Evolution Pros and Cons

[questor]

Evolution remains a complex subject. It is obvious that environment influences variation in species, all one has to do is observe the different skin colors in Homo Sapiens.to see these results. These of course are macro variations and we do not know the biochemical reactions in genes that ocurred to cause these differences. Some think that Darwin's theory does not hold up to its proclamations and I would like to post an attempt at refutation of the theory to dicuss some finer points. I do believe that adaptation to environment takes place, although I do not understand the chemical mechanism. I do not believe there can be evolution upon demand, such as a primitive animal growing wings to help escape predators, when no wings were present in ancestors. Please read this link as it provides many areas of discussion.
Darwinism Refuted.com

[Tormod]

That is just another creationism site. It would fit neatly into all the other creationism threads here at Hypography.

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by questor

I do not believe there can be evolution upon demand, such as a primitive animal growing wings to help escape predators, when no wings were present in ancestors.]

No one has ever suggested that evolution theory supports the idea of evolution in demand. Claiming this is totally disingenuous, no animal can just grow wings to help it escape predators this is not part of evolutionary theory in any way shape or form. I suggest you try to understand evolution from the stand point of real science instead of trying to disprove it through creationist sites that have no real evidence to back them up and only use lies and misleading propaganda.

[Galapagos]

Originally Posted by questor

I do not believe there can be evolution upon demand, such as a primitive animal growing wings to help escape predators, when no wings were present in ancestors. Please read this link as it provides many areas of discussion.
Darwinism Refuted.com

What you describe sounds like the dated evolutionary theory of Lamarckism, and it is rejected by most evolutionary biologists.

The website you have linked is a creationist website of the ID flavor. JFYI, ID is rejected by both the U.S. court systems and the scientific community as religious pseudoscience.

Also, if you want to discuss the evolution of flight, gliding, or wings, feel free. That happens to be an interesting topic in evolutionary biology..

[pamela]

Questor, is it possible that you cite an example as to what you are referring to? And can this example be based from a scientific standpoint only? In posting a link to site that has it's origins in creationism, will only allow the construct of a wall based in anticreationism that will thwart any possibility of having an objective discussion

[questor]

Let me say that this thread not is about creationism. It is about questioning the science or lack of it in the theory of evolution. If someone here can explain how genetic code can be changed to make a lemur become a man, I would like to hear it. The chimpanzee has a genome very similar to man, but no chimp has ever become a man, nor has a man become a chimp. There have been at least 5 major mass extinctions and then the Cambrian explosion 500 million years ago that seemed to repopulate the world.
http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Paleobio...nExplosion.htm
I would assume the time line of life was well beyond the single cell life form and we have to deal with the problem of how genetic material was able to change enough to make all the new phyla down to new species of life in the last 500 million years
.

[Moontanman]

[quote]

Originally Posted by questor

Let me say that this thread not is about creationism. It is about questioning the science or lack of it in the theory of evolution. If someone here can explain how genetic code can be changed to make a lemur become a man, I would like to hear it. The chimpanzee has a genome very similar to man, but no chimp has ever become a man, nor has a man become a chimp.

Questor, no man can ever become a chimp, no chimp can ever become a man. A lemur cannot become a man, you are asking nonsensical questions. The change from one species to another can happen over just a few generations but that would be a tiny change, the change from a lemur to a man or even from a chimp to a man would literally take millions of generations with thousands of different species between the two. The changes occur at the genetic level from environmental pressures acting on random mutations. You do understand that chimps are not the ancestors of humans don't you?

http://<div style="margin:20px; marg...table> </div>

I would assume the time line of life was well beyond the single cell life form and we have to deal with the problem of how genetic material was able to change enough to make all the new phyla down to new species of life in the last 500 million years
.[/QT here have been at least 5 major mass extinctions and then the Cambrian explosion 500 million years ago that seemed to repopulate the world.
UOTE

First of all no known mass extinction wiped out all phyla, or even most phyla. The mass extinctions of the past 500,000,000 years wiped out lots of species and required millions of years for new species to evolve. There were mass extinctions before that, when cyano bacteria started polluting the atmosphere with oxygen it was probably the biggest mass extinction in the history of life on earth but no complex animals were involved in that, only microbes. What is your problem with mass extinctions and the way they were repopulated by new species? How is that process unclear?

[Galapagos]

Originally Posted by questor

Let me say that this thread not is about creationism. It is about questioning the science or lack of it in the theory of evolution.

This thread is certainly about creationism, and specifically stealth creationism and Intelligent Design creationism. The "Pros and Cons" argument is analogous to the "Strengths and Weaknesses" rhetoric popular among the same creationists trying to pretend they are just "Teaching The Controversy" and encouraging "Academic Freedom":

The Austringer Texas: Your “Weaknesses” Are Weak — And Old, Too
Pharyngula: The battle rages on in Texas
Explore the strengths and weaknesses of Florida's "Academic Freedom" bill - The Panda's Thumb
Dispatches from the Culture Wars: Those "Strengths and Weakness" of Evolution


Carry on with the thread, but it is obvious that the motivation here is primarily religious, not scientific.

[Moontanman]

I'm willing to give Questor the benefit of the doubt for now, he hasn't shown any signs of being a religious nut case. Maybe he really wants to know what is going on, it behooves us to at least give him a chance.

[Galapagos]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

I'm willing to give Questor the benefit of the doubt for now, he hasn't shown any signs of being a religious nut case. Maybe he really wants to know what is going on, it behooves us to at least give him a chance.

My spidey sense is tingling, but okay. On with the show then..

Originally Posted by Moontanman

Questor, no man can ever become a chimp, no chimp can ever become a man. A lemur cannot become a man, you are asking nonsensical questions. The change from one species to another can happen over just a few generations but that would be a tiny change, the change from a lemur to a man or even from a chimp to a man would literally take millions of generations with thousands of different species between the two. The changes occur at the genetic level from environmental pressures acting on random mutations. You do understand that chimps are not the ancestors of humans don't you?

You got it, Moonman. Chimpanzees and humans are both modern primates. Our common ancestor was neither a chimpanzee or a human, it was something else. The common ancestor gave birth to the patri/matriarchs of two lineages; ours, and the chimps, and these two lineages diverged and adapted to different niches and were exposed to different selection pressures. Modern chimps and humans are very well adapted for their own niches and accordingly very different species.

Originally Posted by questor

I would assume the time line of life was well beyond the single cell life form and we have to deal with the problem of how genetic material was able to change enough to make all the new phyla down to new species of life in the last 500 million years

Why do you think the variation in genes cannot account for the variation in phenotype?
Also, on the "specific weaknesses" section of the wikipedia "Strenghts And Weaknesses" page, the creationist objections to the Cambrian explosion are addressed. Even though this isn't a creationist thread , I figure someone may benefit from it anyway.