okay, i am just wondering. for those who don't know too much about DNA and that, we have the exact same mitochondrial DNA as our mothers. (for the record, mitochondia is a little organelle with its own DNA in our cells that, among other things changes food into energy).

the thing i don't get, is that if eve was the mother of all humanity, we should all have the same mitochondria (barring a few mutations, but even then the vast quantity would be extremely similar). but, we don't. is there a reason (did the tower of bable fuck with DNA?) for this or something, because i can't be the first person to notice this.

actually, they traced all DNA back to one mother in africa, probably through this method if we all get our mother's mitochondrial DNA. This south african woman who is essentially the mom of all humans today (other evolutions of man have died off in the past). This if course isn't "Eve" as it is preached by religion, congradulations if you're just figuring out now that the first human wasn't some evolved white woman.

d4v3's got the right idea.

But let's say, RAOVQ, that your argument is accurate in information.

Let's say everybody was born with their mitochondria identical from their mother's. And since there are people out there, let's say, who have completely different mitochondria from one another, wouldn't this punch a hole in the Adam & Eve concept?

I would think so.

I also think it would punch a hole in the idea of evolution, as well, since it is agreed among the evolutionist community that we all share the same basic ancestor.

So we'd be in a fix, wouldn't we?

but evolution does not happen to one individual. it happens to communities. they can each keep thier genetic identity and still breed with each other. (who do you think eve (evolutionary) was fucking? she was not alone on the path in evolution).

sigh.

if you believe the "adam and eve" story, eve was "fucking" adam, there was no community. Her only option as far as a different gene pool would be her children... go incest!

seriously though, re read what i already said, because clearly you missed it the first time.

If the one 'mom' in South Africa is the mother of us all, how did she get pregnant?

gosh you're a stupid one. she had sex.

note: the male is untracable because only the mother's DNA is replicated in the mitochondria, as stated by this thread.

All mitochondrial DNA proves is that the children of this woman have survived the test of time. Strongest traits.

Lets say she had 2 children and all her children live to reproduce.

Most DNA in the tribe some far. While all the other woman in the tribes children never reproduce like woman died while giving birth or children died before they could reproduce or the childrens children did not reporduce. Weak traits.

Remeber this is 200,000 years ago. There where no doctors.

Kikey_Kikeowitz has a very good point!!!!!!!

Its just like age old problem which came first the chicken or the egg???

quote:Originally posted by d4v3:

gosh you're a stupid one. she had sex.

note: the male is untracable because only the mother's DNA is replicated in the mitochondria, as stated by this thread.

If she had sex with a fellow human male(which is a prerequisite to having human offspring), then she must have had a human mother and father.

Not so simple, is it?

of course she had a human mother and father, it's the chicken and the egg thing, this was just as far back as the genes could be traced, eventually you'd be tracing DNA to the primmates, on and on, attempting to make jumps over genetic mutations to go further and further to more primitive species. potentially she didn't have the same DNA as her mother because her DNA mutated, making her the first of the only surviving species of man. maybe if you weren't so stupid i wouldn't have to explain things that should be fairly obvious.

Yup...Eve was black and Jesus was a Jew http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif).

how do you extract mitochondrial DNA from bones that are practically fosilized?I dont know about you, but it sounds like bull shit too me.hahaha

The Bible says that after Cain killed Abel (is that how you spell it), he went out into the world, got married, and had kids. But Adam and Eve were the only other two people on the planet right? Then who the fuck did Cain marry?

Obviously there was someone else, a different group in the world that Cain found. The Bible is very evasive about where they came from since Adam and Eve are supposed to be the mother and father of everyone.

"potentially she didn't have the same DNA as her mother because her DNA mutated, making her the first of the only surviving species of man."

dave now you're being as ignorant and just as accepting of what you are being told as the religionists you so frequently talk down to.

please re-read what you said.

if this person's dna was mutated from her mother and fathers to become a "new species", a dog cannot fuck a cat and produce offspring.

again re-read what you said.

what you are talking about is the exact same genetic mutation not only in this child, but in virtually every child, male and female alike for the change to become permanent.

if you have ever been to a farm where they have livestock, you will see that mutations are as frequent as the rising and setting of the sun.

most do not live, and those that do the mutation is lost because there is not enough of the same mutation to keep it going.

again re-read what you said.

if this is the mother of modern man that means every man fucked her and no other woman.

which is only possible if every other man had the exact same mutation of dna as she did or they would not have been able to reproduce to keep the mutation alive, unless she had a twin brother who nailed her, or as you so eloquently put it - go incest!

now think about it, this is not natural evolution, for the same mutation to occur to make her the mother of modern man it would've had to effect the whole community as a whole, which would make it some kind of monumental environmental event that had to occur.

think. even if this person was still sexually compatible with the parent is irrelevant, because eventually, in the current theory of evolution a departure of species is necessary, one in which the offspring is not the same species as the parent, looking at how other animals, including man regards the "runts" of the litter she would most likely have been discarded by the community.

and again we are talking about a change that had to effect the offspring of the whole community at the same time with the same change.

sounds more like some cataclysm had occurred then genetic drift.

"maybe if you weren't so stupid i wouldn't have to explain things that should be fairly obvious."

i'm quite sure the "scientists" of the time said the same thing to gallileo right before they locked him up.

in fact dave your idiocy has made you not even notice the point raovq made...

"the thing i don't get, is that if eve was the mother of all humanity, we should all have the same mitochondria (barring a few mutations, but even then the vast quantity would be extremely similar). but, we don't. is there a reason (did the tower of bable fuck with DNA?) for this or something, because i can't be the first person to notice this."

yet you do the same thing and attribute all of mankind to one woman, which raovq is pointing out cannot be.



"they traced all DNA"

when did they come and take mine for testing? or don't i have dna? or do they use secret means to come in and steal the hair from my comb.

http://www.biowonderland.com/OmoshiroBio/EngBasic10.html

now read that, you see it is only a hypothesis, not a fact, and not even a theory.

http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node7.html

"In popular usage, a theory is just a vague and fuzzy sort of fact and a hypothesis is often used as a fancy synonym to `guess'."

from previous link.

"This hypothesis, the conclusion of a study conducted by a group of scientists at University of California, Berkeley, is drawing attention as the "Mitochondria‚Œ Eve hypothesis.""

you know dave if keep basing your "beliefs" on guesses and i'd have to say you were religious.

http://english.pravda.ru/society/2002/07/12/32329.html

in fact here's something that may say your beliefs are wrong.

"hailed as one which will ?fundamentally change the way in which we rebuild the tree of life¦ adding that ?The popular image of a neat line to humans from our common ancestry with chimps is seriously misleading¦. "

or is this just another piltdown man, how about the missing link neandertal found in france which when discovered was in reality a human who walked slouched like all neandertals did because of living in the harsh environments during the ice age which resulted in dietary deficiencies making rickets-that makes the bones soft and prone to bending and structural change- and arthritis very common among them.

i say that most evolutionists are no different than their religious counterparts, and go out of their way to prove what they "believe"....

http://www.clarku.edu/~piltdown/map_intro/missinglinkfound.html

"I have only the highest regard for eminent scientists of undoubted integrity, who study fossils, write reports, and carry out very highly skilled tests in the course of their work. However, in the particular field of fossil man, I do question the very speculative assumptions made, and the far-reaching conclusions based upon very meagre evidence. It must be remembered that the 'fossil hunter' has often a subconscious desire to fit his discoveries to his preconceptions whether or not they are in line with current expert opinion. On this, I can do no better than quote Vayson de Pradenne, who was Director of the École des Hautes Études, and Professor at the École d'Anthropologie, and Professor at the École d'Anthropologie. In his book Fraudes Archéologiques, published 1925, he gives a hypothetical instance of an archaeologist finding two types of artefacts, coarse and highly finished, in the same excavation. Assuming that the coarser articles were earlier, and at a lower level, he will class them according to type and not by the stratum in which they were found. Finding an advanced implement at a low level, he will assume that it reached there accidentally, and he will class it with the others at the higher level. De Pradenne concludes:"

in reality when discussing the origin of man, or the origin of life itself it all comes down to belief, and only the realist will say "your guess is as good as mine"

It's really quite astonishing how little you all understand about evolution.

Mitochondrial Eve was not the first woman. She didn't fuck everyone. She didn't give birth to every child that went on to make the rest of the human race. She was one of hundreds of thousands or probably millions of other humans living on the planet at the time.

They don't even know specifically who she was. They certainly didn't dig up her bones or anything.

The "Mitochondrial Eve" theory is far different than you all seem to think. It doesn't really have anything to do with evolution, since it's nuclear DNA that is the functioning blueprint. It's simply that, over time, because of the fact that men cannot pass on mitochondrial DNA, eventually all lines of mitochondrial DNA lead back to her.

To properly explain the theory, I'd have to draw a picture, which I may do and post here at some point.

The mitochondrial DNA from Mitochondrial Eve forms the sort of branching tree that you see when you trace all the descendants of one person. This tree, however, does not exist by itself. Rather, think of it as a web of lines, looking like the tree but showing the ancestors/descendants of everyone, basically making a webbed square (or, if you want to get technical, you'd probably want to wrap the edges around to touch each other in a 3D map). Imagine the tree of descendents from M. Eve as highlighted red lines while the rest of the web is black lines. Only females can actually pass on a red line, however. Eventually, as the web continues downward, you will eventually see the red lines spread until at the bottom of the web, everything is red.

quote:Direckshun

I also think it would punch a hole in the idea of evolution, as well, since it is agreed among the evolutionist community that we all share the same basic ancestor.

Um... I don't know where you heard that. All I can say in response is: no, you're wrong, nobody who knows anything about evolution thinks that.

quote:IzzyReele

if this person's dna was mutated from her mother and fathers to become a "new species", a dog cannot fuck a cat and produce offspring.

...

think. even if this person was still sexually compatible with the parent is irrelevant, because eventually, in the current theory of evolution a departure of species is necessary, one in which the offspring is not the same species as the parent.

New species are not produced by a single genetic mutation. Mutations usually create small changes that build over time until the new creatures aren't capable of breeding with the "original" creatures. (This is usually really hard to determine because it's a constant, gradual change; species do not evolve in leaps and bounds or much if any discrete changes).

Large mutations are, almost as a rule, very bad for the organism. I will explain why. The sequences of AT, TA, GC, and CG (Adenine and Thymine, Guanine and Cytosine) code for production of proteins and whatnot (and are actually used as part of the production process, kinda like a mold). Different sequences produce different proteins, which manifest as different traits. A small mutation in DNA might cause a slightly different shape in a bone, or something of that sort, a minor change that may offer small benefit of some sort (for example, the new shape of bone may protect a vital organ better).

However, something as complex as an arm wouldn't be easy to create in a single mutation. It would require a very precise sequence to create it, and the chances of that happening are infinitesimal. Most often, if large changes occur in DNA, they cause the protein production to go haywire, resulting in crazy lumpy growths, tumors, cancer, or simply death because something can't work correctly.

While it is true that different species cannot produce offspring (actually, some closely-related species can, but they're sterile: horse + donkey = mule, for example), this is not really because they are different species. Rather, they are different species because they cannot inter-breed. That's the main criteria for drawing the line between species.

Species are not distinct from one another. "Species" is just lines and labels drawn by humans to define what just occurs how it does in nature. Often, the line is hard to draw due to the fact that species are not distinct categories in their actual existence.

Take for example, snails along the coast of California. There are three general regions, which each contain slightly different strains of snail. The northernmost region contains Snail A, the middle region contains Snail B, and the southernmost region contains Snail C. Snail A can produce fertile offspring with Snail B, which can also produce fertile offspring with Snail C. However, the offspring of Snail A and Snail C are sterile. Therefore, Snail A and Snail C would be two separate species, but they're also both the same species as Snail B.

Twisting your mind? It's because "species" is just a man-made label, it's not actually any sort of natural principle. It just doesn't always work.



As for the question of which came first, the chicken or the egg, the answer is a resounding EGG! There is no scientific doubt to this whatsoever. A bird that was "not quite a chicken" laid the egg that contained the first "chicken". However, it would not be a radical jump (as I explained earlier). The offspring would almost certainly still be able to produce fertile offspring with its parents... if you're into that sort of thing.

Nature is much more fluid, dynamic, and analog than most people realize.

[This message has been edited by zorro420 (edited 08-26-2003).]

i love how darwinian evolutionists prove their theory by saying how impossible it is.

"However, something as complex as an arm wouldn't be easy to create in a single mutation. It would require a very precise sequence to create it, and the chances of that happening are infinitesimal."

and when you think about an asexual organism who reproduced itself by splitting itself into two organisms, wouldn't it take a very specific sequence to make it reproduce sexually?

a very specific sequence that not only appeared in one, but in many to keep it going.

and this infitisimal chance just so happened to have occurred millions of times, not only to create each organism but each trait each organism has.

face it, what we know and understand of origin and evolution of life is about as much as a newborn knows about the world, and the best thing we can do is guess.

i'm willing to bet, that just like every other theory in every other branch of science what we currently hold as accepted common sense truth will in the future be seen as ridiculous as the greek belief that the earth was on the back of hare which stood on a tortoise.

it's not that i don't believe in evolution, but that our current theory is so incomplete it is wrong.

http://whyfiles.org/075genome/

"It's bacterial. The genome project found 223 genes in humans that match those in bacteria -- but are not found in intermediate organisms like fruit flies. Apparently, these genes jumped from bacteria to humans -- or vice versa -- but the mechanism of movement is not understood. This finding reflects the decoding of full picture of the genetic endowmentn, or genomen, of dozens of simple organisms."

explain this darwin jr., apparently genes jump did you know that? how they move is not known, but that they do move is known? how can we even call it movement when we don't know the "mechanism" producing it?

http://whyfiles.org/075genome/2.html

this is even more interesting.

"It's not just simple copying. Genetic searches show that nature is rather miserly when it comes to inventing genes, preferring to modify an existing gene to suit different organisms and environments over minting a fresh gene."

yet new genes are "invented"? how is this done. how do two parents produce in it's offspring genetic information not present in either parent?

it seems kind of redundant as well to have to reinvent itself if humans have sequences shared with bacteria not present in intermediary life forms.

in it's current form evolution says life removed information from the sequence only to have the exact same information reappear later.

i find it far more plausible and believable that a lot of these "intermediary" life forms are not in our family tree at all.

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/bias.htm

this is interesting.

"Evolutionists often have come forth and admitted their own and their colleagues' extreme degree of bias in this matter. Some have admitted that their approach has not been scientific or objective at all. Many admit to the severe lack of evidence for evolution and that they have accepted their conclutions only because they are unwilling to accept that evolution never occured. (And other final considerations.)"

"Even if a creature shared characteristics belonging to two separate groups, however, this would not necessarily make it a transitional link as long as each of the characteristics themselves is complete and not in the process of transition from one type of structure or function into another type of structure or function." ([22], p.25)

"Because of the lack of evidence for gradual evolution in the fossil record, more and more evolutionists are adopting a new theory of evolution known as macroevolution. The theory of macroevolution teaches that animals and plants changed suddenly from one kind to another without going through any gradual or transitional process."

Other evolutionists claim that the links are missing only because the changes are so small that they are not noticed. The problem here is that they are assuming that at every point in the evolution process the being would appear as complete or whole. Actually, they would appear as in transition as when a house is being built.

"The point to remember...is that the fossil problem for Darwinism is getting worse all the time."

"It can be noted that natural selection as a driving mechanism for evolution is totally inadequate. Natural selection (along with mutation) is said to have caused organisms to evolve from one basic kind (animals which can reproduce with one another) into another basic kind. This is prohibited genetically since all of the information for the development of an organism has already been encoded in the DNA of its parent. Variation to organisms must remain within its basic kind. For example, genetically, a wide variety of dogs can come to exist, but a dog can never become anything other than a dog. It remains in its kind. It does not have the genetic ability to become anything more. Admitting this, evolutionists have tried to explain that natural selection happened in conjunction with mutations to the genetic code. This could not produce evolution, however, since mutations do not create new genetic potential, they just alter what is already there. Furthermore, mutations are small, random, and harmful alterations to the genetic code. This also makes evolution from mutations impossible. For example, a working wristwatch does not improve but is harmed when its inside parts are randomly altered. Natural selection also contradicts the second law of thermodynamics which states that, left to themselves, all things tend to deteriorate rather than develop, while evolution wants to go in the opposite direction. "Survival of the fittest" demonstrates only how an organism has survived, not how it has evolved."

Evolutionists present much of their finds as if they were compelling and factual explanations to human evolution. In fact, they base their conclusions on mere speculation and often the flimsiest of `finds'. Many discoveries of supposed hominids consist of only a mouth fragment, a leg bone, a hip bone, or a knee joint. On this alone, they have considered it to be a hominid. They even name it, reconstruct what it looked like, and present it to the public as a fact. Some of these finds have turned out to be those of a pig, donkey, or the result of a hoax. One hoax consisted of someone placing a human skull with an ape's jaw. Evolutionist declared it to be a hominid for fifty years without having done an in depth study of it. Some finds consist of an assortment of fragments found miles apart and then placed together to look as though they came from the same individual. Sometimes rocks as simple as those found in any backyard are called tools of hominids and are pictured in books. Footprints that look identical to any person's today are sometimes declared in books and accepted as those of hominids. The brow ridge that supposedly marked the hominid appears only in one skull

The first nine of the twelve popularly regarded hominids put forth by evolutionists by bone and skull finds have been demonstrated as being extinct apes or monkeys and not part human at all. The discovery of extinct apes demonstrated some of the finds to be monkeys/ apes. Close examination of the skulls and bones have caused experts to determine that none of the other skulls have any human characteristics either. The bones and skulls found could be any of the perhaps thousands of monkeys and apes that have existed in the past. These bones and skulls have never been found apart from where apes/monkeys live or have lived.

The last three of the popular twelve hominids have been demonstrated as being modern human beings. Human skulls naturally vary in size and many other characteristics. They often also are misshapen by certain diseases such as rickets, arthritis, Paget's disease, congenital syphilis, and starvation. Skulls found with diseases or normal human variations could lead one to suppose that certain modern human skulls are something less than human. This has been a great mistake by evolutionists who not only have failed to recognize variance in human skulls but also to make the public aware of it as well.

Practically, natural selection has the following and many other inconsistencies: (a.) The natural selection process could not have the forethought to allow an organism to become worse temporarily in order to ultimately form an eye, for example. (b.) Natural selection requires that organisms began as crude, yet an organism could not have survived without basic intricate functions such as respiration and reproduction. These had to exist from the beginning of the organism. (c.) Our bodies depend on systems that run according to intricate order such as from DNA. A system dependent on order cannot be created by disorder."

maybe you should read these...

http://philjgold.home.mindspring.com/htmls/evol.html

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/equilibrium.html

http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0736_Is_Evolution_Scienti.html

"This leaves us in a position where evolution is taught as a proven fact or theory, when in actuality it is a doctrine intertwined with the philosophies of those who hold a particular humanistic world view. Evolutionist L. Harrison Matthews wrote in the Introduction of the 1971 edition of The Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin: "Evolution is the backbone of biology and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded upon an unproved theory - is it then a science of a faith?"4"

After 80 years and millions of generations of fruit flies subjected to X rays and chemicals which cause mutations, all they have been able to produce are more of the same: fruit flies.

"And—more importantly—they have all been no better or stronger, and many have been weaker. All the changes eventually reached limits that, when approached, the strains of the fruit flies grew progressively weaker and died.

"And when the mutated strains were allowed to breed for several generations, they gradually changed back to the original form.

"One experiment produced fruit flies without eyes. Yet, after a few life cycles, flies with eyes began to appear. Some kind of genetic repair mechanism took over and blocked any possibility of evolution.".-"Evolutionists Still Looking for a `Good Accident,' " Battle Cry, July-August, 1990.

restricting yourself to the claims of anothers beliefs as fact which have no concrete scientific proof, where the how's have no backing in reality, and are more often than not contradicted makes you no different than a creationist.

everything we know today is because what we thought in the past was questioned.

evolutionists of today are no different than the inquisitors of the past, trying to keep us from finding the real truth.

is your world view so sacred to you that to question it's validity is heresy?

What you think are points that you're making simply showcase your ignorance. Go take a Bioscience 100 class at your local community college.

"and when you think about an asexual organism who reproduced itself by splitting itself into two organisms, wouldn't it take a very specific sequence to make it reproduce sexually?

"a very specific sequence that not only appeared in one, but in many to keep it going.

"and this infitisimal chance just so happened to have occurred millions of times, not only to create each organism but each trait each organism has."

no... DNA replicates itself naturally. Adenine naturally bonds to Thymine and only Thymine (and vice versa); likewise with Guanine and Cytosine. This is how DNA replicates itself. The ladder splits in half, and ambient A, T, G, and C attach to the two halves, resulting in a pair of chains where there were once one. Over time, eventually random chance would make a small change (and it would only require a small one) that would cause the DNA sequence to create proteins that protected the DNA from being damaged. This would allow the DNA to survive longer and produce more copies of itself.

"yet new genes are "invented"? how is this done. how do two parents produce in it's offspring genetic information not present in either parent?"

Genes are fairly simple... they're just chains of AGCTTCGAGATTACA, etc. They're basically chemicals, and certain chemicals produce certain reactions which create certain proteins. With those four chemicals floating around in abundance, and considering that the DNA chain can be broken and reconnect in a different sequence, I don't see why you think it's implausible at all.

"it seems kind of redundant as well to have to reinvent itself if humans have sequences shared with bacteria not present in intermediary life forms."

that's because there is no intent in evolution. it occurred in the bacteria, and didn't offer any benefit that made it more likely to pass on in the intermediate life forms, happened to occur again at some point later when it was advantageous in the life form it occurred in.

"Evolutionists often have come forth and admitted their own and their colleagues' extreme degree of bias in this matter. Some have admitted that their approach has not been scientific or objective at all. Many admit to the severe lack of evidence for evolution and that they have accepted their conclutions only because they are unwilling to accept that evolution never occured. (And other final considerations.)"

This is true in all fields of science. There are good scientists and poor scientists. Want to question if the earth revolves around the sun? How about gravity? The fact that some scientists used poor methods does not detract from the findings of the scientists who used proper methods.

"Because of the lack of evidence for gradual evolution in the fossil record..."

That's largely because there aren't many fossils. For many species of dinosaur, there are very few skeletons that have been discovered, and many of these are not even complete skeletons.

Most skeletons do not fossilize, and simply decay into an unrecognizable form. Just because we haven't found them yet doesn't mean they don't exist.

"This could not produce evolution, however, since mutations do not create new genetic potential, they just alter what is already there."

That's just stupid, and simply not true. There aren't preset things that the genes can make; new sequences can create entirely new traits.

"Practically, natural selection has the following and many other inconsistencies: (a.) The natural selection process could not have the forethought to allow an organism to become worse temporarily in order to ultimately form an eye, for example. (b.) Natural selection requires that organisms began as crude, yet an organism could not have survived without basic intricate functions such as respiration and reproduction. These had to exist from the beginning of the organism. (c.) Our bodies depend on systems that run according to intricate order such as from DNA. A system dependent on order cannot be created by disorder."

This simply demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding in the process of evolution. Humans did not develop lungs. They always had them, ever since the first organism that developed them, which diverged into multiple different species which all had them. Most likely, they developed from a much simpler organ used to allow oxygen and suchlike to be absorbed, such as a simple oxygen-porous membrane. As small random changes made it work better, they developed into lungs on humans, and gills on fish. Or something to that effect.

"After 80 years and millions of generations of fruit flies subjected to X rays and chemicals which cause mutations, all they have been able to produce are more of the same: fruit flies."

This is to be expected. Without any pressure to force evolution, genetic mutations aren't going to cause evolution. If they don't offer any specific advantage, there's no reason you would see these produce anything but more fruit flies.

"...evolution is taught as a proven fact or theory, when in actuality it is a doctrine..."

Wrong. Evolution can be shown as fact (SUCK MY DICK). In two scenarios very similar to your fruit-fly scenario, we can show that evolution not only can but does happen.

First, we have house cats. They are a separate species which cannot reproduce with the wild species from which they are descended. They were bred for specific traits, and as a result we have a new species with those traits. This is a PERFECT example of evolution. Small size was advantageous because humans wanted small cats, and so the larger ones are culled from the litter while the smaller ones survive and breed, resulting in a species of small feline animals we call house cats. Humans wanted cats with long hair, so the ones with short hair were culled while the ones with long hair survived.

To pre-empt the argument that this doesn't count because it is "forced evolution", that doesn't matter in the slightest. All evolution is forced. It doesn't matter if it's a wolf killing a rabbit because it can't hop fast, or if it's a human killing a cat because it has short hair. Either way the animal is dying off because in its particular environment, a certain trait makes it more likely to die. This is the very essence of evolution.

Another example is bacteria and viruses of all stripes and colors. Both evolve at a breakneck pace, which can be witnessed not only within a human lifespan, but within just years or even months.

This is why you need a flu shot every year. New strains develop because they can infect creatures which develop immunity to older strains. Thus, the new strains are more able to reproduce.

Bacteria evolve to be resistant to antibiotics, especially if someone doesn't finish their prescription. Some bacteria aren't as effected by the antibiotics, and if you stop taking them too early, only the resistant bacteria are left to reproduce, so all you have is resistant bacteria. Fortunately, usually they are just resistant, not completely immune, so if you continue taking your antibiotics until the last pill is gone, it ensures that the resistant bacteria die as well.

Side note: FOR MANKIND'S SAKE, TAKE YOUR FUCKING ANTIBIOTICS UNTIL THE LAST PILL IS GONE! DON'T STOP JUST BECAUSE YOU FEEL BETTER! I DON'T WANT TO GET YOUR FUCKING RESISTANT DISEASE! You may feel better when the prescription is only half done, because many or most of the bacteria are dead and there aren't enough left to cause symptoms. There are still probably some left, though, and taking the pills wont hurt you.

Anyways, back to the topic at hand:

Evolution is fact. Anyone who disagrees is simply ignorant, just like those in the middle ages who wouldn't accept that the earth orbits the sun, and not vice versa.

Thanks zorro, was gonna mention that, but didn't feel like it.

I don't think many living things would be around today if they could not constantly evolve to cope with changes in environment or to exploit a plentiful food source (a hard beak or jaw to crack nuts for instance). Yes! If nuts were in large supply in an ecosystem, and there were birds who had a hard time with them, but a few of the same species who could bust nuts easily. If the food that the majority of birds ate became in short supply there would be starvation and the breeding population would go down. But not the nut buster birds, they are doing fine, now the land is full of strong jawed, big beaked nut-buster birds! They evolved an advantage! They broke on through (the nutshell).

I don't think God would be so dumb to create creatures who could not adapt, would he?

hmmm.....There is the theory that since mitochondria havce their own DNA, and were originaly symbiant with the "human cell"(at this point, the primordial ooze cell) it is POSSIBLE that the original mitochondrial beeing did not become simply an aperatus of the human untill far into their eveloution, which would signal an ability for change through binary fision ect, and perhapse this accounts for the non-congruent Mitocondria?

Interesting theory... but how does one explain the extreme distinction between races?

quote:Originally posted by zorro420:

It's really quite astonishing how little you all understand about evolution.



Nature is much more fluid, dynamic, and analog than most people realize.

[This message has been edited by zorro420 (edited 08-26-2003).]

It's really interesting how little YOU understand evolution, or to be more exact, the THEORY of evolution. You quote theorys and sub- theories in evolution to support a illogiacl thesis. You mention large mutations as conflicting with developement, but fail to mention that complex, symbiotic systems cannot be explained any other way, for example... the eye, fingernails, the ear, and you fail to mention that some evolutionist are no favoring large mutations in order to explain these defects in the evolution theory.

The only thing I can find that is actually more fluid and dynamic and more analog than nature, is the "theory" of evolution and its struggle to explain its own defects

quote:Originally posted by browncloud:

They evolved an advantage

Advantages aren't created to solve a particular environmental problem, but rather an existing trait is put to use. Those individuals that don't possess this trait are then selected out of the surviving reproductive pool.

Evolution is not teleological in nature.

quote:Originally posted by jester461:

It's really interesting how little YOU understand evolution, or to be more exact, the THEORY of evolution. You quote theorys and sub- theories in evolution to support a illogiacl thesis. You mention large mutations as conflicting with developement, but fail to mention that complex, symbiotic systems cannot be explained any other way, for example... the eye, fingernails, the ear, and you fail to mention that some evolutionist are no favoring large mutations in order to explain these defects in the evolution theory.

The only thing I can find that is actually more fluid and dynamic and more analog than nature, is the "theory" of evolution and its struggle to explain its own defects

First off, I said that a large mutation would PROBABLY have unfavorable results. It's not impossible for a large mutation to be beneficial, just extremely unlikely; however, given the extremely long time frame, in all probability there were large mutations that proved beneficial.

Second, what makes you think that eyes, fingernails, or ears would require a large, complex mutation? They wouldn't have to develop instantly as an eye, fingernail, or ear; they could develop from a much simpler form.

A creature could have a light-sensitive membrane that developed into an eye over time. I haven't researched the evolutionary history of the eye, but in all likelihood it may be something similar to what I mentioned.

There's no reason it would have to be developed all in a single mutation.

The "defects" in evolutionary theory are only misunderstandings by people who don't fully understand it.

(For example, there is no "missing link", that's a myth)

quote:Originally posted by zorro420:

First off, I said that a large mutation would PROBABLY have unfavorable results. It's not impossible for a large mutation to be beneficial, just extremely unlikely; however, given the extremely long time frame, in all probability there were large mutations that proved beneficial.

Second, what makes you think that eyes, fingernails, or ears would require a large, complex mutation? They wouldn't have to develop instantly as an eye, fingernail, or ear; they could develop from a much simpler form.

A creature could have a light-sensitive membrane that developed into an eye over time. I haven't researched the evolutionary history of the eye, but in all likelihood it may be something similar to what I mentioned.

There's no reason it would have to be developed all in a single mutation.

The "defects" in evolutionary theory are only misunderstandings by people who don't fully understand it.

(For example, there is no "missing link", that's a myth)

First let me address your second point. Secondary symbiotic relationships could develope by chance in an evolutionary sphere, case in point would be parasitic relationships , however primary symbiotic relationships cannot happen due to the basic principles of a primary symbiotic relationships, ( the eye requires a working pupil, muscles to contol it and a center in the brain to control it or the cones and rods would be destroyed by light, it also requires a optic nerve to be useful, a lens to be useful, a optic center in the brain to be useful a eye lid to protect it, muscles to control the eye lid, tear ducts, glands to secrete tears, nerves to stimulate the production of tears, a center in the brain to control tear production,nerves and pain centers on the inside of the orbital cavity to protect it I could go on and on, but I think even you get the point).These are all primary symbiotic relationships, if they dont develope at the same time, then the complex symbiotic relationship cannot form and the item is useless and according to your evolutionary therory it would die out.

As for your point that the defects "the evolutionary therory" is in it self a self defeating statement. As you clearly state " THE evolutionary"... which one do you speak of.....monkeys... ancestors cousins or non-relateds.....birds.. decendants of dinosaurs, cousins of dinosaurs, living dinosaurs. And dont make me get into the recent "sea monkey" debate. There is no evolutionary therory, there are thousands of "opinions" stemmed together, one opinion basing its own validity on another opinion. ( for example strato-dating is based on carbon dating, carbon dating is based on the theory of conformity and uniformity, and this have no regard at all for the therory of chaos or catastophe all which have their own "evidence", which all contridict and conflict.

Get your head out of the out dated "facts you learned in grade school, and get into the updated issues at hand. Yes the "myth" of the "missing link" was not an ape creature. because your theory of evolution has found out it was wrong genetically about us and apes, and now they are looking for your " missing link" as a rodent. So get your facts straight about your own therory. You didnt lose you missing link, your people get started looking for a different crytozoological creature becasue they were proven wrong about their last one.



It really sounds like you dont understand your own therory.I fully understand it, I have an higher education it it. I know exactly what it is and where it came from. This is a question for you and everyone.... why, not how, but why did darwin intitially come up with his therories?

You're stupid and don't understand the concept of evolution, so I'm not going to rehash what I wrote before.

(By the way, rods and cones wouldn't die without a brain center to control them, where the fuck would get a stupid idea like that?)

There are not separate evolutionary theories that explain the different species... there may be different theories of exactly how those evolutions progressed, but the Theory of Evolution is the postulation of a natural law that shows the process through which natural pressure causes things to continually change to better suit their environment.

This theory is indesputable. Survival of the fittest, natural selection, is rock hard, in-arguable fact. Everything else is incidental.

It's just how things work, because it's how things have to work, and they cannot work any other way.

I don't know the specific process by which eyes developed, but they developed LONG LONG before the human eye with its eyelid for protection. Eyes are present in many very different forms on just about every form of animal (I can't think of any that lack them, off the top of my head).

It's folly to try to analyze the highly complex human eye and decry the possibility of its evolution on that basis. Many animals, like insects, have far simpler eyes than humans.

As for the lens, it is not necessary for the eye. The first eye was probably just a light-sensitive cell. A rod or cone responds to light whether or not it's focused through a lens.

The first eyes were probably not even used for exactly what we use them for now.

Complex symbiotic relationships did not develop as such. They originated as very simple systems, and over time gradual modifications improved them. Just like everything else.

Like I said earlier, natural selection is as irrefutable as 1+1=2. It's just how things are.