Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Evolution

DavidJames1
Posts: 122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2012 5:16:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Hi.
I am a person that has done much research and think I can quite certainly conclude that there is a creator.
Proving creation though is not the purpose of this thread.

I just have a question that I have been pondering and was wondering if I had missed an answer for it.

It is:
What is nature? what I mean by this is what is the force that drives 'evolution?' Where do organisms get these so-called blueprints in order to develop completely new organs, limbs, etc? Since evolution is meant to be a mindless process, how does a living organism know to start developing a different type of cell which will eventually 'congregate' with other cells of the same kind, work together and thus contribute to the overall working of an organism in order to accomplish something not done before, like breathe outside of water?

I am in a bit of a quandary!
Thank you,
David
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2012 5:25:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/9/2012 5:16:54 PM, DavidJames1 wrote:
Hi.
I am a person that has done much research and think I can quite certainly conclude that there is a creator.
Proving creation though is not the purpose of this thread.

I just have a question that I have been pondering and was wondering if I had missed an answer for it.

It is:
What is nature?

Everything.

what I mean by this is what is the force that drives 'evolution?'

There is no force that drives evolution. Evolution simply happens.

Where do organisms get these so-called blueprints in order to develop completely new organs, limbs, etc?

DNA.

Since evolution is meant to be a mindless process,

Evolution isn't "meant" to be a mindless process, it simply is.

how does a living organism know to start developing a different type of cell which will eventually 'congregate' with other cells of the same kind, work together and thus contribute to the overall working of an organism in order to accomplish something not done before, like breathe outside of water?

It doesn't "know" how to do that, it just does. How that actually happens as a matter of biology is generally through the use of hormones and chronological activation of certain sequences of DNA that result in stem cell differentiation. This, of course, is all ultimately guided by DNA and the environment.


I am in a bit of a quandary!
Thank you,
David
DavidJames1
Posts: 122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2012 5:34:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/9/2012 5:25:00 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 11/9/2012 5:16:54 PM, DavidJames1 wrote:
Hi.
I am a person that has done much research and think I can quite certainly conclude that there is a creator.
Proving creation though is not the purpose of this thread.

I just have a question that I have been pondering and was wondering if I had missed an answer for it.

It is:
What is nature?

Everything.

what I mean by this is what is the force that drives 'evolution?'

There is no force that drives evolution. Evolution simply happens.

Where do organisms get these so-called blueprints in order to develop completely new organs, limbs, etc?

DNA.

Since evolution is meant to be a mindless process,

Evolution isn't "meant" to be a mindless process, it simply is.

how does a living organism know to start developing a different type of cell which will eventually 'congregate' with other cells of the same kind, work together and thus contribute to the overall working of an organism in order to accomplish something not done before, like breathe outside of water?

It doesn't "know" how to do that, it just does. How that actually happens as a matter of biology is generally through the use of hormones and chronological activation of certain sequences of DNA that result in stem cell differentiation. This, of course, is all ultimately guided by DNA and the environment.


I am in a bit of a quandary!
Thank you,
David

I am sorry that I do not find your answers a sayfisfactory explanation.
You have succeeded though in rewording my rather badly written questions.
For this I must thank you!
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2012 5:35:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/9/2012 5:34:15 PM, DavidJames1 wrote:
At 11/9/2012 5:25:00 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 11/9/2012 5:16:54 PM, DavidJames1 wrote:
Hi.
I am a person that has done much research and think I can quite certainly conclude that there is a creator.
Proving creation though is not the purpose of this thread.

I just have a question that I have been pondering and was wondering if I had missed an answer for it.

It is:
What is nature?

Everything.

what I mean by this is what is the force that drives 'evolution?'

There is no force that drives evolution. Evolution simply happens.

Where do organisms get these so-called blueprints in order to develop completely new organs, limbs, etc?

DNA.

Since evolution is meant to be a mindless process,

Evolution isn't "meant" to be a mindless process, it simply is.

how does a living organism know to start developing a different type of cell which will eventually 'congregate' with other cells of the same kind, work together and thus contribute to the overall working of an organism in order to accomplish something not done before, like breathe outside of water?

It doesn't "know" how to do that, it just does. How that actually happens as a matter of biology is generally through the use of hormones and chronological activation of certain sequences of DNA that result in stem cell differentiation. This, of course, is all ultimately guided by DNA and the environment.


I am in a bit of a quandary!
Thank you,
David

I am sorry that I do not find your answers a sayfisfactory explanation.
You have succeeded though in rewording my rather badly written questions.
For this I must thank you!

I didn't reword anything you said. If my answers aren't to your liking, you'll have to explain why and provide more specifics.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2012 5:54:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Ooooh, you've done research. You must be very wise. Please, divulge to me more about the ways of the world, oh knowledgeable one.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2012 5:56:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
You do realize that doing research to convince yourself of a malevolent being is the antithesis of the whole point, right?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Wulfyn
Posts: 33
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2012 7:35:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Organisms get their blueprint from a simple mechanical process. A blueprint is information that allows you to create a physical representation of the information held. We know that information is held in DNA and RNA through a simple 4-code molecular pattern. Everything we know about DNA is entirely mechanical.

In order for an organism to be different to its predecessor it is necessary that the information is different. We know that this occurs because the DNA is different in an organism to its parent organism. Change has occurred.

This is the step that is seen as 'random', mostly because the gametes of each parent are somewhat a lottery, but it is not really totally random. After all a dog cannot give birth to a non-dog. So the information of the parents are mostly passed down in an intact way, with the differences being quite minor.

The big driving force of evolution is competition. That is to say that those organisms that are better suited to reproduce are more likely to reproduce and therefore will reproduce more often. It does not matter whether this adaptability is based mainly on evasion of early death (through predation or disease), ability to acquire resources (namely food), or ability to attract and control mating rights. As long as the net product results in some increased chance of reproduction then the above statement holds and that organism will be more successful in passing its information on to the next generation that its competitors.

And note that in this case competitors mainly means competitors of the same species. Whichever organisms are more successful in producing offspring will have more of their information in the next generation. But remember that these are not perfect copies. This way small changes that occur due to the imperfection of the copy will be more likely to be passed on IF such a change confers an advantage to the chance of creating offspring for that organism. The converse is true - any change that results in a lower chance to produce offspring will reduce its proliferation.

Thereby through a succession of iterations small changes, if advantageous will stick around and small changes if disadvantageous will be reduced. The driving force is purely in the proliferation of information, as encoded in DNA/RNA.
DavidJames1
Posts: 122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2012 5:37:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The big driving force of evolution is competition. That is to say that those organisms that are better suited to reproduce are more likely to reproduce and therefore will reproduce more often. It does not matter whether this adaptability is based mainly on evasion of early death (through predation or disease), ability to acquire resources (namely food), or ability to attract and control mating rights. As long as the net product results in some increased chance of reproduction then the above statement holds and that organism will be more successful in passing its information on to the next generation that its competitors.

This is one more point I am confused about.
If a certain species of plant is 'predated' (I hope I have used the word correctly) by a certain animal and dies, how does another plant know to evolve some sort of defense against something that has never happened to it? I thought the process of evolution was supposed to take millions of years. Wouldn't the line of creatures have become extinct because of not getting enought food, etc, before it would have had chance to evolve into something that could cope with whatever situation?
If an animal has died, how would it know to evolve a defense to something it has never experienced? Does an antelope, while being killed send out a signal to tell the other antelope to start off this process so that, provided they don't all get eaten, their descendants 50'000 years down the line can portect themselves against the attack of whatever animal attacked it?

I cannot wrap my head around it.

Also, take lungs for example. How does a creature with gills develop lungs?
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2012 7:12:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/10/2012 5:37:03 PM, DavidJames1 wrote:
The big driving force of evolution is competition. That is to say that those organisms that are better suited to reproduce are more likely to reproduce and therefore will reproduce more often. It does not matter whether this adaptability is based mainly on evasion of early death (through predation or disease), ability to acquire resources (namely food), or ability to attract and control mating rights. As long as the net product results in some increased chance of reproduction then the above statement holds and that organism will be more successful in passing its information on to the next generation that its competitors.

This is one more point I am confused about.
If a certain species of plant is 'predated' (I hope I have used the word correctly) by a certain animal and dies, how does another plant know to evolve some sort of defense against something that has never happened to it?

It doesn't because evolution doesn't happen to individual organisms. Evolution applies to groups of organisms.

I thought the process of evolution was supposed to take millions of years.

Nope. Every time an genetic duplication with modification happens, evolution is happening.

Wouldn't the line of creatures have become extinct because of not getting enought food, etc, before it would have had chance to evolve into something that could cope with whatever situation?

Happens all the time when it's existing traits are unable to cope with the situation. 95% of all species are extinct. So long as some remain to reproduce, evolution happens.

If an animal has died, how would it know to evolve a defense to something it has never experienced?

Stop using the word "know" when it comes to evolution. You're making yourself look foolish.

Does an antelope, while being killed send out a signal to tell the other antelope to start off this process so that, provided they don't all get eaten, their descendants 50'000 years down the line can portect themselves against the attack of whatever animal attacked it?

Nope. That's not how evolution happens. Where, in your immense research that you say you did, did you read that that's how evolution happened? What books have you read on the subject, exactly?


I cannot wrap my head around it.

Also, take lungs for example. How does a creature with gills develop lungs?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2012 8:43:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Basically, think if a single animal has 1,000 offspring. Not all the children will have identical genes. To simplify, let's say the 1,000 offspring, 500 have gene set A and 500 have gene set B (though really, every child will be a little unique).

In the course of life, 400 from set A fail to reproduce (either by death, or not attracting a mate) and 100 from set B fail to reproduce. If all reproducers have 1,000 offspring each, then A will only have 100,000 offspring, while B will have 400,000 offspring. If B is a better set, then A will die out and leave only B. Eventually, other genetic variations will form and be tested. Those that do not help will die out, those that do help will thrive.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Muted
Posts: 377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2012 11:49:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
You must understand that evolution is small incremental addition that adds up to a large change. Organisms can actually adapt very fast. There is something called selective pressure that is the main "driving force" behind all of these changes. These changes, however, are not directed in any particular direction. They go in any and all directions. DNA randomly mutates and frequently we find that there is a copying mistake that produces a new limb, organ, etc. If it is beneficial to the organism, that it is retained. If it is not, the trait would most likely die out. The cells do not know at all. They simply do.

(I"m a creationist, but I hope I"ve answered your questions correctly from a correct point of view :D)
Exterminate!!!!!!-Dalek.

The ability to speak does not make you a competent debater.

One does not simply do the rain dance.
Wulfyn
Posts: 33
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2012 3:52:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/10/2012 5:37:03 PM, DavidJames1 wrote:
If a certain species of plant is 'predated' (I hope I have used the word correctly) by a certain animal and dies, how does another plant know to evolve some sort of defense against something that has never happened to it?

It doesn't - there is no communal knowledge. It happens because there is variation in the species and the ones with good traits are more likely to reproduce than the ones with bad traits. Then these good traits are passed along, again with a slight variation. Once again the good traits are passed on and this iterative process results in a net rate increase of good traits.

There are 2 ways I will try to explain this - a mathematical example and a real world example.

Maths:
Imagine that you have 36 people in a line each with a number of tokens in their hand. At the start of the game each person either has 1, 2 or 3 tokens. A judge starts at one end of the line and rolls a single die for the first person. If the die has a number higher than the number of tokens then that person is eliminated.

1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3

So although the result is random for each individual (with even a 1 token being able to survive and a 3 token being able to be eliminated) the number of tokens alters the chance of you being eliminated - I'm sure you'd agree that you would rather have 3 tokens!

So assuming we have 12 people with 1 token, 12 people with 2 tokens and 12 people with 3 tokens we'd expect 1/6 of 1 token players to survive (=2), 1/3 of 2 token players to survive (=3), and 1/2 of 3 token players to survive (=6).

1 - 1 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3

The average number of tokens is:
Before -> (1x12 + 2x12 + 3x12) / 36 = 2
After -> (1x2 + 2x4 + 3x6) / 12 = 2.333

So this demonstrats how the net average of the tokens has increased.

After this first round each surviving person passes their tokens on to the next round. Each surviving person will have 3 new people stand in front of them forming a new line. The rule on passing tokens is that each new person will be given as many tokens as the surviving player they are stood next to but will randomly be assigned either 1 additional token, no change, or 1 less token. A new round of the game is played with just the people of the new line.

(Stood next)
1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3
0 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 2 - 1 - 1 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 3 - 3 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 4 - 4 - 4
(randomly assigned +1/0/-1 token)

Feel free to continue with playing this game yourself. Just stick to the same rules and see how the players will increase in tokens at each successive step.

(The players represent individuals in a species, the die represent competition, elimination means death before reproduction, the token change passed on is heritability, and the random change of token is variation).

For a real world example we can look at drug resistant bacteria. In the UK there is a problem with MRSA, known as the hospital superbug. Although MRSA is generally as susceptible to being killed by antibiotics and disinfectants as any other bacteria there is a variation within the species that makes a very small number of them naturally resistant. As the hospital is cleaned then the MRSA bacteria will be killed, but the resistant ones are more likely to survive. They then reproduce passing on this resistance to the next generation. Note that there was no communication by the killed bacteria to the living ones to get them to become resistant, they already were.

So the next generation is more resistant than the first because that resistance has been passed on to them. Through a series of iterations (that only takes a few years because bacteria generations are pretty short) then the net increase of resistance is much greater. This is why they are known as drug resistant. And this is a real thing that has happened.

I thought the process of evolution was supposed to take millions of years. Wouldn't the line of creatures have become extinct because of not getting enought food, etc, before it would have had chance to evolve into something that could cope with whatever situation?

Sometimes yes, absolutely. Many species live in the same environment and compete with each other. This causes a sort of arms race between the two. As long as each species is evolving at roughly the same rate as the others then enough of that species will survive, and because the better ones will survive more often that propels them ahead in the arms race as well. Evolution can occur over millions of years when there is stability like this in an environment.

But sometimes things will happen that an organism has absolutely no time to adapt to. A new species being introduced can out compete with the existing species before they can adapt (see red vs grey squirrels), an environmental change can force a species out of its adapted habitat where is cannot survive (see rainforest destruction and ice ages), or a cataclysmic event can change the game completely (see loss of the dinosaurs). Evolutionary history is rife with mass extinction events because of just the thing that you have said - but generally there are other organisms to pick up and fill the gap.

If an animal has died, how would it know to evolve a defense to something it has never experienced? Does an antelope, while being killed send out a signal to tell the other antelope to start off this process so that, provided they don't all get eaten, their descendants 50'000 years down the line can portect themselves against the attack of whatever animal attacked it?

It does not. Similarly an animal that has survived an attack will not develop new defences because of the experience. This is called Lamarckian evolution, and although it does occur in things like passing information down from human generation to human generation, it does not occur as part of normal biological evolution.

What happens is that the antelopes betters suited to surviving (strong, faster, jumps higher, bigger antlers, etc) will survive and the others will die. The attributes that caused the higher survival rate will then be passed down. If an animal dies before it reproduces then the chain ends and that information is lost forever.

And for me this is a humbling point. Every time you see a young animal being killed before it has passed on - that was never you, that was never part of your history. Every single one of your ancestors 'won'. From the beginnings of life to you there is an unbroken chain of success. Over billions of years the information that makes you has fought and has won that fight. Every living thing you see around you is the inheritor of millions of years of success.


I cannot wrap my head around it.

Also, take lungs for example. How does a creature with gills develop lungs?

Remember that all fish do use oxygen for respiration, regardless of the mechanism. It is thought that lungs developed from a pocket connected to the digestive system that allowed fish to swallow air. This would be very useful if the water had low levels of oxygen solubility because it means that any animal relying purely on gills would be sluggish and any that could swallow air and then take in that oxygen through their digestive system would be more energetic and more likely to survive.

After that all you need is for some organisms to be naturally better at doing this and from that specialised regions can develop. A patch of digestive tract could be perfuse to oxygen and this would be passed down. Even if inefficient it could be advantageous if soluble oxygen was low. The process is not well understood at this time, but in h
DavidJames1
Posts: 122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2012 5:39:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/11/2012 3:52:52 AM, Wulfyn wrote:
At 11/10/2012 5:37:03 PM, DavidJames1 wrote:
If a certain species of plant is 'predated' (I hope I have used the word correctly) by a certain animal and dies, how does another plant know to evolve some sort of defense against something that has never happened to it?

It doesn't - there is no communal knowledge. It happens because there is variation in the species and the ones with good traits are more likely to reproduce than the ones with bad traits. Then these good traits are passed along, again with a slight variation. Once again the good traits are passed on and this iterative process results in a net rate increase of good traits.

There are 2 ways I will try to explain this - a mathematical example and a real world example.

Maths:
Imagine that you have 36 people in a line each with a number of tokens in their hand. At the start of the game each person either has 1, 2 or 3 tokens. A judge starts at one end of the line and rolls a single die for the first person. If the die has a number higher than the number of tokens then that person is eliminated.

1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3

So although the result is random for each individual (with even a 1 token being able to survive and a 3 token being able to be eliminated) the number of tokens alters the chance of you being eliminated - I'm sure you'd agree that you would rather have 3 tokens!

So assuming we have 12 people with 1 token, 12 people with 2 tokens and 12 people with 3 tokens we'd expect 1/6 of 1 token players to survive (=2), 1/3 of 2 token players to survive (=3), and 1/2 of 3 token players to survive (=6).

1 - 1 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3

The average number of tokens is:
Before -> (1x12 + 2x12 + 3x12) / 36 = 2
After -> (1x2 + 2x4 + 3x6) / 12 = 2.333

So this demonstrats how the net average of the tokens has increased.


After this first round each surviving person passes their tokens on to the next round. Each surviving person will have 3 new people stand in front of them forming a new line. The rule on passing tokens is that each new person will be given as many tokens as the surviving player they are stood next to but will randomly be assigned either 1 additional token, no change, or 1 less token. A new round of the game is played with just the people of the new line.

(Stood next)
1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3
0 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 2 - 1 - 1 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 3 - 3 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 4 - 4 - 4
(randomly assigned +1/0/-1 token)

Feel free to continue with playing this game yourself. Just stick to the same rules and see how the players will increase in tokens at each successive step.

(The players represent individuals in a species, the die represent competition, elimination means death before reproduction, the token change passed on is heritability, and the random change of token is variation).


For a real world example we can look at drug resistant bacteria. In the UK there is a problem with MRSA, known as the hospital superbug. Although MRSA is generally as susceptible to being killed by antibiotics and disinfectants as any other bacteria there is a variation within the species that makes a very small number of them naturally resistant. As the hospital is cleaned then the MRSA bacteria will be killed, but the resistant ones are more likely to survive. They then reproduce passing on this resistance to the next generation. Note that there was no communication by the killed bacteria to the living ones to get them to become resistant, they already were.

So the next generation is more resistant than the first because that resistance has been passed on to them. Through a series of iterations (that only takes a few years because bacteria generations are pretty short) then the net increase of resistance is much greater. This is why they are known as drug resistant. And this is a real thing that has happened.


I thought the process of evolution was supposed to take millions of years. Wouldn't the line of creatures have become extinct because of not getting enought food, etc, before it would have had chance to evolve into something that could cope with whatever situation?

Sometimes yes, absolutely. Many species live in the same environment and compete with each other. This causes a sort of arms race between the two. As long as each species is evolving at roughly the same rate as the others then enough of that species will survive, and because the better ones will survive more often that propels them ahead in the arms race as well. Evolution can occur over millions of years when there is stability like this in an environment.

But sometimes things will happen that an organism has absolutely no time to adapt to. A new species being introduced can out compete with the existing species before they can adapt (see red vs grey squirrels), an environmental change can force a species out of its adapted habitat where is cannot survive (see rainforest destruction and ice ages), or a cataclysmic event can change the game completely (see loss of the dinosaurs). Evolutionary history is rife with mass extinction events because of just the thing that you have said - but generally there are other organisms to pick up and fill the gap.

For the purpose of typing a reply, I have had to erase a lot of your information otherwise I wouldn't be able to write anything!

Firstly, I undersatnd natural selection in the way you have described. That the fittest animals ususally survive thus passing their stronger genes to the next generation.

This does not, however, mean that things start developing in the organism, like lungs in a fish, because those genes are not there to begin with!

What I would like to know is where is this information (genetic information) obtained that allows for the contruction of a completely different type of organ. This has not been observed and thus cannot be said, conslusively, to have happened.

I understand that there is variation within a group of animals, I only have to think of the examples of dogs, for instance. They are all part of the same animal 'kind.' But the genetic material that makes up the DNA of dogs does not have information in it that one day, one dog might be born with a pair of wings!
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2012 6:45:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
What I would like to know is where is this information (genetic information) obtained that allows for the contruction of a completely different type of organ. This has not been observed and thus cannot be said, conslusively, to have happened.

Mutations.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2012 8:32:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/9/2012 5:34:15 PM, DavidJames1 wrote:
At 11/9/2012 5:25:00 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 11/9/2012 5:16:54 PM, DavidJames1 wrote:
Hi.
I am a person that has done much research and think I can quite certainly conclude that there is a creator.
Proving creation though is not the purpose of this thread.

I just have a question that I have been pondering and was wondering if I had missed an answer for it.

It is:
What is nature?

Everything.

what I mean by this is what is the force that drives 'evolution?'

There is no force that drives evolution. Evolution simply happens.

Where do organisms get these so-called blueprints in order to develop completely new organs, limbs, etc?

DNA.

Since evolution is meant to be a mindless process,

Evolution isn't "meant" to be a mindless process, it simply is.

how does a living organism know to start developing a different type of cell which will eventually 'congregate' with other cells of the same kind, work together and thus contribute to the overall working of an organism in order to accomplish something not done before, like breathe outside of water?

It doesn't "know" how to do that, it just does. How that actually happens as a matter of biology is generally through the use of hormones and chronological activation of certain sequences of DNA that result in stem cell differentiation. This, of course, is all ultimately guided by DNA and the environment.


I am in a bit of a quandary!
Thank you,
David

I am sorry that I do not find your answers a sayfisfactory explanation.
You have succeeded though in rewording my rather badly written questions.
For this I must thank you!

Most people who accept abiogenesis and Darwinism know next to nothing about it in my experience. The general public have been misled into both making and accepting - uncritically - pseudo "explanations" for stuff that actually explains nothing at all. The simplistic and misleading "explanations" we are bombarded with in the media and press and education are now routinely accepted without question by an uncritical public who take it for granted the "experts" are always correct.

Drafterman was correct though to refer to DNA - When a cell reproduces the cells require DNA to serve as the directive data store in the building of protein molecules, these protein molecules are assembled and manipulated (actually geometrically reshaped) and used to then assemble another cell, a copy of the original DNA is also made and is present in the created (reproduced) cell.

The process is astounding - I design complex multithreaded software for a living that runs on machines with large numbers of cores, lots of stuff happening at the same time etc - the sophistication of cell protein synthesis is stunning by comparison.

We have no evidence at all that unaided nature can elicit such mechanisms from non living material and there are many powerful arguments that suggest it is not possible (just look at Chirality for example).

Here is a small CGI clip summarizing just a tiny part of what goes on inside a cell:

Harry.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2012 8:40:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/10/2012 7:12:49 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 11/10/2012 5:37:03 PM, DavidJames1 wrote:
The big driving force of evolution is competition. That is to say that those organisms that are better suited to reproduce are more likely to reproduce and therefore will reproduce more often. It does not matter whether this adaptability is based mainly on evasion of early death (through predation or disease), ability to acquire resources (namely food), or ability to attract and control mating rights. As long as the net product results in some increased chance of reproduction then the above statement holds and that organism will be more successful in passing its information on to the next generation that its competitors.

This is one more point I am confused about.
If a certain species of plant is 'predated' (I hope I have used the word correctly) by a certain animal and dies, how does another plant know to evolve some sort of defense against something that has never happened to it?

It doesn't because evolution doesn't happen to individual organisms. Evolution applies to groups of organisms.

I thought the process of evolution was supposed to take millions of years.

Nope. Every time an genetic duplication with modification happens, evolution is happening.


This is simply untrue - cell reproduction is NOT evolution - the trick "cell reproduction happens therefore evolution happens" is an example of the kind of trickery we are bombarded with regularly - it is quite simply - wrong. Evolution claims that new species and new phyla can arise as a possible side effect of reproduction when combined with random DNA mutations (errors during the transcript phase).

Adaptation does indeed occur - moths, birds etc are known to change over time as environmental changes do effect a selective process, but this is simply adaptation not the generation of new species or phyla.

Wouldn't the line of creatures have become extinct because of not getting enought food, etc, before it would have had chance to evolve into something that could cope with whatever situation?

Happens all the time when it's existing traits are unable to cope with the situation. 95% of all species are extinct. So long as some remain to reproduce, evolution happens.

If an animal has died, how would it know to evolve a defense to something it has never experienced?

Stop using the word "know" when it comes to evolution. You're making yourself look foolish.

Does an antelope, while being killed send out a signal to tell the other antelope to start off this process so that, provided they don't all get eaten, their descendants 50'000 years down the line can portect themselves against the attack of whatever animal attacked it?

Nope. That's not how evolution happens. Where, in your immense research that you say you did, did you read that that's how evolution happened? What books have you read on the subject, exactly?


I cannot wrap my head around it.

Also, take lungs for example. How does a creature with gills develop lungs?
Wulfyn
Posts: 33
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2012 11:00:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/11/2012 5:39:01 AM, DavidJames1 wrote:
For the purpose of typing a reply, I have had to erase a lot of your information otherwise I wouldn't be able to write anything!

Good idea! :)

Firstly, I undersatnd natural selection in the way you have described. That the fittest animals ususally survive thus passing their stronger genes to the next generation.

This does not, however, mean that things start developing in the organism, like lungs in a fish, because those genes are not there to begin with!

I agree - the process of natural selection and of genetic variation are completely independent. One does not depend upon the other. The process for genetic variation is quite different.

There is a common misconception however that genes form a 1 to 1 relationship with apparent attributes. It is not as simple as having a gene that creates your eyes and another for wings and another for skin colour. So if this is your understanding then it is entirely rational to think that a creature cannot adapt because it cannot just get the "wing gene". Genes are generally much smaller impacting and more fundamental than that.

So an organism will have a set of genes that code to make the smooth muscle that forms a digestive tract. There will also be other genes that code how exactly those cells respond to chemicals that they come into contact with, so let's say there is a gene that, amongst any other job it might have, can change the composition of a cell to make it more or less permeable to oxygen. There are also hosts of other genes that control which of the other genes are activated and which are unused.

Variations in the genes that control the permeability of oxygen and the structure of the digestive tract could result in a patch of smooth muscle becoming very oxygen permeable and then for that patch of cells to start forming a dent, then a tube and then a sac. Note that for this no new genes are needed, simply a slight change in the function/activation of existing genes.

What I would like to know is where is this information (genetic information) obtained that allows for the contruction of a completely different type of organ. This has not been observed and thus cannot be said, conslusively, to have happened.

The problem here is in the term "completely different" because you are thinking about the function and not the structure of the organs. Most organs, at their simplest, are just slight variations that then become better and more specific at their role.

For example digestion could first occur when chemicals important to a cell are close to it. Genes that code for enzymes that can permeate the cell wall can break down complex molecules presenting a richer food source for the cell. When the organism becomes multicellular it could form a sheet that would increase its surface area , thereby increasing food. After that it could form a tube because the interior of the tube would have a greater concentration of the digestive enzymes meaning it had to spend less energy producing them. This tube would then form the basic digestive tract as the organism became more complex.

Parts of the tube could then become more specialised, for example it is more efficient to produce the enymes at the start of the tract and then have more absorbing cells later (why spend energy on digestive enzymes right at the end?). It then becomes more efficient to hold the food at the beginning for longer as you need less enzymes if you have more time so the formation of the tube expands to form a sac called the stomach. After this the same process as described above to form the lungs could happen.

I understand that there is variation within a group of animals, I only have to think of the examples of dogs, for instance. They are all part of the same animal 'kind.' But the genetic material that makes up the DNA of dogs does not have information in it that one day, one dog might be born with a pair of wings!

Again you are right - evolution does not stipulate that a dog will just one day be born with a pair of wings, if that were the case then evolution could not exist. The problem with this line of reasoning is what exactly is an animal 'kind'?

This may sound simple, but if variations can occur then what causes that variation to stop? At what point does the DNA of an animal suddenly say "oh hang on if I carry on in this direction soon I'll stop resembling a dog"? The answer is that nothing causes this variation to stop.

So if you have a population of a species and you split it into 2 groups and you move those groups away from each other then variation in both groups will continue. The variation also will not be exactly the same as there is no psychic connection to make it happen, and if there are environmental differences then it is very likely that each group will adapt to its own environment. Eventually the variations will get to a point where the 2 groups will no longer be able to interbreed - thus no longer being the same kind of animal.

Not all this sounds well and good but we've not actually seen it happen have we? Well actually we have. There are some groups of animals that are called ring species. What happens is that an orginating parent species will start to spread in 2 different directions. Over time variations occur in the organisms that have spread, and 2 new subspecies of the original will exist. They are the same 'kind' as they can still breed with the original species. However the end species spread again and variation again kicks in, but the new subspecies can still breed with the one it just came from. The spreading then gets to a point where the two ends meet, like a ring - however the 2 subspecies at the ends that meet are not able to breed; they are a different species. So although they are quite closely related they are not the same species, but they can be traced to each other through a succession of other animals which can interbreed. So that shows that over time variations can continue until 2 animal groups are no longer the same kind.
jh1234l
Posts: 580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 6:34:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/10/2012 7:12:49 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 11/10/2012 5:37:03 PM, DavidJames1 wrote:
The big driving force of evolution is competition. That is to say that those organisms that are better suited to reproduce are more likely to reproduce and therefore will reproduce more often. It does not matter whether this adaptability is based mainly on evasion of early death (through predation or disease), ability to acquire resources (namely food), or ability to attract and control mating rights. As long as the net product results in some increased chance of reproduction then the above statement holds and that organism will be more successful in passing its information on to the next generation that its competitors.

This is one more point I am confused about.
If a certain species of plant is 'predated' (I hope I have used the word correctly) by a certain animal and dies, how does another plant know to evolve some sort of defense against something that has never happened to it?

It doesn't because evolution doesn't happen to individual organisms. Evolution applies to groups of organisms.

I thought the process of evolution was supposed to take millions of years.

Nope. Every time an genetic duplication with modification happens, evolution is happening.

Just to clarify, what drafterman was referring to is micro evolution, Macro evolution is simply micro evolution x indefinite time.


Wouldn't the line of creatures have become extinct because of not getting enought food, etc, before it would have had chance to evolve into something that could cope with whatever situation?

Happens all the time when it's existing traits are unable to cope with the situation. 95% of all species are extinct. So long as some remain to reproduce, evolution happens.

If an animal has died, how would it know to evolve a defense to something it has never experienced?

Stop using the word "know" when it comes to evolution. You're making yourself look foolish.

Does an antelope, while being killed send out a signal to tell the other antelope to start off this process so that, provided they don't all get eaten, their descendants 50'000 years down the line can portect themselves against the attack of whatever animal attacked it?

Nope. That's not how evolution happens. Where, in your immense research that you say you did, did you read that that's how evolution happened? What books have you read on the subject, exactly?


I cannot wrap my head around it.

Also, take lungs for example. How does a creature with gills develop lungs?
My political compass:
Economic Left/Right: -1.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.82
1 square right of Nelson Mandela, 2 squares down from Francois Hollande
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 7:46:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/9/2012 5:16:54 PM, DavidJames1 wrote:
Hi.
I am a person that has done much research and think I can quite certainly conclude that there is a creator.
Proving creation though is not the purpose of this thread.

I just have a question that I have been pondering and was wondering if I had missed an answer for it.

It is:
What is nature? what I mean by this is what is the force that drives 'evolution?' Where do organisms get these so-called blueprints in order to develop completely new organs, limbs, etc? Since evolution is meant to be a mindless process, how does a living organism know to start developing a different type of cell which will eventually 'congregate' with other cells of the same kind, work together and thus contribute to the overall working of an organism in order to accomplish something not done before, like breathe outside of water?

I am in a bit of a quandary!
Thank you,
David

Im going to try and start at the beginning and work forward. I am assuming you are asking the questions for legitimate reasons :)

Firstly, life forms replicate, but the replication process has errors. Or as evolution theory calls them 'mutations'. Most mutations do nothing, some end up killing the organism, others give it a slightly different characteristic. Taller, longer legs, etc.

Things that work well outcompete those that don't meaning that the next set of replications has more of a particular error than others. In time, in a given ecosystem or wherever, that error will eventually become dominant.

So, that's the basics.

Now, for more complicate things. Nothing in nature and evolution 'magics' itself into existance. What I mean by this is that you will never see we a feature with a mutation that magically gives it gills where there were none before. The changes are normally subtle.

In the case of lungs, many fish have what is called a 'swim bladder', which is a small sack that stems off from the stomach that fills with gas so that fish can maintain their boyancy.

We also see various types of lungfish, that have no swim bladder, but instead have rather primitive lungs in the same place.

In this case, the ancestor of the lungfish most likely had a mutation that allowed the surface of the bladder to be slightly air permeable. This would have given it a massive advantage for creatures that lived in shallow pools or near the shire, as it would have been able to survive for slightly longer out of water. After this, selection takes over and with small incremental Changes over hundreds and hundreds of millions of years, you get something more akin to our lungs.

In this respect in all life we see around us, there is very little that cannot be explained by such tiny changes over time.
slo1
Posts: 4,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2013 12:01:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/11/2012 8:40:44 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:

Adaptation does indeed occur - moths, birds etc are known to change over time as environmental changes do effect a selective process, but this is simply adaptation not the generation of new species or phyla.


So you are saying a moth can have the dna changed to create a different color or pattern on its wings via evolutionary process, but it can not have its dna changed so it becomes unable to reproduce with other moths via evolutionary process.

Seems a rather random distinction, especially considering both are functions of DNA.

Also keep in mind "species" is a human construct used to group living organisms in a logical categories. Just because it is easier to understand a wing color changing via evolution does not mean more complex changes are not possible, especially when you get situations where populations become split off from each other and live in entirely different environments over time.
slo1
Posts: 4,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2013 12:10:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
There is only one way possible to solve this debate. It involves 100,000 years and putting people on an island where anyone over 5ft - 4 inches gets killed because there is a poisonous layer of acid gas at 5'4" ft and above.

We need an island, some volunteers under 5'4", and lots of poisonous gas. Who's in?
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2013 4:11:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/3/2013 12:10:55 PM, slo1 wrote:
There is only one way possible to solve this debate. It involves 100,000 years and putting people on an island where anyone over 5ft - 4 inches gets killed because there is a poisonous layer of acid gas at 5'4" ft and above.

We need an island, some volunteers under 5'4", and lots of poisonous gas. Who's in?

Or...we could use bacteria...
Muted
Posts: 377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2013 4:57:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/3/2013 4:11:33 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/3/2013 12:10:55 PM, slo1 wrote:
There is only one way possible to solve this debate. It involves 100,000 years and putting people on an island where anyone over 5ft - 4 inches gets killed because there is a poisonous layer of acid gas at 5'4" ft and above.

We need an island, some volunteers under 5'4", and lots of poisonous gas. Who's in?

Or...we could use bacteria...

In and of itself, this experiment would not prove evolution. The change in phenotype of a population does not in itself demonstrate evolution. There has to be some other better experiments.
Exterminate!!!!!!-Dalek.

The ability to speak does not make you a competent debater.

One does not simply do the rain dance.
slo1
Posts: 4,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2013 10:17:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/4/2013 4:57:04 AM, Muted wrote:
At 1/3/2013 4:11:33 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/3/2013 12:10:55 PM, slo1 wrote:
There is only one way possible to solve this debate. It involves 100,000 years and putting people on an island where anyone over 5ft - 4 inches gets killed because there is a poisonous layer of acid gas at 5'4" ft and above.

We need an island, some volunteers under 5'4", and lots of poisonous gas. Who's in?

Or...we could use bacteria...

In and of itself, this experiment would not prove evolution. The change in phenotype of a population does not in itself demonstrate evolution. There has to be some other better experiments.

Random mutations for 100,000 years on an isolated populations in a unique environment split off from the original population of organisms, what more do you want?

Not to mention any 100,000 year experiment, of course there has to be something better. lol
Imagination
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2013 5:02:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/10/2012 5:37:03 PM, DavidJames1 wrote:
The big driving force of evolution is competition. That is to say that those organisms that are better suited to reproduce are more likely to reproduce and therefore will reproduce more often. It does not matter whether this adaptability is based mainly on evasion of early death (through predation or disease), ability to acquire resources (namely food), or ability to attract and control mating rights. As long as the net product results in some increased chance of reproduction then the above statement holds and that organism will be more successful in passing its information on to the next generation that its competitors.

This is one more point I am confused about.
If a certain species of plant is 'predated' (I hope I have used the word correctly) by a certain animal and dies, how does another plant know to evolve some sort of defense against something that has never happened to it?

If an animal has died, how would it know to evolve a defense to something it has never experienced? Does an antelope, while being killed send out a signal to tell the other antelope to start off this process so that, provided they don't all get eaten, their descendants 50'000 years down the line can portect themselves against the attack of whatever animal attacked it?

EVOLUTION IS NOT CONSCIOUS. Nothing makes a conscious choice to evolve.

Evolution works indirectly through genes. If you had done research you ought to have encountered this fact.

This is a good example of how evolution works.

Brown bears move to arctic regions. After several million years they have evolved into white-furred bears -- polar bears.

Brown fur contrasts too strikingly with the white environment. Prey is startled easily and more difficult to catch.

== MISINTERPRETATION ==

Brown bears that starved because they couldn't catch enough prey sent out signals to other bears that it was time to become white-furred. Other bears then promptly decided to become white-furred.

== EVOLUTION ==

Not all brown bears are the exact same shade of brown. There are variations.

Let's assume Light Brown Bear mates with Dark Brown Bear and begets two cubs: a Light Brown Bear and a Dark Brown Bear. The DBB starves at an early age because he cannot acquire prey and thus produces no offspring. The LBB lives because he was more successful at hunting prey. This is called survival of the fittest.

If this LB bear finds a LBB female to mate with, the genetic likelihood of the cubs having light brown fur is far higher. Because LBBs survive better, there is a greater likelihood that the LBB will encounter another adult LBB than an adult DBB.

In this case, natural selection is rooting out dark fur colors. With every generation of bear, lighter fur is genetically reinforced. Eventually, after many generations of interbreeding, you get white-furred bears.

Then there are MUTATIONS. This is an enormously rough explanation. Sometimes, when a genetic code is copied onto offspring, there's an error in transcription, and the offspring mutates. Such as, being two-headed in an extreme case, or having no tail. FAVORABLE mutations may become separate species because they help the organism survive, so there's a greater chance that favorably mutated organism will encounter and reproduce with an adult with the same mutation to make offspring.

If there was an albinistic brown bear, such a mutation could dramatically speed up the process of evolution.

Natural selection does not select FOR certain traits, instead it ELIMINATES traits that diminish an organism's chance of survival, thereby indirectly resulting in the prevalence of traits that increase an organism's chance of survival.

Most, most, most, most, most importantly, EVOLUTION IS NOT CONSCIOUS.
"And if reality doesn't fit the discrete labels we invent to describe it?" --drafterman
Muted
Posts: 377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2013 5:55:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/4/2013 10:17:07 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/4/2013 4:57:04 AM, Muted wrote:
At 1/3/2013 4:11:33 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/3/2013 12:10:55 PM, slo1 wrote:
There is only one way possible to solve this debate. It involves 100,000 years and putting people on an island where anyone over 5ft - 4 inches gets killed because there is a poisonous layer of acid gas at 5'4" ft and above.

We need an island, some volunteers under 5'4", and lots of poisonous gas. Who's in?

Or...we could use bacteria...

In and of itself, this experiment would not prove evolution. The change in phenotype of a population does not in itself demonstrate evolution. There has to be some other better experiments.

Random mutations for 100,000 years on an isolated populations in a unique environment split off from the original population of organisms, what more do you want?


This will lead to the genetic degradation of that populace. See my debate on mutations and extinction.

Not to mention any 100,000 year experiment, of course there has to be something better. lol
Exterminate!!!!!!-Dalek.

The ability to speak does not make you a competent debater.

One does not simply do the rain dance.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2013 2:17:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/6/2013 5:55:31 PM, Muted wrote:
At 1/4/2013 10:17:07 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/4/2013 4:57:04 AM, Muted wrote:
At 1/3/2013 4:11:33 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/3/2013 12:10:55 PM, slo1 wrote:
There is only one way possible to solve this debate. It involves 100,000 years and putting people on an island where anyone over 5ft - 4 inches gets killed because there is a poisonous layer of acid gas at 5'4" ft and above.

We need an island, some volunteers under 5'4", and lots of poisonous gas. Who's in?

Or...we could use bacteria...

In and of itself, this experiment would not prove evolution. The change in phenotype of a population does not in itself demonstrate evolution. There has to be some other better experiments.

Random mutations for 100,000 years on an isolated populations in a unique environment split off from the original population of organisms, what more do you want?


This will lead to the genetic degradation of that populace. See my debate on mutations and extinction.

Not to mention any 100,000 year experiment, of course there has to be something better. lol

Only in small populations.
Muted
Posts: 377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2013 9:49:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/7/2013 2:17:27 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/6/2013 5:55:31 PM, Muted wrote:
At 1/4/2013 10:17:07 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/4/2013 4:57:04 AM, Muted wrote:
At 1/3/2013 4:11:33 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/3/2013 12:10:55 PM, slo1 wrote:
There is only one way possible to solve this debate. It involves 100,000 years and putting people on an island where anyone over 5ft - 4 inches gets killed because there is a poisonous layer of acid gas at 5'4" ft and above.

We need an island, some volunteers under 5'4", and lots of poisonous gas. Who's in?

Or...we could use bacteria...

In and of itself, this experiment would not prove evolution. The change in phenotype of a population does not in itself demonstrate evolution. There has to be some other better experiments.

Random mutations for 100,000 years on an isolated populations in a unique environment split off from the original population of organisms, what more do you want?


This will lead to the genetic degradation of that populace. See my debate on mutations and extinction.

Not to mention any 100,000 year experiment, of course there has to be something better. lol

Only in small populations.

An island?
Exterminate!!!!!!-Dalek.

The ability to speak does not make you a competent debater.

One does not simply do the rain dance.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2013 3:48:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/7/2013 9:49:56 PM, Muted wrote:
At 1/7/2013 2:17:27 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/6/2013 5:55:31 PM, Muted wrote:
At 1/4/2013 10:17:07 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/4/2013 4:57:04 AM, Muted wrote:
At 1/3/2013 4:11:33 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/3/2013 12:10:55 PM, slo1 wrote:
There is only one way possible to solve this debate. It involves 100,000 years and putting people on an island where anyone over 5ft - 4 inches gets killed because there is a poisonous layer of acid gas at 5'4" ft and above.

We need an island, some volunteers under 5'4", and lots of poisonous gas. Who's in?

Or...we could use bacteria...

In and of itself, this experiment would not prove evolution. The change in phenotype of a population does not in itself demonstrate evolution. There has to be some other better experiments.

Random mutations for 100,000 years on an isolated populations in a unique environment split off from the original population of organisms, what more do you want?


This will lead to the genetic degradation of that populace. See my debate on mutations and extinction.

Not to mention any 100,000 year experiment, of course there has to be something better. lol

Only in small populations.

An island?

Not all islands are small.