Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, Microevolution doesnt teach that species turn into an entirely different species. It simply teaches that certain species, if required, can develop traits to adapt to their environment, like bird developing broader webs to its feet or thicker layers of feathers to adapt to a changing climate
Suppose one subpopulation of birds broke off from the rest and went to live in a new habitat, where they developed broader webs on their feet and thicker layers of feathers as you've described. Suppose they also developed bigger bills for catching different foods, and a new courtship dance. Don't you think at some point all these new developments would keep that population of birds from interbreeding with the original population? If not, how do you explain ring species (Ring species - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)?
Microevolution focuses on evolution within a species because that's how it's defined, but that doesn't mean evolution from one species to another is necessarily a different process.
I am not a 'creationist' because I don't believe that the earth was created in six 24 hour days and the bible gives us no reason to believe that it was. I have always understood that to be the creationist view. I do believe the earth was created by God however, as I stated before.
I think the basic tenet of creationism is that modern species were specially created by God in their current state, without evolving through a series of precursers and without being related to each other via descent. It sounds to me like you're a creationist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alicenavada
I am not an 'evolutionist' in that I don't believe that each species came into existence by means of a random series of unexplained and completely spontaneous events.
Evolutionists don't believe that either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alicenavada
And I don't believe the stand of macro-evolution, which claims that man came from apes, reptiles from fish etc. I believe that God created each species 'according to its kind' as the bible states.
And thus you're a creationist. For what it's worth, the idea that modern species evolved from preceding species isn't contrary to the idea that God created each species to reproduce after its kind. The whole point of evolution is that an organism's "kind" can change.
I am not an 'evolutionist' in that I don't believe that each species came into existence by means of a random series of unexplained and completely spontaneous events. And I don't believe the stand of macro-evolution, which claims that man came from apes, reptiles from fish etc. I believe that God created each species 'according to its kind' as the bible states. However, micro-evolution (species developing traits over the years in order to adapt to changing environment) can easily be proven and in my eyes, proves the existence of God all the more. So therefore, to say that one doesnt believe in 'evolution' at all is , as the OP suggested, dangerously close-minded.
It makes not much sense to believe micro-evolution can happen, but stop before it becomes macro-evolution. It's the same process. You voice a common misconception about evolutionary theory, and that is that species come into existence through random and unexplained events. Natural selection is anything but random. The gene mutations are random, and you would have to agree that these do occur, or you couldn't concede that micro-evolution occurs, either.
The key point is, there are environmental selection pressures (e.g., climate changes, predators, whatever) that will preserve some mutations that happen to be favorable (following the example, genes for heavy fur or long muscular legs). These environmental factors are not random, and this is what drives the evolution of new traits, and eventually new species, especially when a farily small population gets isolated.
Humans most surely did come from an apelike ancestor, and there is so much fossil evidence as well as molecular genetic evidence, it really cannot be refuted at this point. In any case, irrefutability is most pointedly not the goal of science. Scientific theories, even the most solid ones, are always open to be refuted--this is one of the main tenets of science. However, evolution has so much evidence behind it, in the words of S.J. Gould, it would be perverse to withhold at least provisional assent.
I've never been quite sure why it it so important to have every word of the Bible be compatible with science. The men who wrote all those wonderful myths thousands of years ago had no concept of science, and so they explained things in a beautiful and poetic way. The Bible was meant to be a guide for living, and people in Biblical days didn't even insist on the accuracy of the stories, they were interested in what it meant for them. So why do we insist on word-for-word accuracy today?
It makes not much sense to believe micro-evolution can happen, but stop before it becomes macro-evolution. It's the same process. You voice a common misconception about evolutionary theory, and that is that species come into existence through random and unexplained events. Natural selection is anything but random. The gene mutations are random, and you would have to agree that these do occur, or you couldn't concede that micro-evolution occurs, either.
The key point is, there are environmental selection pressures (e.g., climate changes, predators, whatever) that will preserve some mutations that happen to be favorable (following the example, genes for heavy fur or long muscular legs). These environmental factors are not random, and this is what drives the evolution of new traits, and eventually new species, especially when a farily small population gets isolated.
Humans most surely did come from an apelike ancestor, and there is so much fossil evidence as well as molecular genetic evidence, it really cannot be refuted at this point. In any case, irrefutability is most pointedly not the goal of science. Scientific theories, even the most solid ones, are always open to be refuted--this is one of the main tenets of science. However, evolution has so much evidence behind it, in the words of S.J. Gould, it would be perverse to withhold at least provisional assent.
I've never been quite sure why it it so important to have every word of the Bible be compatible with science. The men who wrote all those wonderful myths thousands of years ago had no concept of science, and so they explained things in a beautiful and poetic way. The Bible was meant to be a guide for living, and people in Biblical days didn't even insist on the accuracy of the stories, they were interested in what it meant for them. So why do we insist on word-for-word accuracy today?
Sounds like you have really listened to the Evolutionist. So there such much evidence to support that humans came from ape like ancestors? WOW. Could you show us an example of this? Because everything I have been show for examples of human Evolution seems to be based on a belief, but not on science. Please, show us some examples of this.
Sounds like you have really listened to the Evolutionist. So there such much evidence to support that humans came from ape like ancestors? WOW. Could you show us an example of this? Because everything I have been show for examples of human Evolution seems to be based on a belief, but not on science. Please, show us some examples of this.
WOW. Aren't we the smart one! (But why be surprised at a silly, non-substantial reply to a reasonable post on evolution?) Who's the "Evolutionist"? If you mean Darwin, Huxley, Haldane, Dawkins, Gould, Lewontin, Wilson, Eldridge, Vrba, Smith, White, Hrdy, Briggs, Conway-Morris, and about 99.9 % of all scientists, then yes, I have listened to them.
For examples, you may want to read a book by one or more of the above scientists. Dawkins' "The Ancestor's Tale" is a good start. You may also read White's "Lucy", Gould's "Structure of Evolutionary Theory", or even Darwin's "Descent of Man".
It turns out, based on molecular genetics (not a belief, but actual studies of DNA), that there is not even any real validity in putting humans in a separate genus from apes, as we are apparently closer genetically to chimps than chimps are to orangutans--so, by cladistic classification (I doubt you know what that is) we are not in a separate family.
My point, to make as short and succint a response to the above comments as possible, is that microevolution has concrete evidence to support it. The idea that man came from apes does not. So it cannot be termed a fact and thousands of scientists would agree. Macroevolution has many nay-sayers...actually, 'many' is an understatement.
If believing in evolution of this type makes me an evolutionist than I am one. If believing in creation makes me a creationist I am one. I however, prefer not to label myself with either term. I am a Christian, a firm believer that the bible is the word of God, and a likewise firm believer that science supports the creation account of the bible.
WOW. Aren't we the smart one! (But why be surprised at a silly, non-substantial reply to a reasonable post on evolution?) Who's the "Evolutionist"? If you mean Darwin, Huxley, Haldane, Dawkins, Gould, Lewontin, Wilson, Eldridge, Vrba, Smith, White, Hrdy, Briggs, Conway-Morris, and about 99.9 % of all scientists, then yes, I have listened to them.
If I'm not mistaken, most of those scientists you mentioned did not agree with Darwin on many many issues. There was a huge ammount of controversy between them. And I'm afraid you'll have to show me the statistic that 99.9%of scientists believe that man came from apes?
Last edited by alicenevada; 06-04-2008 at 08:43 AM..
Sounds like you have really listened to the Evolutionist. So there such much evidence to support that humans came from ape like ancestors? WOW. Could you show us an example of this? Because everything I have been show for examples of human Evolution seems to be based on a belief, but not on science. Please, show us some examples of this.
You keep bringing up the same claims. When they get shot down you just wait a little and then bring them up again in a different thread as if they were new. It's very sad.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
