Do you believe in evolution?

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Jmick
Their are links in the evolution chain that are missing but there are also facts that help to support it.
I'm sorry, I just can't believe that we all came from Adam and Eve, who in turn were made from mud/dirt. Genetically speaking, isn't there a problem with this? Wouldn't there have been mass incent and all kinds of issues associated with that?
Whether we came from Adam and Eve or a primitve, undiscovered species, you still encounter the same issues with

[hr]
. From a Creation standpoint that is answered with adam and Eve's genes being perfect.

[hr]
combines corrupted genes leading to further corruption. Not sure how you overcome this argument from man evolutionary standpoint.
I'm not arguing either way... just observing and adding a bit to the discussion.
Edit: Apparently "i ncest" is filtered. Thanks again spammers.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by TexasMetal
Take dogs for example. Chihuahua/Great Dane. These are absolutely two completely different species of canines. ....
That premise in incorrect.
Species are defined by their ability to breed and produce viable offspring. They are different sub-species, but not Species.

 

[jerthunter]

I apologize for posting so many short posts but I am a very slow thinker.
The reason I mentioned the genetic similarities between chimps and humans is not an attempt at proving anything. It does show an interesting connection. You look at that and combine it with an understanding on how chromosomes line up doing mitosis and an understanding that sometimes chromosomes do fuse at the centromeres, usually ending up in undesireable side effects, it seems very believeable that there might be some kind of connection.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by TexasMetal
...
Evolution is adaptation. Adaptation is evolution. ....
See my first post.
This is also incorrect and often misunderstood.
Micro-evolution is adaptation. Adaptation is basically the strongest of a species surviving and producing more offspring with similar characteristics, but still being of the same species.

 

[jerthunter]

Also, saying that two breeds of dogs are different species isn't really correct. The are both part of the familarias (or however it is spelt) species.
However it does show how selective pressures (in this case humans) can cause massive changes in populations.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Jerthunter
I apologize for posting so many short posts but I am a very slow thinker.
The reason I mentioned the genetic similarities between chimps and humans is not an attempt at proving anything. It does show an interesting connection. You look at that and combine it with an understanding on how chromosomes line up doing mitosis and an understanding that sometimes chromosomes do fuse at the centromeres, usually ending up in undesireable side effects, it seems very believeable that there might be some kind of connection.
Genetics is fascinating, no question.
Can you post any benefits from genetic drift? All I've ever seen are diseases, handicapps, etc. as the result of it.

 

[jerthunter]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Genetics is fascinating, no question.
Can you post any benefits from genetic drift? All I've ever seen are diseases, handicapps, etc. as the result of it.
Off the top of my head? Let me see. There are genetic mutantations that make people unaffected by AIDS. They seems pretty useful... The mutation changes the conformation of one of the membrane proteins on T cells making it so the AIDS virus cannot bind..
Like I said, that seems like a very good benefit.

 

[darknes]

Originally Posted by Jerthunter
Off the top of my head? Let me see. There are genetic mutantations that make people unaffected by AIDS. They seems pretty useful... The mutation changes the conformation of one of the membrane proteins on T cells making it so the AIDS virus cannot bind..
Like I said, that seems like a very good benefit.
Really? I've never heard of that.
I wonder if they're trying to find a way to reproduce this with newborn mice and eventually humans.

 

[darknes]

The thing that gets me most about evolution is how such complex organs could happen by chance through many generations of mutations.
Take the eye, for example. A mutation wouldn't just cause a creature to "see light" which no other animal would have done before. It would have taken millions of generations to have all the correct mutations compiled for even a primitive eye.

 

[jerthunter]

Originally Posted by Darknes
Really? I've never heard of that.
I wonder if they're trying to find a way to reproduce this with newborn mice and eventually humans.
I imagine some people are focusing their research on this of course it is one thing to isolate the nucleotide sequence that gives the mutated protein but it is a much harder thing to insert this sequence into the gene so they it can be effective.

 

[jmick]

Thought this was rather interesting.
CBS) (This poll was conducted November 18-21, 2004.)
Most Americans do not believe that humans evolved, and the vast majority says that even if they evolved, God guided the process. Just 13 percent say that God was not involved. But most would not substitute the teaching of creationism for the teaching of evolution in public schools.
Support for evolution is more heavily concentrated among those with more education and among those who attend religious services rarely or not at all.
It's the last sentence in the first paragraph that I found to be most interesting.

 

[jerthunter]

Originally Posted by Darknes
The thing that gets me most about evolution is how such complex organs could happen by chance through many generations of mutations.
Take the eye, for example. A mutation wouldn't just cause a creature to "see light" which no other animal would have done before. It would have taken millions of generations to have all the correct mutations compiled for even a primitive eye.
There can be hundreds, thousands, millions, of mutations that we never see. Sometimes the cell machinery notices the mistake and corrects it, sometimes, the mistake is fatal, but all it takes is one mutation that creates something useful.

 

[kidreef]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Actually I was taught 2 types of evolution in college.
Micro- also known as adaptation. Plenty of evidence to support this.
Macro- Species evolving into other species. This one's the one that typically is debated.
u learned that in college i was taught that in 7th grade

 

[dksart]

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you can believe in a god, why can't you believe that he/she created adaptable creatures that would be able to develop, grow, improve, achieve and evolve.
Why does this issue have to be so black and white. Some of these arguments seem so ________. But, there are some people out there that still believe the moon landing was a hoax.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by kidreef
u learned that in college i was taught that in 7th grade

Well, it was a bit more complex... I'm trying to go slowly so I don't lose anyone

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Jerthunter
There can be hundreds, thousands, millions, of mutations that we never see. Sometimes the cell machinery notices the mistake and corrects it, sometimes, the mistake is fatal, but all it takes is one mutation that creates something useful.
Correct, however, the vast majority, if not all (I have not researched the AIDS study. I suspect this is not a genetic mutation however but I'm open to the possibility) are flaws rather than benefits.
Now, if Evolution depends on genetic drift, and the vast majority of mutations are harmful and fatal, then logic dictates this would end life instead of diversifying it.

 

[rudedog40]

LOL. "I don't want to start a debate or anything". That's a good one. Why don't you start another poll -- "Do you believe in same --- religion?" I'm sure that won't be debatable either. So much for this being just a saltwater fish forum.

 

[jerthunter]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Correct, however, the vast majority, if not all (I have not researched the AIDS study. I suspect this is not a genetic mutation however but I'm open to the possibility) are flaws rather than benefits.
Now, if Evolution depends on genetic drift, and the vast majority of mutations are harmful and fatal, then logic dictates this would end life instead of diversifying it.
Sure, there are plenty of things to go wrong in genetic mutations, and like you said these generally end in death, often in very early stages of development and therefore don't get passed down to future generations. If a mutation isn't fatal it has a change of being passed on, now if a mutation is good for the species, lets say its resistant to a virus, well with the virus present the individual with the mutation is more likely to survive and mate, passing along this mutation to it offspring.

 

[jerthunter]

Sorry, I forgot to mention this in my previous reply. Concerning the mutation I wrote of concerning AIDS. It is fairly simple to see that it is a mutation. You can look at the general population, see the nucleotide sequence for this gene, which codes for a membrane protein used in T cells. I don't know the sequence since this is off the top of my head, but for an example lets say its TACCCAGCA, that isn't it but it works for this example. Now lets say doing replication the cell machinery Addes a A opposite a C instead of a G. When the proofreading mechanisms come by there is a chance it will read the good side and correct the point mutation or it will read the mutated strand and change the correct strand to compliment the mutation. Now this sequence tacTcagca will code for a second animo acid in the protein. Different amino acid, different folding pattern, can cause it to function differently.

 

[itom37]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Correct, however, the vast majority, if not all (I have not researched the AIDS study. I suspect this is not a genetic mutation however but I'm open to the possibility) are flaws rather than benefits.
Now, if Evolution depends on genetic drift, and the vast majority of mutations are harmful and fatal, then logic dictates this would end life instead of diversifying it.

So it seems some of you guys don't know what genetic drift is. Genetic drift is the random fluctuation of frequency of alleles (i guess for simplicity you can correlate this to traits) in a population. It happens to good, bad, and neutral alleles equally, and genetic drift occurs independently of natural selection. This is one means by which you can see a deleterious allele become fixed in a population... it's pure chance.
Evolution is founded on the idea of natural selection, which is quite different, but related. While an allele is being influenced randomly by genetic drift, it is also probably being subjected to natural selection based on the fitness it confers. A beneficial allele is (in a simpler world) going to be selected for because individuals with it are more fit and reproduce more. The opposite is true for deleterious alleles.
Combining both factors complicates things of course, and due to drift we get persistence of deleterious alleles and loss of beneficial ones, but over the course of billions of years, the often subtle influence of selection on drift has lead to incredible species diversification
Random genetic drift is not the main driving force in evolution, it's natural selection. It's important to recognize the difference.
Also, awhile back someone said that i was correct in stating that entropy must only increase in a closed system but that entropy still discredits evolution... they're wrong, and I'm curious to hear how they justify their statement. If that were true, then no biological function would be possible.
ALSO, it's incredible to me that people will cite the fact that most people believe something as proof for it... or as a good reason to believe in it... that's simply ignorant. Why do 90% of people believe in some god? I don't know... laziness of mind and lack of imagination?
Something I'm unclear about is why people try to force logical explanations for god... there simply aren't any. If i understand this faith thing correctly, you need no logical proof. Stop making yourself look silly by passing off horrible reasoning and hope as logic.
I've got a question for the theists out there. It's something I wonder about as an atheist. Do any of you believe in free will in the presence of an all knowing god? If so, how do you reconcile the two? I find that by the very definition of god, free will cannot exist (please don't quote that book where it says people have free will or whatever it says, I'm going on the premise that god knows everything). I find that theists who acknowledge an all knowing god are hesitant to let go of the idea that they have free will. Just curious.