|
|
|
|
|
| Index of all of Kreationism MYTHS DEBUNKED!
Posted: 12/21/2005 12:52:42 PM | To me the bottom line is that our understanding of science is changing/expanding so rapidly that to dismiss the possibility of 'intelligent design' (ID) can only be based on anti-religious sentiment. The possibility that a 'Designer' used the Laws of our Universe to create that Universe, including evolution, can no more be disproved than the existence of such a Designer can be proved.
I believe in ID myself, but recognize that the laws of probability in an infinite Universe would allow for the Life we have here on Earth without the attention of a Creator. However, to state unequivically that no such Designer/Creator exists is not possible, unless one uses opinion instead of facts.
MajMike | |
|
| Index of all of Kreationism MYTHS DEBUNKED!
Posted: 12/21/2005 12:55:50 PM | Also what you seem to fail to realize is that the universe HAS billions and billions of combinations.
So exactly why is the fact that life managing to form atleast once in a universe as vast as ours with as many combinations as ours special?
I think you misunderstood me. There are 4 constants that dictate how energy/matter will behave in a universe. EM, weak and strong nuclear, and gravity. If you tweak one of these even .001%, the result would be a universe that consists of only Hydrogen, or a universe that never started expanding. Our universe just happens to fall right into the perfect zone for the formation of useful elements. Ok, maybe all other configurations exist, all the useless ones too. Personally, I find this a bit of a stretch. Life on our planet reeks of intelligent design.
Maybe a 26-dimensional being(s) created our universe for educational/entertainment purposes! | |
|
| Index of all of Kreationism MYTHS DEBUNKED!
Posted: 12/21/2005 1:41:33 PM | Maybe, but to say it reaks of Intelligent design seems a bit of a stretch.
We have an appendix. It's totally useless and sometimes kills us. Why do we have it? A perfect creator would have made us without any useless pieces.
Secondly, the sheer variaty and combination of life makes it reeck of evolution. After all, what's a dolphin but the missing link between mammal and fish. A penguin is a flightless bird that swims in the arctic. A venus fly trap is a carniverous plant.
There is so much in the way of similarities that it instead hints more twards common ancestry.
Also: Ofcourse it falls into the perfect zone. If it didn't, you wouldn't be here.
Try this thought experiment.
Take a bag with scrabble pieces in them. Say... 10 of each letter. Now randomly take out pieces for 10 hours. Whenever the random pieces you take out make a word, put those pieces off to the side and continue. After 10 hours, take ONE word and bring it to your friend in another room.
As far as your friend is concerned you got that word within a 10 hour period, however he doesn't know how many times you failed to get a word nor does he know exactly how long it took you nor does he know how many words you made.
So like the words, we don't know much about the universe before it started. For all we know the laws of physics were in flux until they balanced themselves out. But anything before that is inproveable because nothing was around to see it just like your friend wasn't around to watch you take out each and every scrabble piece and see how often you didn't get a word. | |
|
| Index of all of Kreationism MYTHS DEBUNKED!
Posted: 12/21/2005 1:44:51 PM |
Take a bag with scrabble pieces in them. Say... 10 of each letter. Now randomly take out pieces for 10 hours. Whenever the random pieces you take out make a word, put those pieces off to the side and continue. After 10 hours, take ONE word and bring it to your friend in another room.
The problem here Dave is that someone intelligent is doing the picking..... | |
|
| |
| Index of all of Kreationism MYTHS DEBUNKED!
Posted: 12/21/2005 2:16:13 PM | The computer has a progam written by an intelligent being. The hardware has no intelligence in it. And in the same way the earth and the components have none either. What caused Dna and Rna? These are all coded systems, code implies intelligence...Hence we have the "code war"  and its not over.. | |
|
| Index of all of Kreationism MYTHS DEBUNKED!
Posted: 12/21/2005 9:28:12 PM | Code does not imply intelligence.
Take a look at your night sky. Notice any constellations? Those stars didn't form where they are for the purpous of being a constellation, we created a pattern from it.
Intelligence allows patters to be seen. Whether they're meaningfull or not is another issue. | |
|
| Index of all of Kreationism MYTHS DEBUNKED!
Posted: 12/21/2005 9:33:33 PM | | The night sky and star constellations are patterns created without a doubt. The same can't be said for DNA or RNA...or are they just human contructs?? | |
|
| Index of all of Kreationism MYTHS DEBUNKED!
Posted: 12/22/2005 2:33:32 AM | Look, my point is that DNA, while complicated, doesn't neccisarily mean that it was made by an intelligent being. The scrabble argument still stands. Take out the intelligence factor. Just use a computer that generates random numbers from 1 to 26 and corresponds those numbers to letters.
The program has 0 intelligence. How the program came about is irrelivant since it's like asking "how did the universe come about". Sure we can say some "supreme being" made it, but as far as words are concerned who made the program is irrelivant since the "maker" isn't making the words... the computer is through random generation and trial and error. | |
|
| Index of all of Kreationism MYTHS DEBUNKED!
Posted: 12/22/2005 11:50:17 AM | Dave:
Seriously, you need watch that documentary that I sent you a link to.(Unlocking The Mystery Of Life - Life's Origins, Evolution And Intelligent Design) It uses all the same analogies you're using here.
The problem with life evolving from a warm pool of amino acids is that amino acids are not able to form proteins without assistance. Without DNA to start the catalyst, proteins won't form. The other problem with life springing from nowhere is that a cell has a certain amount of irreducible complexity to be able to take in energy, expel waste and reproduce. To use your "scrabble" analogy, for this to happen randomly, you would have to be dropping scrabble letters for many times the age of the universe to produce this sequence. In even the simplest self-replicating cell, you would have hundred of pages of ordered scrabble letters. The chances are ASTRONOMICAL to the point of IMPOSSIBLE. To ignore a possibility of origin, just because it has a "divine" flavour to it, is just bad science. | |
|
| Index of all of Kreationism MYTHS DEBUNKED!
Posted: 12/22/2005 1:02:12 PM | It's on my download list.
As for your irreducible complexity, I believe this one is being discussed in the ID ruling thread...
As for the chances, you have to take a longer look at your numbers. First off you have only 4 types of nucleic acids in which they match up into pairs. BUT you can only have 1 pair. Granted these pairs are connected to a sugar, but the fact that they only connect with one other acid is the key.
http://ndbserver.rutgers.edu/education/education_DNA.html
Take a look at that site. It has the chemical formulas for the 4 acids. Most of them are nitorgen, hydrogen, carbon, and oxygen. All of those elements are very common here on Earth. So you've got 4 elements on a very hot and volitile planet mixing together. Odds are they'll interact and form. Form enough and you get yourself a protein. Get enough proteins together and who knows what'll happen.
Also ask yourself two questions: 1. If I have a jar full of sugar and the 4 acids and I kept shaking the jar lightly (just enough to keep them moving) how often do you think the acids and sugars would collide? Very often I'd say. Plus , to quote...
"In all nucleotide molecules the bonds holding the phosphate group to the sugar and the base to the sugar are both products of condensation reactions. Water is eliminated when they form. In both cases the oxygen to form the water has come from the sugar's -OH groups." -http://www.chemsoc.org/networks/learnnet/cfb/nucleicacids.htm
Meaning that when you have an appropriate catalyst..
"Catalysts commonly used in condensation reactions include acids, bases, the cyanide ion, and complex metal ions" -http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9025120
Metal ions were definetly going to be common on primitive earth as would acids.(probably hydrocloric)
So we've got the elements in abundance. We've got the catalysts. We've got plenty of space. And we've got a chaotic environment to mix things up. I don't see any astronomical chances here. Just time. And 2 billion years is ALOT of time. | |
|
| Index of all of Kreationism MYTHS DEBUNKED!
Posted: 12/22/2005 5:33:31 PM | "The universe we live in began under very "suspicious" conditions. If the gravity, EM, weak or strong nuclear forces were even a tiny bit different, elements would not have been able to form and the universe would never have expanded at a useful speed. It just seems to point to a fabrication, rather than a fluke."
You know, Nomad, the fundamental forces of nature i.e. EM, Gravity, Strong/Weak nuclear forces, is our attempt to understand the forces that operate in between elementary particles. It does not prove or disprove ID or Evolution. You're using an explanation for the forces of nature at work within the world, i.e. Gravity/EM obeying the Inverse Square Law, and the Strong and Weak forces that acts upon elementary particles, in conjunction with the Big Bang and inherent cosmic inflation. The gravitational singularity and cosmic inflation is one thing, and the forces of nature that may have arised from this 'theory' of the Big Bang is another thing altogether. The conditions of the big bang were that of density, temperature and pressure. The expansion of such a force, in theory, was due to this. The forces of nature had nothing to do with this expansion. They are merely the forces that arose in light of the expansion of the Singularity. In other words, that's a bullshit argument. You just don't know much about Physics, Nomad. It's a ridiculous 'proof'. And if you're going to mention the forces of nature, don't forget about the electroweak force that Weinberg and Salam worked hard to unify. ;)
"The problem with life evolving from a warm pool of amino acids is that amino acids are not able to form proteins without assistance. Without DNA to start the catalyst, proteins won't form. The other problem with life springing from nowhere is that a cell has a certain amount of irreducible complexity to be able to take in energy, expel waste and reproduce. To use your "scrabble" analogy, for this to happen randomly, you would have to be dropping scrabble letters for many times the age of the universe to produce this sequence. In even the simplest self-replicating cell, you would have hundred of pages of ordered scrabble letters. The chances are ASTRONOMICAL to the point of IMPOSSIBLE. To ignore a possibility of origin, just because it has a "divine" flavour to it, is just bad science."
Here you're arguing for Autogeny, while using Darwin's initial 'thought' on the 'possibility' of how life 'may' have originated. Ridiculous. Whether or not protein compounds can and were formed is a question of 'origin' and it's Evolution's attempt to provide for an organic 'singularity', just as it's Physic's attempt to provide for a cosmic 'singularity' with the Big Bang. Both are just theories, and both do not solve for infinite regress. Even with String Theory, Super String Theory, and Quantum Loop Theory, new sub theories have risen that postulate 'multiple' singularities, and yet like its predecessors, it fails to account for the nature of infinite regress. As for the hypothetical "Irreducible Complex Organism", it's just not possible. Empirically this is the case, as well as logically. All organisms, micro or macro, are reducible. This "Irreducible Complex Organism" is simply an attempt to validate the theory of Abiogenesis. It was silly in the beginning and it's silly now. As for CSI (And I'm not talking about the TV show) which Dave was trying to explain via 'Scrabble', it is only a testament to the 'mechanics' that are empirically present in nature. It's merely a description that proves no more for Ice Cream than ID. It all comes down to our understanding of genomes and organic ordinations. That organisms are specific and complex proves only that organisms are specific and complex. Evolution gives the 'possibility' that this is due either to Speciation and or Palingenesis. ID only gives the age old premise of, "Wow, this is neat. Check this out. It's so specified and complex that it MUST be intelligent design!". Nomad, we don't discount ID simply because it has a 'divine flavor' to it. We discount it logically and rationally. Now that is 'Good Science'. Your posts are medieval. :)
"OMG, advantages..... advantageous......... the human dictionary has erred. I'm marking this one on my calendar, for sure! Please tell me you were drunk, and promise you'll try harder, ok?"
Are you seriously trying to complement your argument by chastising a simple typo? This is kid stuff. Wonka has always had a good mind, and many cogent ideas. It comes with understanding. Nomad, instead of typing down aspects of physics and biology that you have little understanding of, arrange your thoughts cogently and logically, and maybe you'd get somewhere with this, i.e. understanding of the true issue at hand. | |
|
| Index of all of Kreationism MYTHS DEBUNKED!
Posted: 12/22/2005 6:03:15 PM | Nomad- You are not really understanding Dave's posts. Read them again and Vincent's. They have both made very clear why your arguments are flawed. Just to add one point, you seem to be thinking of life in terms of one distinct moment in history that you can point at and say- "there's the origin of life." That's misguided. What life is, isn't even defined with consensus, and the reason is is that life is a multifaceted combination of factors. We observe elements of life outside of organic chemistry, such as replication in crystalline structure. Defining life is like defining consciousness. Are we conscious and dogs aren't? How about Chimpanzees? You are thinking of life as a singular spontaneous event, and that is your flaw. The idea is not to think of it in terms of "now you see it, now you don't," but a gradation of factors.
And yes, I do have typos sometimes. Vince- I took it more as a good natured jab and even a veiled compliment. | |
|
| Index of all of Kreationism MYTHS DEBUNKED!
Posted: 12/22/2005 6:06:30 PM | "Also what you seem to fail to realize is that the universe HAS billions and billions of combinations. The Electricity and Magnatism. The relation between the two is so vast it's a topic of study in itself. Moving electrons generate a magnetic field. A changing magnetic field moves electrons. Put a magnetic field perpendicular to an electric field and you get light (or anything else on the EM specturm). Magnatism and Electric fields have no mass, but put them together and they act like a particle (photon). So exactly why is the fact that life managing to form atleast once in a universe as vast as ours with as many combinations as ours special?"
Dave, you're referring to what's known as the Higg's Mechanism, or specifically the Higgs Field. EM is a force in regards to 'interaction', and it's simple in that both Electric and Magnetic fields are the result of + and - charges and their fields arrange themselves into lines of force. Maxwell solved for these fields by realizing that they are just one force, only viewed as separate forces. When you mention photon-like entities with 0 mass, you're talking about the Higgs Particle of QED (Quantum Electrodynamics) which requires the photon to have 0 mass. When we speak of the forces of nature, we are speaking exactly of that, i.e. "Forces". When we bring in particle like entities, we're talking about the essence of what these 'forces' do, i.e. messenger carriers. This is something that has come up also in developing the Electroweak theory. It all comes down to whether or not this hypothetical Higgs Boson exists. If it does, then we know why these 0 mass photons eventually have mass, i.e. by consuming a Higgs Boson. I'm not arguing against your overall point in regards to random/non random compounding, but rather am clarifying what you are trying to state.
Another thing, Dave, in that post, Nomad is arguing for the origin of life by stating DNA is necessary to begin the Amino Acid/protein configuration. You're arguing for aspects of CSI, i.e. chemical base pairings. Two different things. Essentially, he's positing that Nucleotides produce triplets that are codons that encode amino acids that synthesize proteins. You can take it from there. Since it's your argument, but just remember that Nomad is not listening to your argument either. His post is ridiculous, in that the Human Genome and mechanics of DNA and Protein production is quite different from the 'Origins of Life' theory, in which the 'proteins' that were available from this hypothetical singularity were inorganic chemicals such as hydrogen and phosphate. | |
|
| Creation BY Evolution
Posted: 12/22/2005 6:23:54 PM | Hey, it's funny, but I read in the paper today about this "intelligent design" theory, and found it went somewhat along the lines of this "creation by evolution" theory of mine. It talks about the intricate designs of DNA and RNA and how they are coded for life. Fascinating!! I feel more than ever, we ,and all other living things, were designed to evolved with the Earth and its changing climate. They say evolution takes giant leaps every now and again, and new creatures immerge from the old: Saber Tooth Tiger to Siberian Tiger ,and so on and so forth. From what I understand, these drastic changes take place when there are huge changes in the Earth's climate, thus requiring the need to adapt to survive. How could DNA and RNA not be encoded by intelligent design to alter creatures on the basis of need, if we were just a fluke of a primordial soup? One might think if we were just a fluke of nature, that nature wouldn't care enough to help us adapt to its constantly changing climate to survive; we should just die and start over, and die and start over, flopping like silver fish in sludge!! The fact we have made it so far in the evolutionary scale, is a good hint we are not alone!!!!  | |
|
| Creation BY Evolution
Posted: 12/22/2005 6:58:01 PM | Happening, you're talking about 'Palingenesis' or Recapitulation and how it relates to ontogenesis. This is nothing new, and remember that 'Evolution' accounts only for organic life, and does not account for a cosmic singularity. There will never be an organic singularity or cosmic singularity in my opinion. It's just not logical. It's only our attempt, just like our attempt to unify the fundamental forces of physics, to render our existence and the world, 'whole'. Even in Chaos Theory there is a problem with the Scaling Phenomenon (one that Wonka cogently brought up in another thread), which limits our way of 'seeing' as ourselves are limited, and there will always be the problem of infinite regress. However, we are making progress, i.e. we know the 'initial' conditions of an 'initial' condition, but we don't know the 'initial' condition of that 'initial' condition, etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum. And even Newton's prime equation, which I stated in another thread, i.e. x^4 - 1=0, has been changed by Hubbard to x^3 - 1 = 0, which is proved by -1/2 + i (square root of) 3/2, which ultimately led to a better understanding of Newton's methods with the allusion to Lorenz attractors. We know 'more' than we knew before, there is no doubt, however, there is still the problem of infinite regress or what's called periodic cycling that Differential Geometry compounded, and we'll never get to the 'origination' cosmically or organically.
Happening, it seems as if you're interested in Palingenesis. If you are, do a little reading on Caenogenesis. | |
|
| Creation BY Evolution
Posted: 12/22/2005 7:28:22 PM | @vincentspage
It is very obvious you are much better educated than myself, and I realize I am delving into deeper depths than I can cognitively handle, but I DO know evolution only accounts for organic matter! What I'm trying to say is, if organic matter formed when all the amino acids lined up under the perfect and delicate conditions they needed, then why would it take on so many beautiful forms of life, and have the growing ability the think and change? If organic life were born out of chance, why wouldn't it be just a non-thinking organic soup - still? How could DNA and RNA form a collective intelligence all on its own to achieve the master pieces we bare witness to Today?
As MANY theories as there are against this idea, there are still plenty of reasons to cognitively believe we were designed by a higher power we are YET to fully understand. I really do appreciate your input on this topic, but unfortunately many of your words are beyond my education level, though I do kinda understand what you are saying, most of it is Greek to me! No offence to the Greek!!  | |
|
| Creation BY Evolution
Posted: 12/22/2005 7:45:13 PM | Ok, vincent, perhaps I am a moron who has spent more time living life than reading about it. Could you please explain a couple of things to me though? At some point, on this planet, there was a moment when a form of life called a "cell" emerged, right? This cell required the ability to feed and replicate, right? There are thousands of sequential steps that would have been required, right? With each step, the chances of it happening, randomly, become exponentially less probable, right? Please clarify why you are so sure that ID is a ridiculous theory and clarify your opinion on how life began on this planet. Was it just a chance assembly of molecules? Once you have a cell, evolution will certainly create ever-more complex organisms, but at that point, 90% of the work has already been done.
And try not to be such and intellectual bully. | |
|
| Creation BY Evolution
Posted: 12/22/2005 8:09:55 PM | "if organic matter formed when all the amino acids lined up under the perfect and delicate conditions they needed, then why would it take on so many beautiful forms of life, and have the growing ability the think and change? "
What's 'beautiful' is relative, however, it is a fact that organism are complex, simple, symmetrical, and or assymetrical. You should check out some fractal frames called The Mandelbrot Set, which magnifies matter 1 million times or more in each direction. It's breathtaking. Now, why it would take on 'so many beautiful forms of life that have the growing ability to think and change' is answered by Evolution, i.e. Ontogenesis, which is the biological extension of an organism, over time, from the simple to ever more complex. Whether or not these organic extensions are 'beautiful' really isn't relevant.
"If organic life were born out of chance, why wouldn't it be just a non-thinking organic soup still. How could DNA and RNA form a collective intelligence all on its own to achieve the master pieces we bare witness to Today?"
As I've said earlier, I think it's noble to explore the possibility that there may have been an origin to life, but we will never be able to trace back our origin to a single point, as that would enter the realm of 'spontaneous generation' eventually. Though, it's a theory that life stems from the collaboration of inorganic chemicals by way of proteins, we will fast move into cosmic origination, as we will try to determine the origination of these aforesaid 'inorganic chemicals', i.e. The Big Bang. There are two ways we can approach the problem of origin, one is to try and find the fundamental particles that synthesized more complex organisms, or we can use complex organisms and break them down in order to find the root of their complexity, i.e. origins. In either case, our knowledge in this area is slim. We are still children and we understand little. As to the 'masterpieces' that we witness today, again, Evolutionists will tell you that it's a matter of Ontogeny. However, "Intelligence" or the "Awakening" of consciousness is debatable, which is why this topic is huge and traverses across many a theory both philosophical and of Physics. As to 'why' they are here, I'd have to subpoena the Anthropic Principle, i.e. We are here to bear witness because the universe has formed in such a manner as to allow for our existence and therefore renders us able to ask, "Why are we here to bear witness?".
"As MANY theories as there are against this idea, there are still plenty of reasons to cognitively believe we were designed by a higher power we are YET to fully understand."
Sure there are. ID is a viable theory. I've always said it was. However, the arguments used, i.e. CSI, IC, are a joke. Technically, ID and Evolution have no real contention. Both may exist simultaneously. They are not totally diametrically opposed. They're only viewed as such. I argue for the sake of clarity and understanding. I don't buy into any theory entirely. In this way, I can contain, but never be contained. Again, ID is viable, but the arguments that are used are easily refuted. ID is better left in the realm of Philosophy and Theory. It doesn't belong in the empirically emergent sciences. | |
|
| Creation BY Evolution
Posted: 12/22/2005 8:20:51 PM | Wow vince. You actually made me look at your profile. PHD Grad student... It explains alot. I'm still working on my BS for Computer Science so most of what you said is a bit above my head. However I do think I have the general idea of what you said.
Nomad, I believe Vincant is stating that to claim there is a point in which the first "cell" appeared is rediculus. A cell today would be vastly different from a cell 2 billion years ago. It might not even HAVE a membrane or any kind of mitocondria or other nucleus. Infact the first "cell" may have been nothing more then a group of ameno acids that had A sequence (there are probably alot more then 1) to allow other ameno acids nearby to "copy" this pattern. The process itself would have been very very slow, but once you get a pattern being replicated all sorts of things can start happening. a base pair get's knocked out of sync or maybe two "replicating" patterns intermix to form a new pattern, ect...
Even IF we could stand there and watch this happening it would be impossible to pinpoint life vs non-life. | |
|
| Creation BY Evolution
Posted: 12/22/2005 8:21:34 PM | "Ok, vincent, perhaps I am a moron who has spent more time living life than reading about it. Could you please explain a couple of things to me though? At some point, on this planet, there was a moment when a form of life called a "cell" emerged, right? This cell required the ability to feed and replicate, right? There are thousands of sequential steps that would have been required, right? With each step, the chances of it happening, randomly, become exponentially less probable, right? Please clarify why you are so sure that ID is a ridiculous theory and clarify your opinion on how life began on this planet. Was it just a chance assembly of molecules? Once you have a cell, evolution will certainly create ever-more complex organisms, but at that point, 90% of the work has already been done."
Nomad, 'chance' only applies cosmically and in regards to the 'origin' of life. That area is highly contentious and all is mere conjecture. However, what we 'do' know is that we are here now i.e. that there 'was' a cell and it 'did' emerge. This 'cell' then becomes the intellectual property of Evolution, and as I've said before, it is a matter of Ontogeny and Genetic Mutation i.e. chromosomal mutation. This is called Variation. "Why" it happens is also explained by Evolution and the answer is the same. Through Genetic Mutation, which convolutes in order to find the most 'efficient' mutation in light of the environment it's in and to prolong its function. Understand that 'chance' only applies to the origination of the species. There's no 'chance' beyond the obvious fact that we 'exist' and cells 'exist'. After the fact that we 'exist', there is only Speciation.
As for clarifying why ID is ridiculous in light of CSI and IC, I think I have. Just read my intial post and all sequential posts. As for how life began on this planet, your guess is as good as mine. I'm not attempting to posit a 'solution' to origin, but to logically dismantle 'illogical' solutions. As I've said before, I doubt we will ever be able to find the origin of life. It's logically impossible.
"And try not to be such and intellectual bully."
Ok.
That said, I'm going out to have a few beers. Have a good night all. | |
|
| Creation BY Evolution
Posted: 12/23/2005 7:30:11 AM | | The first 'cell' if that's what you want to call it, (whomever asked, sorry but I forgot) was/is cyanobacteria. They are commonly referred to as blue-green algae. | |
|
| Creation BY Evolution
Posted: 12/23/2005 8:01:41 AM | | Nomad and Happening- In case Vince's post was a little academic for you let me make a simple point- nothing about the theory of Evolution says that speciation is totally random. That is a common misconception, and one that shows that you don't really understand the basics of the theory. You are being influenced by some of the warped propaganda in our culture against the theory, and I recommend you read a legitimate source on it. Remember, it is called Evolution BY NATURAL SELECTION. The environment shapes morphological changes. Although genetic mutations may be random on the cellular level, the whole point of Evolution is that mutations are selected by environmental conditions. This is an oversimplified example and I'm reducing the complexity of macro-evolution, but it will illustrate the point: Let's say that a species that lives in a dry plain has a genetic mutation that makes it's limbs flipper like. In most conditions that would be quickly de-selected as those animals born with that mutation would not likely breed, but suppose that mutation coincides with a natural flooding of the plain, and now those flipper like appendages are actually more beneficial than those animals that only have limbs suited for land. Now those flipper animals will be more likely to survive and pass on their genes so that subsequent generations will retain that mutation. Nothing random about it. | |
|
| Creation BY Evolution
Posted: 12/23/2005 11:05:31 AM | The simplest example of mutations being selected by the environment can be seen in the Peppered Moth during the Industrial Revolution in England. The peppered moth was commonly white, and it blended in with the white bark on the trees. There were the odd moths that were black (caused by an allele, or alternate form of a gene). They were not as common, as they were much more easily spotted by predators and easily picked off. Then came the industrial revolution, which caused a great amount of pollution. The tree bark turned black, and suddenly the white moths were the target and the black moths had the advantage.
Mutations are caused by x-ray radiation from the sun, and are more often deleterious (bad) than advantageous. Species don't evolve to fit the environment, they already have a pre-existing difference (good or bad) that is selected for or against. Species that have become extinct when an environment changed either did not have something that would have helped in the new environment, or had but were not able to keep their population numbers up enough to continue.
If anyone is looking for information about how the environment can affect natural selection, and some very good theory pertaining to evolution please go to http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html with another browser up (you'll probably need this) http://www.m-w.com/
S.
Happy learning, everyone! | |
|
| Creation BY Evolution
Posted: 12/23/2005 11:10:03 AM | Oh, and this will REALLY help.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/glossary/glossary.html | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
