Evolution

[slackerisme]

Oh, s**t!!! Not more of that!! No, this is just an honest question spurred by the GP thread about monkey pictures. I would like someone that is well versed in the workings of evolution to respond.

Given there are many races on the planet. Given that all of these races are human beings. Given the differences are easily explained with adaptation to living environment (evolution). Then would it be true that those races with the furthest adaptatation from the origin would be considered "further evolved"?

 

[E5RANGER375]

i think the easiest explanation is that we humans have NO clue as to how long even 1 billion years is. so how many years old is the earth?

many people think that evolution happened overnight when in reality it happened over billions and millions of years, and is still happening.

many people dont even know that indiana use to be ocean, thats why you can find sea fossils here. people cannot grip time.

 

[rich8483]

Oh, s**t!!! Not more of that!! No, this is just an honest question spurred by the GP thread about monkey pictures. I would like someone that is well versed in the workings of evolution to respond.

Given there are many races on the planet. Given that all of these races are human beings. Given the differences are easily explained with adaptation to living environment (evolution). Then would it be true that those races with the furthest adaptatation from the origin would be considered "further evolved"?

there is a difference between microevolution and macroevolution.
microevolution being the difference between races, which is genitics and survival of the fittest. the fact that africans have bigger noses to breath the hotter dryer air and darker skin to deal with the sun is pure genetics and is by no means a creation of a new species. it is no new DNA

macroevolution is the belief that a pile of gassy goo can become all life forms as we know it today. rocks becoming complex forms of DNA for no explicable reason. a tornado would easier go through a trailer park and assemble a Boeing 747. seriously.

mircroevolution is true, provable and observable today and that by no means proves macroevolution. they are two different things.

read here only if you are truly honestly interested.

 

[slackerisme]

there is a difference between microevolution and macroevolution.
microevolution being the difference between races, which is genitics and survival of the fittest. the fact that africans have bigger noses to breath the hotter dryer air and darker skin to deal with the sun is pure genetics and is by no means a creation of a new species. it is no new DNA

snipped..

This is the part I am interested in. This wasn't meant to start a religous or scientific debate, just satisfy some curiousity. I appreciate your input.

So essentailly, whether or not we are the decendants of apes, or the engineered result of an intelligent designer, microevolution defines the differences between species. So, microevolution would not necessarily dictate one race being further evolved, just differently evolved.

 

[slackerisme]

i think the easiest explanation is that we humans have NO clue as to how long even 1 billion years is. so how many years old is the earth?

many people think that evolution happened overnight when in reality it happened over billions and millions of years, and is still happening.

many people dont even know that indiana use to be ocean, thats why you can find sea fossils here. people cannot grip time.

Not quite what I was after, but thanks for the input nonetheless. I will have to check the "Did not know indiana was an ocean" box.

 

[jsharmon7]

there is a difference between microevolution and macroevolution.
microevolution being the difference between races, which is genitics and survival of the fittest. the fact that africans have bigger noses to breath the hotter dryer air and darker skin to deal with the sun is pure genetics and is by no means a creation of a new species. it is no new DNA

macroevolution is the belief that a pile of gassy goo can become all life forms as we know it today. rocks becoming complex forms of DNA for no explicable reason. a tornado would easier go through a trailer park and assemble a Boeing 747. seriously.

mircroevolution is true, provable and observable today and that by no means proves macroevolution. they are two different things.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eC14GonZnU&feature=related

read here only if you are truly honestly interested.

Watch this from about 1:45 to 4:45. It speaks to the idea of "gassy goo" becoming a life form.

YouTube - Stephen Wolfram: Computing a theory of everything

 

[dustjunky2000]

a tornado would easier go through a trailer park and assemble a Boeing 747. seriously.

read here only if you are truly honestly interested.<<www.creationism.org

 

[88GT]

Oh, s**t!!! Not more of that!! No, this is just an honest question spurred by the GP thread about monkey pictures. I would like someone that is well versed in the workings of evolution to respond.

Given there are many races on the planet. Given that all of these races are human beings. Given the differences are easily explained with adaptation to living environment (evolution). Then would it be true that those races with the furthest adaptatation from the origin would be considered "further evolved"?

Races are populations. Basically, breeds for humans. Evolutionarily speaking, species is the smallest category used for identifying differences in organismal populations. There are only 3 races on the planet: caucasoid, mongoloid, and negroid. All humans can be genetically traced to one of these three races.

The long and short is that somewhere in the distant past, populations diverged from each other, ceased interbreeding (which means no mixing of the genetic pool), and acquired mutations independent of each other, resulting in an accumulation of acquired traits. The longer the time span between the divergence, the greater the accumulation of changes, the more "obvious" the differences are going to be.

There is no such thing as "more evolved" because evolution is a directionless, valueless phenomenon. There is no "better" or "worse," only simpler and more complex. And contrary to popular belief, complex does not equate to "better." Several species have evolved to LOSE traits and features, such as critters that dwell below ground who "lose" sight senses because of the lack of need.

The theory of evolution is somewhat complex because of the myriad of different disciplines that come into play, but if you're really interested in hashing it out, let's take this to PM.

In the interest of full disclosure, I have a bachelor's and master's in ecology and evolutionary biology.

there is a difference between microevolution and macroevolution.
microevolution being the difference between races, which is genitics and survival of the fittest. the fact that africans have bigger noses to breath the hotter dryer air and darker skin to deal with the sun is pure genetics and is by no means a creation of a new species. it is no new DNA

macroevolution is the belief that a pile of gassy goo can become all life forms as we know it today. rocks becoming complex forms of DNA for no explicable reason. a tornado would easier go through a trailer park and assemble a Boeing 747. seriously.

mircroevolution is true, provable and observable today and that by no means proves macroevolution. they are two different things.

read here only if you are truly honestly interested.

BS. The only difference between what you call micro evolution and macro evolution is the time element. Creationists created the dichotomy out of nothing to justify a young earth paradigm without completely dismissing the phenomenon of species changes out of hand because it is a real and observable phenomenon. There is only one mechanism for evolution, whether it's your short-term "micro" or long-term "macro."

ETA: not to say there isn't room for debate regarding the time element. The expansion of the DNA code (it's not really "new" DNA and I hate how it's characterized as such) is a legitimate weak point in the broader aspect of the theory as well. But make no mistake:evolution is nothing more than the change in species over time through the mechanism of natural selection, whether that time is 10 years, 100 years, or 100 million years.

 

[SavageEagle]

evolution to me is water and yeast and hops and barley becoming beer.

Interesting discussion none the less.

 

[rich8483]

EVOLUTION - A word with so many meanings. This web page <www.creationism.org> for example, is evolving in content and breadth. This is to say that it is undergoing change and directed (non-random) improvement.
[SIZE=+1]In science there are six interlocking theories which are often referred to as fundamental to evolution:[/SIZE]
#1 COSMIC: From the theorized Big Bang of (estimated) 14-20 billion years ago to the (evolution or) generation of hydrogen gas into existence.
#2 CHEMICAL: Gases (beyond hydrogen) and other higher elements evolving into existence. In other words, increasing molecular & chemical order and complexity over time happening by itself.
#3 STAR & PLANETS: Gravity, angular momentum, magnetism, radiation, and other "accidentally existing" forces coalesce (or evolve) the molecules (from above) that evolved into existence all by themselves into subsequent proto-stars, then later (over lots and lots of theorized time; billions of years) into stars and planetary bodies.
#4 ORGANIC EVOLUTION: Life emerging from sterile non-life by believed automatic advanced chemical processes. This has also been called spontaneous generation or more recently abiogenesis. Life from non-life; again, all by itself; increasing complexity and at some point in time - generating successive replication all by itself. Scientists today are using tax dollars to employ advanced, state-of-the-art equipment under expensive, carefully controlled high-technology laboratory conditions but this still hasn't succeeded in any way yet ... trying so hard ... all to show that life could happen accidentally, without much intelligence. (That being the case indeed.)
#5 MACRO-EVOLUTION: Kinds of life diverging and occasionally increasing in complexity through random processes down through time. The theory is that single-celled creatures gave rise to (possibly) multi-cellular marine organisms. Later fish evolved into amphibians, and then into reptiles which (possibly diverged and) evolved into the birds and mammals. Over the theorized millions of years the divergent complexity of life in nature has (apparently) increased in order, numbers and magnitude. Many of today's textbooks show lots of artistic illustrations of such beliefs.
#6 MICRO-EVOLUTION: Structured changes within pre-existing kinds of life. Heredity & Variation. This one is scientific and is observable in nature.

It is important to keep all of these various definitions in mind. Perhaps some but not all are true and verifiable? Perhaps others never happened at all? Just because it can be demonstrated that the fur length of offspring (Evolution #6) may vary per individual, this does not automatically mean that (Evolution #2) molecular chemical combinations get more complex all by themselves. This belief has not been observed here on Earth at any time; creationists (who agree with Evolution #6) would be skeptical at swallowing belief in Evolution #2 without some kind of testable-repeatable evidence. It would be nice (for example) to send an oil tanker through an Antarctic storm and end up with a giant chocolate shake, but this has never been observed.
Evolution is a valid process (in science, business, or otherwise); creationists certainly agree with this - when it is directed or built into the design of things. Certainly automobiles have improved dramatically over the past 100 years, but it didn't happen all by itself. The evolution of the automobile has been due to intelligent design input, advanced engineering skills and management oversight. If one just throws a bunch of parts together or puts all the car parts into a giant tumbler along with four quarts of oil and 10 gallons of gas and begins agitating the lot for eight months the end result will not be anything resembling a car.
Evolutionists will contend that the universe (Evolution #1 thru #3) and then successive forms of life (Evolution #4 and #5) slowly got more complex all by themselves. These beliefs are well illustrated in textbooks. (The alternative of literal, recent creation is completely unacceptable to even be considered by them.) They'll claim that (God made lots of mistakes and that) there are transitional fossils supporting their belief system. Then they'll use something like the beaks on Darwin's Finches (Evolution #6) as evidence of all of this. Au Contraire! We can definitely see that Evolution #6 worked fine, but they're still lacking any evidence to support their (underlying; as sinners) desire to (putting it bluntly here) hide from our Creator and their responsibilities as part of the created. In other words, Evolution #6 is truly scientific, but that should not give us any confidence in Evolution #1 thru #5. Beak variations in finches (Evolution #6) is to be expected since Darwin's Finches were wisely designed. Built-in variation has been wisely balanced with the (heredity) built-in limits that the Designer placed there. Wise design! Thank the Maker!

Concerning Evolution #1 thru #3 - this sure looks like pure speculation! The Big Bang is primarily believed because without it they'd have to admit that God created everything. If ... "God" created the universe then, logically, nothing in life is more important than finding out just who that God is and why we were created. But many persons would prefer to hide from this inconvenient reality. Therefore the Big Bang theory (though defying true science, i.e. that "every action has an equal and opposite reaction") is believed and promulgated, but it is inherently unscientific in nature. A Little Bang happening all by itself in a small box (to the left) has a greater chance of probability than a Big Bang containing (theoretically) all the matter in the known universe.

A "Little Bang" happening all by itself inside an empty box would be unscientific. Something from nothing for no reason is unscientific. Creationists, therefore, standing on the side of science contend that there must of necessity be a Creator. Since the "Little Bang" hasn't happened in any attic boxes to date - then please don't put your faith in the "Big Bang" belief system - which first and foremost denies God's power and authority over humanity. That is its purpose and it is an unscientific theory.

 

[Mike_Indy]

"Evolution" (Changing from one species to another) has not occurred. No REAL evidence exists to support it. "Scientist" add time in to say it is "possible". That takes a great deal of "faith" to believe, because it cannot be proven. God cannot be physically seen today, cannot be physically proven. So, we much choose the religion of "Evolution" or another. As for me, I choose to believe Gods word on this subject. A creator is far more supported by the evidence than evolution.

There is one species of human, the races are variations of that species. These variations are caused by multiple factors, climate location, technology, information, etc.

If you want answers on this, for real, try "Answers in Genesis". Ken Ham is an excellent author and expert on the topic. Also a great speaker. example... Human races-is it science? | Around the World with Ken Ham

As to the "Bang" what caused it? They don't just happen. Where did the stuff that went bang come from?

Another fairly good read is Lee Strobel, the Case for A Creator.

I hope this addresses the OP, not looking to thread jack or start a 100 page thread.

 

[rich8483]

As to the "Bang" what caused it? They don't just happen.

unless of course folks, its a Glock

 

[bigus_D]

...

Then would it be true that those races with the furthest adaptatation from the origin would be considered "further evolved"?

OK OK, BACK TO THE OP

Yes, the 'furthest adaptation' would be the 'further evolved'... UNTIL circumstances change resulting in conditions whereby the 'furthest adaptation' is no longer the most beneficial.

Everything is different. Everything changes.

In the wise words of Mr. George Harrison, All things must pass.

As I prefer to say, everything must die.

Here ends my dicertatcion on the the merits of Darwin's theory of evolution.

 

[slackerisme]

EGADS!!!!! you can't close your own threads in these forums??? oooohhhhh if I had known that......

Thanks to those who have answered. Makes sense to me.

 

[bigus_D]

Not quite what I was after, but thanks for the input nonetheless. I will have to check the "Did not know indiana was an ocean" box.

This is where all the limestone came from... unless you don't believe in science.

 

[infidel]

IBTL

 

[infidel]

EGADS!!!!! you can't close your own threads in these forums??? oooohhhhh if I had known that......

Thanks to those who have answered. Makes sense to me.

You said you were going to close it, but instead you caused me to prematurely ibtl

Anyways, if you believe in this stuff or not, its worth looking at simply because its interesting.

 

[bigus_D]

I'm not sure how long it would take life to form inside that box. Probably not long, because if I closed that box there would already be life inside it.

Think about this... what if we made that box 10 times bigger. Then 10 times bigger than that. Then 10 times 10 times 10 times 10 times 10 bigger than that. Then we did that 10 time 10 times 10 times 10 times more, 3 times. Any idea how long then?

 

[rich8483]

i assume you mean microbes, germs whatever. but what you are saying is for them to form later, they would already have to exist???

 

[rich8483]

i think the easiest explanation is that we humans have NO clue as to how long even 1 billion years is. so how many years old is the earth?

many people think that evolution happened overnight when in reality it happened over billions and millions of years, and is still happening.

many people dont even know that indiana use to be ocean, thats why you can find sea fossils here. people cannot grip time.

a world wide flood would also explain that.