Archbishop Ussher was dead wrong on his calculations of the age of the earth.
These are some things we know by simple measurements of sediments, ice cores, tree rings, various types of age dating and a number of other very arcane tools with which Id just bore you.

I work in the field and Im very busy in the crafts that use Evolutionary clades, Uniformitarian rules and superpositioning of sediments. All these tools work fine. They aint broke so , if you wish to "believe" in mythology, just dont plunk any money down with a Creationist oil diviner, youll lose big bucks.
You know how to make a small fortune using Creationist Geology?


Start with a big fortune

No, ignorance involves a level of education. I believe you said you were in high school, and your initial post refers to generic scientists as "guessing." Lack of education falls under the politest form of ignorance.

For example I may be certain I would find myself opposed to almost anything my brother might say, and still be ignorant to what that might be.

It is possible to be ignorant, but neither stupid nor incorrect, which I think best applies to you on this issue. Respectfully, you have displayed some ignorance, which does not mean you are wrong about your religious views but specifically uneducated in evolution.

It's not Magic to me, it's simply unknown, and there's a difference. Science doesn't yet have a solid theory for how things started, but science does know how biology works now that it's here. It's evolving, clearly. Science never said that God doesn't exist, it only says that we obviously don't need magic to make biology do what it's doing. We can see how natural processes can drive evolution without deific intervention.



Nothing in evolution says this. It is simply incorrect, so I won't bother to try to answer it.



I don't discount that possibility, and neither does science. It simply isn't necessary to account for what we see around us. We know a more down-to-earth way: evolution by means of natural selection.



Good for you, seriously. I don't let others tell me what to think either. I understand the theory of Evolution myself, and I comprehend it well enough to know that the basic tenets of the theory are correct beyond any reasonable doubt.

So it's pride the main reason you don't follow evolution then. ?

And I'm sorry if I called you ignorant but at least by your first few posts you were. You asked questions as an attack on science without even googling an answer. Of course we have answer on how the sun was formed; that's hardly a mystery. Origins of life is different.



Perhaps you read too much into my words. I DO NOT find creationists and people who oppose me ignorant. But you were acting ignorant whether you have the same views as me or not. Perhaps you aren't but you aren't doing a good job telling me otherwise. I may be hypocritical, demeaning, jumpy, and ignorant myself but I generally steer away from arrogance. I presented answers but was irked by your weird (for lack of a MUCH better word) questions.



good question. I don't know but you know how I find out? I google it.
And lookie here:
A nice little interactive explanation on how a star forms (sun is a star)
http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/Bima/StarForm.html

and planet formation
http://stardate.org/resources/ssguide/planet_form.html

the "micro" v "macro" evolution argument is a token discussion point for classical Creation .the late Ernst mayr argued this one pretty well so Id suggest you catch up on his words.
Anything that is at a species or higher level is macro evolution because it can be demonstrated that different species will not interbreed. The test is ability to breed, anything below species is subspeies or variety. What Creationists call "kind"
Nile Cichlid fish have all sorts of different species that evolved from a single stock that became isolated between 30 and 50000 years ago when the Rift sealed the waterways between the Blue Nile and the Escarpments. There are now cichlids that, like Darwins finches , have developed special speciation solutions to fit a myriad of niches. All the way from parrot beaked fish with robust mouthparts for eating algae on rocks to cannibal fish . All from the same genus but evolving in recent pre-history into many species.
Same thing withthe mini mammoths of Catalina or Baffin Island. (I did some work on the Baffin Island finds) These were "island" pygmie elephants that evolved as a solution in conserving resources. Some of these mini mammut were about 5 ft high at the shoulder and were the among thelast extant population of Pleistocene megafauna .Cave pictures at Altamira show that the Megafaunal Red Elk was alive during homo sapien occupation of Iberia. Other animals including wooly rhinocerous andMammoth were also still alive and were recorded in these cave drawings. These species are now extinct but weve got a great fossil record that shows their existence in at least the last 700000 years. Weve got one rhino from Oregon that is an actual fossil cast in volcanic ash from a basalt flow in the Columbia plateau. This one ages out at over 1.2 million years. Its definately different from Indian or "wide" rhinos of Africa. How come there are so many different kind of rhinos in so many different niches? How did African and Indian rhinos (dont forget Sumatran and forest Rhinos of SE Asia) Where did they all come from as totally different species who cannot interbreed in nature unless man interferes . Then, if man interferes with artificial insemnation, the offspring are sterile.
Lots of questions that evolution can take a stab at answering , but Creationist have not a clue.
If you believe that God gas created you as the pinnacle of Creation, why are you satisfied that he wants you to be dumb and not be curious as to the origins and development of life. Tossing stuff off as a "mystery unto God" is giving up IMHO. God and evolution are not necessarily conflicting (that is unless your an evangelical, then Ive got no pity you, evangelicals will argue against the existance of dynamite while they are holding a stick with the fuse lit) Evangelicals and orthodox anythings are a magnificent anachronism much as the Amish. However, they are pretty much intelectual boat anchors who are unequipped to discuss the subjects of many "discovery based sciences " because they are locked up with the belief that conflict with the Biblical version of life , is evil.

Vol,

I asked you those questions because I would like to answer your question. But if you refuse to tell us what you believe is fact in the world of science and math then I don't have a starting place to answer your question.

You say you believe in micro evolution. Then great. Now, do you know anything about math? We are talking millions and millions of small deviations in life over billions and billions of years. The math pretty much tells us that if you take any string of DNA and deviate it a million billion times you will get millions of species. Now consider there are over a billion billion lifeforms on earth today. (From simple single celled lifeforms to humans.) Each one of them has the opportunity to deviate when it propogates. Some of them propogate every few hours or less, some every 20 years.

Considering that you personally have probably not even seen a million animal lifeforms in your lifetime it is no wonder that you have never seen a mutation. It might take a hundred thousand years for a species to became visibly different from mutations let alone a new species. We know that a creature can evolve so it can no longer mate with others that share the same ancestors. We have seen it occur in experiments with fruit flies in only a few years.

If micro evolution can occur like you admit then the math shows that species can evolve over millions or billions of years. The math makes it highly unlikely for species to not have evolved from other species.

How science works and the dodo bird.
*******************************
Extinct Dodo Related to Pigeons, DNA Shows

Hillary Mayell
for National Geographic News

February 28, 2002
Scientists have determined, through DNA analysis, that the long-extinct dodo belongs in the dove and pigeon family.

The dodo, poster bird for species extinction, has a pitiful reputation as a stupendously overweight idiot of a bird that couldn't even fly. But scientific evidence is slowly correcting that impression. Its new rep: an evolutionary success, perfectly adapted to its living conditions, thin and relatively fast, but still an early victim to the spread of man.

Dutch sailors began using the Indian Ocean island of Mauritius as a stopover in 1598; Within 80 years, the dodo was gone. Having evolved over millions of years to take maximum advantage of its splendid isolation, its size and inability to flee from predators ushered it into extinction in an evolutionary instant.



The adaptations the dodo made for island living?-flightlessness and gigantism?-have made understanding its evolutionary history and classifying it based on body characteristics difficult. Over the years, the dodo has been grouped with the carnivorous raptors; ratites, which include emus and ostriches; parrots; and shorebirds. Since the mid-1800s, the dodo has been classified as part of the family that includes pigeons and doves. But there has been no hard proof.

Molecular analysis of DNA retrieved from a dodo specimen at the Oxford University Museum of Natural History, England, confirms that the bird belongs firmly in the middle of the pigeon tree in evolutionary terms, reports a study published in the March 1 issue of the journal Science. Its closest living relative is the Nicobar pigeon, which lives in the Nicobar Islands and Southeast Asia, and it is part of a group of large island-dwelling birds that spend a great deal of time on the ground. Other modern representatives include the crowned pigeons of New Guinea and the tooth-billed pigeon of Samoa.

Extreme Evolution

So why do scientists care whether a long-extinct dumb fat bird found on only one island in the whole world was related to a pigeon or an ostrich?

"Island taxa such as the dodo and solitaire often represent extreme examples of evolution?-and if we want to examine how we, or the life around us, evolved then such animals are very educational," said Alan Cooper, a zoologist at the University of Oxford and one of the co-authors of the study. "By examining island birds we can investigate how evolution works?-because extreme examples are often the best views of how something works."

Earlier scientists had speculated that the dodo, and its closest relative, the also-extinct solitaire, descended from migratory African pigeons that got lost and colonized the islands. The genetic evidence clearly shows that the dodo and solitaire came from southeast Asia, where all their close relatives remain.

The Oxford scientists can't tell when the dodo arrived on Mauritius, or when it became flightless. Geological evidence indicates that the island was created as a result of volcanic activity and emerged from the water about 8 million years ago. Whether the birds flew, swam or hitched a ride on floating debris like trees or clumps of seaweed, remains unknown. The DNA evidence does indicate that the dodo and the solitaire separated from a common ancestor about 25.6 million years ago. The common ancestor separated from other Southeast Asian birds around 42.6 million years ago.

Rescuing the Rep of the Dodo

Animals that evolve in isolation frequently exhibit somewhat bizarre traits, and a giant flightless bird is surely on the extreme end of avian evolution. But that doesn't make the dodo a failure. David Quammen, in his seminal book on island biogeography and extinctions The Song of the Dodo, calls the species an evolutionary success; it adapted well to local conditions.

Having reached Mauritius, the birds adapted, probably over several million years, to living on an island that had no predators and a wealth of fruit lying on the ground. They gradually traded their ability to fly for the ability to store larger amounts of fat that would carry them through times of scarcity. To store the fat, they got bigger, making it more difficult to fly. Surrendering the ability to fly, and thus to elude enemies, he says, was an easy trade-off; there were no enemies to flee.

That all ended when the Portuguese and Dutch began arriving in the 16th and 17th centuries. Having no reason to fear man, the big ground-dwelling birds were easy prey. Numerous contemporary accounts describe the birds as trusting and friendly?-hardly bothering to get out of the sailors' way, never mind trying to run and hide. But that was ecological naiveté, says Quammen, not stupidity.

Although hunting certainly reduced populations, it was the animals the sailors brought with them, especially pigs, rats, and monkeys, that delivered the death blow to the species by preying upon their eggs and chicks, if not the adults.

And while the dodo was definitely a big bird, it probably wasn't nearly as fat and geeky as has been depicted. Most of what is known about what the dodo looks like is derived from paintings and caricatures from the 17th century.

Andrew Kitchener, a biologist and curator at the Royal Museum of Scotland, has shown that the dodo was probably much thinner and more lithe than has generally been depicted. Most of the sketches and paintings were copies, not based on original observations. Some may be based on birds in captivity in Europe that were unintentionally overfed, and fattened up beyond what would occur in nature.

The derogatory catch phrase "Dumb as a Dodo" has lived for more than 350 years; emerging science may slowly reshape our understanding and give the long-dead bird some respect.

Ohhhhh, I would LOVE to see a Dodo Bird. I bet they were every bit as matched to their environment as every other thing we see around us. How sad that Dodo's live now only as twisted stories handed down from people long gone.

I really hope I live long enough for science to clone a Dodo from some fragment of DNA. They are working on a different extince bird right now, and I'm betting that there will be a time, not so far from now when cloning of recently extince species will be viable.

I can't wait

Thank you Farmerman for your always intelligent and courteous postings.

For the life of me I cannot figure out why some posters insist on ad hominem attacks, and grinding people they do not agree with into the dust. So we all can't agree on everything - so what? I thought a little diversity was supposed to be a good thing.