Do you believe in evolution?
- Thread starter pssh
- Start date
jojackson
New Member
I am beginning to question the idea of "macro evolution", yet im at loss to explain how the first creature or creatures as it may be came to be. Solar radiation is shown to spark molecular change, and show evidence of extinctions and speciation over the ages in sudden burst, (earlier links this thread) perhaps this accounts for numbers of different prototypes, (If[/i] you dont believe all mammals developed from a single ancestor for example) though you must still conclude (unless you beleive God created them all at the same time) the 'chemical soup' theory to be the beginnings of it.
One thing is certain, the term 'evolution' needs to be understood..
'New species", not new creatures! Physical adaption therfore is evolution, and as such then, its self evident.
'Macroevolution is a vague term generally referring to the evolution of organisms on a larger scale (to) species level and above, genus, family etc. (single cell life to , well, us!) This remains inconclusive for me.
One thing is certain, the term 'evolution' needs to be understood..
'New species", not new creatures! Physical adaption therfore is evolution, and as such then, its self evident.
'Macroevolution is a vague term generally referring to the evolution of organisms on a larger scale (to) species level and above, genus, family etc. (single cell life to , well, us!) This remains inconclusive for me.
Last edited:
Monties1982
Avid Member
Wings are a birds arms. The thing with flying animals is that they all appear in the fossil record fully capable of flight. Flight has arisen four times in earth's history: insects, pterosaurs, birds, and bats. In each case, they appear with no clear ancestors having anything resembling what could be considered a predecessor to true flight.
Julirs
New Member
OK, and I will always respect anyone's opinion. But what proof at all is there for creation? I suppose if you are not "directly involved" for lack of better terms here, each side could only just be a "story" to different people.
Monties1982
Avid Member
One piece of evidence for creation is that DNA is complex, meaningful information that represents something other than itself. The only thing that can definitely be shown to be able to produce that kind of information is an intelligent being.
Julirs
New Member
Why do you feel that this is evidence for creation? Something other than itself?
We have not created anything like it, we only "broke it down and traced it backwards", something intelligent beings do all of the time.
Olimpia
Biologist & Ecologist
I'm getting a little dissapointed that in the last few pages people have brought up things without reading about them beforehand, or at least that's what it feels like to me. I wouldn't dare talk about car engines if I didn't have at the very least a minimal understanding of engines and their parts/functions, otherwise my opinions are moot. You know? Not being condescending, but it ruins a fun, intelligent discussion if things are talked about without really understanding them. It's like talking about chameleons if all you "know" about them is that they change color to blend in with checkerboards! lol
That said, I'd like to address the wing evolution bit someone mentioned. Here's a good link because it has good illustrations (and who doesn't love pictures? lol) http://www.dinosaur-world.com/feathered_dinosaurs/wing_evolution.htm People immagine that the transitional stages of these things must have been non-functional or useless when it fact that is not the case at all. The first step toward bird wings would have been feathers, and feathers are not too different from scales already and serve as insulation. I mentioned earlier that you can turn off the gene for feathers and get scales instead in chicken embryos. And then something like the example in the video below takes place, and we slowly but surely get to where we are today with modern birds.
I love this demonstration, personally, I think it's a clever way to illustrate the advantages of even a small adaptation. This refers more to animals that would glide, since wings would never have been a nub so much as a feathery dino arm, but it illustrates the point just as well. Imagine the skirts are longer arm feathers and we are in business.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9dHWOjRMxM
I hope that helps!
That said, I'd like to address the wing evolution bit someone mentioned. Here's a good link because it has good illustrations (and who doesn't love pictures? lol) http://www.dinosaur-world.com/feathered_dinosaurs/wing_evolution.htm People immagine that the transitional stages of these things must have been non-functional or useless when it fact that is not the case at all. The first step toward bird wings would have been feathers, and feathers are not too different from scales already and serve as insulation. I mentioned earlier that you can turn off the gene for feathers and get scales instead in chicken embryos. And then something like the example in the video below takes place, and we slowly but surely get to where we are today with modern birds.
I love this demonstration, personally, I think it's a clever way to illustrate the advantages of even a small adaptation. This refers more to animals that would glide, since wings would never have been a nub so much as a feathery dino arm, but it illustrates the point just as well. Imagine the skirts are longer arm feathers and we are in business.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9dHWOjRMxM
I hope that helps!
jojackson
New Member
Check this out though Mate, apparently they were not all capable of flight, hollow bones came first
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8306060.stm
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/01/21/dinosaur-sex-riddle-sovled-new-fossil-discovery/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12242596
For sheer hell of it, earliest rabbit fossil
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12242596
jojackson
New Member
Thanks, I didnt say 'I' beleived the earth was 6000 yrs old, I misunderstood Phils belief, He dosent nessesarily beleive the earth itself is that age, but rather that life in it, is.
Catching up pages later causes some confusion lol. Too easy to forget who said what and in response to which comment etc
without going way back through, I always jump to my last post but sometimes still get muddled!
P.S 17 pages of an evolution thread and were still keeping it Civil, well done CF!
Last edited:
Michael Ryan
New Member
Carbon-14 dating and the 14C to 12C ratio does give evidence for Creation. At barns and noble a while back I purchased a book about of a team of scientists called the "RATE" Group or "Radioisotopes and age of the Earth" group who reviewed the assumptions and procedures used in estimating rocks and fossils.
For example, several fossilized wood samples that originally have been dated according to their host strata to be from Tertiary to Permian ( around 40-250 million years old) but, all had significant, detectable levels of carbon-14 that would equate to only 30,000-45,000 years "ages" for the original trees.
Also, samples were then taken from ten different coal layers that, according to scientists, represent different time periods in the geologic column (Cenozoic, Mesozoic, and Paleozoic). The chosen coal samples from all three time periods, which dated millions to hundreds of millions of years old based on standard evolution time estimates, all contained measurable amounts of 14C as well. Since the half-life of 14C is quite short (5,730 years), there should be no detectable 14C left after around 100,000 years or so. The average 14C estimated age for all the layers from these three time periods was approximately 50,000 years. However, according to them, using a more realistic pre-Flood 14C /12C ratio reduces that age to about 5,000 years.
This evidence obviously suggests that we live on a young Earth.
Michael Ryan
Michael Ryan
New Member
I am by no means an expert on this subject, but even if they evolved from an arm, in what way could the environment cause a arm to evolve into a wing through natural selection? I dont see how this can happen.
Also it is hard to believe that a wing could evolve from an arm because the transitional limbs from an arm to a wing would not help it in any way to survive. If so explain to me this to me please.
jojackson
New Member
You make broad assumptions Michael, perhaps arms of say a tree dwelling lizard, first developed fleshy flaps, this might enable it to glide from tree to tree and better escape predation (living examples of gliding lizards today),you see where I am going, there is no way to know how/why transitional types, may have had advantages.
Incidently carbon dating has long been acknowledged as being unsuitable for various reasons for dating rock, I beleive Argon dating is now used more often and said to be more accurate.
As for fossils, sometimes carbon is depleted and therfore unreliable so science must find another way, in one case a homonid skull was dated instead by carbon dating sand deposits found inside the brain case. This was 36,000 yrs.
Incidently carbon dating has long been acknowledged as being unsuitable for various reasons for dating rock, I beleive Argon dating is now used more often and said to be more accurate.
As for fossils, sometimes carbon is depleted and therfore unreliable so science must find another way, in one case a homonid skull was dated instead by carbon dating sand deposits found inside the brain case. This was 36,000 yrs.
Julirs
New Member
These are "Creation Scientists" doing "Creation Research" and much of the scientific community finds them laughable and non-qualified. Again-it is all what you "believe".
jojackson
New Member
Mike, what advantage do you think a lizard might have in having much longer and more powerful rear limbs than front ones?
Consider Aussy frill necks and Basilisks.
A veritable plethora of Australian pygopods have useless vestigal limbs, they do serve a purpous in mating, yet no advantage as such, except that being so small, they dont get caught in underbrush etc and the lizard can more fluidly tunnel through its environment,
and escape predation by using the tunnels of smaller creatures as an escape route.
Consider Aussy frill necks and Basilisks.
A veritable plethora of Australian pygopods have useless vestigal limbs, they do serve a purpous in mating, yet no advantage as such, except that being so small, they dont get caught in underbrush etc and the lizard can more fluidly tunnel through its environment,
and escape predation by using the tunnels of smaller creatures as an escape route.
Cainschams
New Member
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
Ill post this again. For those interested read the Common creationist criticisms of mainstream dating methods part.
Motherlode Chameleon
Chameleon Enthusiast
I have got some stock invested in the therory of evolution. Especially being a fan of science and Madagascar. Which would would be one of my top spots to study evolution.
Olimpia
Biologist & Ecologist
Michael, I posted a couple links in my last post that hopefully make a little sense. If you think about T-rex and it's tinny puny arms, those are probably arms that had lost their purpose and were in the process of becoming something else/disappearing altogether because they couldn't even use them to eat. Animals can have essentially "useless" appendages without ruining their success (T-rexes were doing well from what I understand.)
But "pre-wings" didn't have to be useless at all. Imagine an arm with a rotating shoulder, then an arm with a rotating wrist, then feathers for insulation (they evolved by another method, but let's focus on the wing itself), then the feathers offered a little lift good for jumping or climbing, then to do short glides, and then eventually flight. For the longest time they would have still been arms with fingers so they wouldn't have been limp appendages getting in the way or anything.
Hopefully that helps!
