• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Evolution

sKiTzo:

Imagine a cardboard box in which are placed many marbles of varying size and mass. In one side of that box is a hole with an iris structure allowing it to widen or constrict. You pick up the box and all you can do is shake it but because I can control the iris, I can influence what types of marbles are likely to come out. Now I surrender iris control to a complex combination of environmental factors surrounding the box and the process of marble selection begins without any guiding hand, not mine, not yours.

Organisms are born into environments which challenge them to survive. As the environment changes (shaking the box and adjusting the iris width randomly) organisms try to survive by adapting their behaviours. This may work or this may fail. If the organism can better adapt then its chances of surviving long enough to reproduce increase. If the organism cannot adapt then its chances of reproducing diminish. But this is only behavioural adaptation. Biological adaptation also occurs. The reproducing is the next step in the process.

If an organism can survive long enough to reproduce a lot, then lots of offspring will be produced. Those offspring will inherit traits from their parent (asexual organisms) or parents (sexual organisms) through the chemically mediated process of genetic heredity. Chemistry is not a perfect process and thus the duplication of genetic chemical and codes is prone to errors. Such errors are called mutations. Most such errors are so minor that they do not impact the offspring much and it's survival still depends on its adaptive behaviour and good luck. Some errors called negative mutations kill the offspring immediately or greatly disadvantage it from surviving long enough to reproduce.. Thus such disadvantaged organisms have a lower probability of surviving, reproducing and thus die out. Rarely, mutations accidentally convey a positive mutation - resulting in an advantageous characteristic (or trait) for an organism which increases its chances of survival in the changing environment around it. In such cases, with luck, the organism has a better chance of surviving long enough to do a lot of reproducing and to pass along that positive mutation to its offspring. So positive mutations and their resulting traits are more likely to lead to reproduction and persistence of positive traits. Negative traits (barring outrageous runs of good luck) more likely lead to death before reproduction, fewer offspring and thus ultimately extinction of bad traits. This selection process is called biological or genetic adaptation.

Over many generations of reproduction organisms of the same species accumulate different traits until they are so dissimilar from each other that they can no longer interbreed and become separate species. This is called speciation. It is speciation which produces the many branches of the tree of life which you have seen in diagrams. Just like individual organisms are advantaged or disadvantaged by positive or negative traits and thus selected by their inherited traits, so are entire species of organisms selected by advantage or disadvantage of many accumulated traits. Nature uses environmental pressure to try to extinguish less successful species and to promote better adapted ones. This is a process called species selection.

Nature drives this process of selection forward faster by introducing ruthless competition for resources and survival into the mix. By over-producing far more offspring than could possibly survive in an environment lethal competition drives selection more quickly and genetic adaptation accelerates. This is called natural selection within a single species and evolution across many species. Survival of the fittest partly drives genetic adaptation within a species and speciation and evolution across many species.

Continued net post.
 
Over eons of time and subject to other outside factors this process of natural selection reshapes life by biological adaptation and speciation into new species usually better suited to survive in the changing and hostile environment. This is called divergent evolution. As species change they can also change their adapted behaviours, their methods of survival (called their niche) and where in the environment that they live (their habitat). Changing niche or habitat (or having your habitat change around you) can place new demands on organisms and force them to genetically evolve to look and behave more like other non-related organisms than species which they are more closely related to. This is called convergent evolution. Flying insects, flying reptiles, flying birds and flying mammals converge in general shape and structure despite having widely different origins because their habitats and niches are roughly the same.

The rate at which evolution precedes is variable too. Sometimes it moves more quickly and sometimes it's speed approaches zero. But at its fastest it still over arches many generations of organisms and many, many cycles of birth, reproduction and death. It is the accumulated changes over eons of time which we generally refer to as evolution.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
You seem to fundamentally misunderstand what evolution even is. No individual life form becomes another type of life form, they stay the way they're born until they die. The easiest way to understand evolution is to imagine you and your siblings (just pretend you have them if you don't). Why aren't you and your siblings all identical in every way genetically? Because there are genetic variations, dominant genes, recessive genes, etc. You inherit a random combination of genes from your parents.

Now, if we were to place you and your siblings into a survival environment, you'll start to find that these genetic differences you each have are either an advantage or a burden to your survival. Say you're in an environment where height is a disadvantage and speed is an advantage. You're faster than your tall brother, so you statistically have a higher chance of survival than he does. Now, assume there's a whole population of you and your siblings. Statistically over time, the individuals with advantageous traits in their environments will be more likely to breed and produce offspring. Over thousands, millions of generations, you'll start to see that the whole population is both faster and shorter, because these traits have been shaped over millenia through breeding and culling.

This is basically what evolution is. Take giraffes for example with their long necks. No single giraffe magically made his neck grow a meter overnight, the entire population of giraffes over millenia grew little by little because having a longer neck was a genetic advantage and this advantage was fostered by their environment. Evolution is not up for question. This is a scientific fact with literal mountains of evidence supporting it. It's OK that you don't understand it, but don't just outright dismiss things you don't understand as false.

That generations who spend all their time in and around water might begin to have webbed hands and feet is something that sounds somewhat reasonable - and that could very well be the case, but that's not what I'm inquiring about. The part I don't understand is where it says that evolution is how all living things came into existence.

When you try to picture the process of the very first human baby, for instance, coming into existence - what do you see? I see that it's just not possible for obvious reasons. The very first chicken had to come from an egg....where did the egg come from? Webbed hands and feet over millennia may be plausible. Nothing to a human baby or a chicken egg is impossible unless somebody can explain the physical process by which that happened in full detail.
 
I've questioned this many times, as well. Take natural defenses, like being poisonous are bad tasting to eat. How could those genes be passed down, if the carrier has to get chewed up for it to work?

Why are you assuming that every single creature born with a mutation that caused them to generate poison or extra poison got chewed up? That makes no sense.

(Nevermind that creatures producing poison generally don't have to be entirely consumed or killed for the poison to take effect on the attacker).




Enough of the poison-producers have to survive to pass on the genes. There is no requirement that a poison-producer actually have an occasion to use its poison in order for it to pass on the gene. And there is absolutely no reason to assume that every single poison-producer would necessarily get eaten, thereby preventing the gene from ever getting passed on.
 
Last edited:
That generations who spend all their time in and around water might begin to have webbed hands and feet is something that sounds somewhat reasonable - and that could very well be the case, but that's not what I'm inquiring about. The part I don't understand is where it says that evolution is how all living things came into existence.

When you try to picture the process of the very first human baby, for instance, coming into existence - what do you see? I see that it's just not possible for obvious reasons. The very first chicken had to come from an egg....where did the egg come from? Webbed hands and feet over millennia may be plausible. Nothing to a human baby or a chicken egg is impossible unless somebody can explain the physical process by which that happened in full detail.

The fact that it may not be explainable in full detail does not mean it isn’t true.
 
You sound like you need a basic overview of evolution.

I’m guessing you’re not much of a reader, so a recommendation to pick up a textbook, or a good overview by Stephen Jay Gould, E.O. Wilson, or Richard Dawkins would probably not be useful.

Maybe videos would be easier.

Here’s a good one of Dawkins demonstrating the process of the evolution of the eye, a problem that is surprisingly simple to map out.

Richard Dawkins demonstrates the evolution of the eye - YouTube

Or, if audio is more your thing, listen to Carl Sagan explain evolution to a creationist on the late, great Milt Rosenberg Extension 720 radio show.

Darwin's God: Here is Carl Sagan’s Proof of Evolution

Dawkins looks so young in that video. I'm just going to refer everyone to my post #28 because everybody answered the same thing. The part I'm having a hard time with is referred to in post 28.
 
That generations who spend all their time in and around water might begin to have webbed hands and feet is something that sounds somewhat reasonable - and that could very well be the case, but that's not what I'm inquiring about. The part I don't understand is where it says that evolution is how all living things came into existence.

When you try to picture the process of the very first human baby, for instance, coming into existence - what do you see? I see that it's just not possible for obvious reasons. The very first chicken had to come from an egg....where did the egg come from? Webbed hands and feet over millennia may be plausible. Nothing to a human baby or a chicken egg is impossible unless somebody can explain the physical process by which that happened in full detail.

Sorry, but, you simply don't have a clue about any of this. You think you are raising interesting challenging questions, but you're just not. They only seem like questions to you because you don't know what you're talking about. There's really no polite way to put it......

:shrug:
 
sKiTzo:

Imagine a cardboard box in which are placed many marbles of varying size and mass. In one side of that box is a hole with an iris structure allowing it to widen or constrict. You pick up the box and all you can do is shake it but because I can control the iris, I can influence what types of marbles are likely to come out. Now I surrender iris control to a complex combination of environmental factors surrounding the box and the process of marble selection begins without any guiding hand, not mine, not yours.

Organisms are born into environments which challenge them to survive. As the environment changes (shaking the box and adjusting the iris width randomly) organisms try to survive by adapting their behaviours. This may work or this may fail. If the organism can better adapt then its chances of surviving long enough to reproduce increase. If the organism cannot adapt then its chances of reproducing diminish. But this is only behavioural adaptation. Biological adaptation also occurs. The reproducing is the next step in the process.

If an organism can survive long enough to reproduce a lot, then lots of offspring will be produced. Those offspring will inherit traits from their parent (asexual organisms) or parents (sexual organisms) through the chemically mediated process of genetic heredity. Chemistry is not a perfect process and thus the duplication of genetic chemical and codes is prone to errors. Such errors are called mutations. Most such errors are so minor that they do not impact the offspring much and it's survival still depends on its adaptive behaviour and good luck. Some errors called negative mutations kill the offspring immediately or greatly disadvantage it from surviving long enough to reproduce.. Thus such disadvantaged organisms have a lower probability of surviving, reproducing and thus die out. Rarely, mutations accidentally convey a positive mutation - resulting in an advantageous characteristic (or trait) for an organism which increases its chances of survival in the changing environment around it. In such cases, with luck, the organism has a better chance of surviving long enough to do a lot of reproducing and to pass along that positive mutation to its offspring. So positive mutations and their resulting traits are more likely to lead to reproduction and persistence of positive traits. Negative traits (barring outrageous runs of good luck) more likely lead to death before reproduction, fewer offspring and thus ultimately extinction of bad traits. This selection process is called biological or genetic adaptation.

Over many generations of reproduction organisms of the same species accumulate different traits until they are so dissimilar from each other that they can no longer interbreed and become separate species. This is called speciation. It is speciation which produces the many branches of the tree of life which you have seen in diagrams. Just like individual organisms are advantaged or disadvantaged by positive or negative traits and thus selected by their inherited traits, so are entire species of organisms selected by advantage or disadvantage of many accumulated traits. Nature uses environmental pressure to try to extinguish less successful species and to promote better adapted ones. This is a process called species selection.

Nature drives this process of selection forward faster by introducing ruthless competition for resources and survival into the mix. By over-producing far more offspring than could possibly survive in an environment lethal competition drives selection more quickly and genetic adaptation accelerates. This is called natural selection within a single species and evolution across many species. Survival of the fittest partly drives genetic adaptation within a species and speciation and evolution across many species.

Continued net post.

Please refer to post #28
 
Over eons of time and subject to other outside factors this process of natural selection reshapes life by biological adaptation and speciation into new species usually better suited to survive in the changing and hostile environment. This is called divergent evolution. As species change they can also change their adapted behaviours, their methods of survival (called their niche) and where in the environment that they live (their habitat). Changing niche or habitat (or having your habitat change around you) can place new demands on organisms and force them to genetically evolve to look and behave more like other non-related organisms than species which they are more closely related to. This is called convergent evolution. Flying insects, flying reptiles, flying birds and flying mammals converge in general shape and structure despite having widely different origins because their habitats and niches are roughly the same.

The rate at which evolution precedes is variable too. Sometimes it moves more quickly and sometimes it's speed approaches zero. But at its fastest it still over arches many generations of organisms and many, many cycles of birth, reproduction and death. It is the accumulated changes over eons of time which we generally refer to as evolution.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Post #28
 
The fact that it may not be explainable in full detail does not mean it isn’t true.

It kind of does. Even supposing that the very first human baby just appeared out of thin air, it would just lay there naked until it died.
 
Sorry, but, you simply don't have a clue about any of this. You think you are raising interesting challenging questions, but you're just not. They only seem like questions to you because you don't know what you're talking about. There's really no polite way to put it......

:shrug:

And all I'm asking is for someone who knows what they're talking about to please explain it. If you know what you're talking about and you don't find those questions challenging, then it should be no problem for you to lay it out.
 
You are apparently entirely ignorant on what evolution is. You can remedy this through reading nearly any scientific biology text or use the internet, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

In this way, evolution describes an aspect of reality. What you describe is not evolution.

Also, talking about chicken vs the egg as though you're talking about biology, is absurd. It's a useful metaphor, it's not science. And yet, if you define the context, science can of course answer it since it's a question about reality:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_or_the_egg

Nice article but it dodges the real question by saying that the first chicken egg must have come from a bird that was not quite a chicken. Okay, but where did that bird come from? I understand well that aspect of the theory. The claim is that all living things came into existence through evolution, but every explanation of the model has lesser evolved animals already existing. Do you see the flaw?
 
Organisms don't decide anything. Random genetic mutations occur in a specific environment. Those that survive we call the most fit, after the fact. And it takes an extremely long time for these changes to occur. At the same time, the environment goes through random changes as well, which impacts survival as well.

You ignored the red text that I highlighted because that is the question that has no answer nor any possible answer. Random genetic mutations can't produce the first prototype of any complex living creature such as a human baby unless somebody can shed the light...
 
Some of these answers already are really good, but I'll try to answer your questions directly.

Simple organisms don't just plop out complex organisms. The process has happened extremely slowly over millions to hundreds of millions of years. Think of your DNA as Computer code and when two similar animals computer code meet to make a baby they combine their code into one resulting into one unique organism that has it's own unique code that is a culmination of it's parents. Along the way the computer code can get corrupted whiles it's pass down to the child, this would be a "mutation"..... the mutation(corrupted code) is completely random, it could do nothing, it could give the child a disease, make the whole system not work, could make the child grow an extra ear... whatever... All bad corrupted codes that are bad enough where the child could not survive adulthood, or have result in the child have a less likely chance of surviving into adulthood would likely not be passed down... while corrupted code that gave the child an advantage to reaching adulthood would have higher likelihood of being passed down. There are almost countless lines of code in complex organisms all subject for mutation that can give an advantage or disadvantage depending on the environment.

The first "chicken" came from a non-Chicken egg, technically, though that's not a good way to think about it....there was no specific point it became a "chicken"... "chicken" is a more general term than you might think, it's a group of organisms that have a very similar ancestry and are able to interbreed. Here's an example.... Think of the concept of the words pebble, rock, and boulder....lets say you have a pebble in your hand.... Add 1 atom of "rock atoms" to it..... is it still a pebble? Yes... of course you noticed absolutely no change...it was a single atom... how about 10 atoms? 100? 1000? 100k? Still.... you would probably call it a pebble...but at what point does it become a rock? the 10^6th atom? Then eventually, at what point does it become a boulder? They are not defined boundaries because the words pebble, rock, and boulder are generic terms of groups of things that are similar to each other. The same with animals genetically the difference between chicken ancestors in each generation was never greater than any other parent to child.... all you did was add 1 atom...

I understand all that. Your explanation requires the pebble to be already in existence. It requires a non-chicken egg to already exist. Isn't the claim that everything came into existence through the process of evolution?
 
Not sure if this is the correct forum but I'm having a difficult time believing that so many people think that evolution is how we got here. It all looks fine and dandy on paper until you try to apply it or get a mental figure of the actual process and what would have to physically take place as it progresses. Am I missing something?
...
No, you're not missing something, sKiTzo. You're thinking critically. ToE is a scientific theory. And that's all it is. Now in domestic breeding of animals, of dogs for instance, we have been able to artificially evolve new breeds of dogs in a very short span of time, and there's good evidence that the domestic dog evolved from wolves some 15,000 years ago. So there's something to the theory. But it's not the whole story by a long shot. It's full of gaps and unanswered questions and the members who post with absolute certainty about ToE are posting from faith.
 
Last edited:
And all I'm asking is for someone who knows what they're talking about to please explain it. If you know what you're talking about and you don't find those questions challenging, then it should be no problem for you to lay it out.

People have already repeatedly tried explaining to do and you simply ignored them, then repeated your idiotic question. By the fourth page, all of your responses look like trolling responses.




Nice article but it dodges the real question by saying that the first chicken egg must have come from a bird that was not quite a chicken. Okay, but where did that bird come from? I understand well that aspect of the theory. The claim is that all living things came into existence through evolution, but every explanation of the model has lesser evolved animals already existing. Do you see the flaw?

Really? You genuinely cannot put two and two together on your own?

Multiple people already explained to you that we're talking about an initial single-celled organism, that then evolved and branched over roughly 3.8 billion years.

It's a series of changes. Change after change after change after change after change after change after change after change after changeafter change after change after change after change after change after change after change after change after change after change after change after change after change after changeafter change after change after change after change after change after change after change after change after change after change after change after change after change after changeafter change after change after change after change.

Incremental changes. Get it yet?



every explanation of the model has lesser evolved animals already existing.

None of them do. You have got to be trolling....




The only puzzle here is what set of circumstances caused that first cell to form and start functioning. But that is not a problem with the theory of evolution.
 
Last edited:
Dawkins looks so young in that video. I'm just going to refer everyone to my post #28 because everybody answered the same thing. The part I'm having a hard time with is referred to in post 28.

I don’t understand what that post is trying to say.

Natural selection is a very slow and gradual process. Geological time is almost beyond comprehension for non scientists, and this might be why you’re having trouble.

The first human baby never existed. There is no definition that can distinguish an almost human baby from a fully human one.

But given hundreds of thousands of years, we can distinguish the difference. It’s like saying what distinguishes a child from an adult....you can generally tell which is which, but you can’t know which day that transition happened...because that day didn’t exist.
 
I understand all that. Your explanation requires the pebble to be already in existence. It requires a non-chicken egg to already exist. Isn't the claim that everything came into existence through the process of evolution?

Yes, a chicken never existed until we made up the term chicken... a "chicken" is not a real object, it's a classification, a category(an animal can be put into the category of "chicken" if it has certain genetic traits whatever scientists determine what should be classified as a "chicken").... it is a term we humans use to describe a group of animals that have very close ancestry, something we came up with AFTER the fact.... the term in itself is imperfect... just like how I described through the pebble/rock/boulder explanation, these are categories/classifications of a stone but there is a lot of overlap.

The chicken ancestors do not exist anymore because they are all dead. We can see them in the fossil record though.... and we can also see some other animals that were also branched off the same ancestors.... and technically ALL animals eventually can be tied back to a single ancestor. Animals... unlike pebbles, die. If animals were immortal of Course we would see the ENTIRE generation line of all chickens all the way down to the earliest bacteria.
 
Last edited:
No, you're not missing something, sKiTzo. You're thinking critically. ToE is a scientific theory. And that's all it is. Now in domestic breeding of animals, of dogs for instance, we have been able to artificially evolve new breeds of dogs in a very short span of time, and there's good evidence that the domestic dog evolved from wolves some 15,000 years ago. So there's something to the theory. But it's not the whole story by a long shot. It's full of gaps and unanswered questions and the members who post with absolute certainty about ToE are posting from faith.

It is a theory for which the evidence is overwhelming and for which there is no counter-evidence. There is no other theory.


The only other explanation attempted is the religious one. You have honest but misguided religious folk who say that God is responsible, either for supposedly creating everything as it is now or for creating evolution and holding its hand. Then you have dishonest and misguided religious folk who say they absolutely are not making that claim, but say their must be a non-God intelligent designer because they are so stupidly arrogant as to actually think that they personally have so much knowledge that they can tell what must and must not have been designed by this "designer".

I suspect you know all that and that's why you inserted the word "faith" in your post. Your use of the word "faith" was an underhanded way to attempt to delegitimize the proven theory of evolution.


It is not filled with "gaps and unanswered questions". If someone says the questions are unanswered, that is because they just don't understand it or because they are being dishonest for some reason or due to some motivation.
 
It is a theory for which the evidence is overwhelming and for which there is no counter-evidence. There is no other theory.


The only other explanation attempted is the religious one. You have honest but misguided religious folk who say that God is responsible, either for supposedly creating everything as it is now or for creating evolution and holding its hand. Then you have dishonest and misguided religious folk who say they absolutely are not making that claim, but say their must be a non-God intelligent designer because they are so stupidly arrogant as to actually think that they personally have so much knowledge that they can tell what must and must not have been designed by this "designer".

I suspect you know all that and that's why you inserted the word "faith" in your post. Your use of the word "faith" was an underhanded way to attempt to delegitimize the proven theory of evolution.


It is not filled with "gaps and unanswered questions". If someone says the questions are unanswered, that is because they just don't understand it or because they are being dishonest for some reason or due to some motivation.

To put things biblically, throwing pearls before swine never really turns out well.
 
People have already repeatedly tried explaining to do and you simply ignored them, then repeated your idiotic question. By the fourth page, all of your responses look like trolling responses.






Really? You genuinely cannot put two and two together on your own?

Multiple people already explained to you that we're talking about an initial single-celled organism, that then evolved and branched over roughly 3.8 billion years.

It's a series of changes. Change after change after change after change after change after change after change after change after changeafter change after change after change after change after change after change after change after change after change after change after change after change after change after changeafter change after change after change after change after change after change after change after change after change after change after change after change after change after changeafter change after change after change after change.

Incremental changes. Get it yet?





None of them do. You have got to be trolling....




The only puzzle here is what set of circumstances caused that first cell to form and start functioning. But that is not a problem with the theory of evolution.

I'm not trolling. You're not getting the problem. You haven't addressed the question. That's probably why I keep reposting it. The question of the very first human baby - now I'm talking about visualizing the process in practice, not just saying it changed from one to the next. How is it physically possible for the first human baby to be born without a mother? When the first baby comes into existence through evolution, what do you visualize taking place?
 
Last edited:
It is a theory for which the evidence is overwhelming and for which there is no counter-evidence. There is no other theory.


The only other explanation attempted is the religious one. You have honest but misguided religious folk who say that God is responsible, either for supposedly creating everything as it is now or for creating evolution and holding its hand. Then you have dishonest and misguided religious folk who say they absolutely are not making that claim, but say their must be a non-God intelligent designer because they are so stupidly arrogant as to actually think that they personally have so much knowledge that they can tell what must and must not have been designed by this "designer".

I suspect you know all that and that's why you inserted the word "faith" in your post. Your use of the word "faith" was an underhanded way to attempt to delegitimize the proven theory of evolution.


It is not filled with "gaps and unanswered questions". If someone says the questions are unanswered, that is because they just don't understand it or because they are being dishonest for some reason or due to some motivation.
No theory is "proven" and final.
 
No theory is "proven" and final.

Which does not counter any of the points I made, nor does it justify your underhanded maneuver in characterizing acceptance of a proven theory as "faith".

Nevermind that a theory is treated as final once overwhelmingly proven unless and until an actual viable theory supported by evidence is offered. Nobody has done that. The only thing they have tried to do in that regard is to use dishonest means to try to muddy the water and delegitamize evolutionary theory.
 
Which does not counter any of the points I made, nor does it justify your underhanded maneuver in characterizing acceptance of a proven theory as "faith".

Nevermind that a theory is treated as final once overwhelmingly proven unless and until an actual viable theory supported by evidence is offered. Nobody has done that. The only thing they have tried to do in that regard is to use dishonest means to try to muddy the water and delegitamize evolutionary theory.
Cut the rebop, man. You said "proven." And if you persist in posting personal, I can do the same to good effect. Let's keep it down to topics, yes?
 
Back
Top Bottom