• 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

DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2012
Messages
2,671
Reaction score
535
Location
OC California
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
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?

For example, Any book or video about it that I've ever seen shows the branching off from one organism to the next, each becoming more complex, but they don't show the process in between each one because it would be an impossible mechanism. Are we supposed to think that the previous one just shts out the next more complex one? Did the first chicken egg not require a chicken to lay the egg? Did the first human baby not require an adult female human to birth it? Let's say it didn't. If no one fed it and clothed it it would just die after a short time. It would have to be a female that can self-fertilize in order to have more humans. Ten thousand gazillion years could go by and there's just no way it could ever happen. It's astounding that intelligent people seriously put forth such an absurd theory and actually believe it to be sufficient.

If anybody knows these answers I'd be interested to see them.
 
Last edited:
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?

For example, Any book or video about it that I've ever seen shows the branching off from one organism to the next, each becoming more complex, but they don't show the process in between each one because it would be an impossible mechanism. Are we supposed to think that the previous one just ****s out the next more complex one? Did the first chicken egg not require a chicken to lay the egg? Did the first human baby not require an adult female human to birth it? Let's say it didn't. If no one fed it and clothed it it would just die after a short time. It would have to be a female that can self-fertilize in order to have more humans....It's hard to believe that intelligent people seriously put forth such an absurd theory and actually believe it to be sufficient.

If anybody knows these answers I'd be interested to see them.

Random genetic mutations and environmental factors. Those species best suited to the environment pass on their characteristics and survive as a species. It is still happening as we speak. But evolution is an extremely gradual process, so it isn't going to happen right before our eyes.
 
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?
 
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.
 
Random genetic mutations and environmental factors. Those species best suited to the environment pass on their characteristics and survive as a species. It is still happening as we speak. But evolution is an extremely gradual process, so it isn't going to happen right before our eyes.

Look at the text below...what physically happens in full detail between mutations? When an organism decides it needs to better itself as a species, what process takes place that leads to the final product of the next mutation? There can't ever be a plausible answer to this so, by default, evolution is easily debunked.

Are we supposed to think that the previous one just ****s out the next more complex one? Did the first chicken egg not require a chicken to lay the egg? Did the first human baby not require an adult female human to birth it? Let's say it didn't. If no one fed it and clothed it it would just die after a short time. It would have to be a female that can self-fertilize in order to have more humans...
 
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?

Nope, the carriers of the "taste bad" gene just have to survive getting fatally chewed on at a higher rate than those lacking the "taste bad" gene.
 
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.

Evolution ( and the evidence for it) is found in 2 places: Nature as we see around us every day, with tremendous diversity & variation, and in the fossil record. Nature is not constant. It never stays the same, as time & environmental pressures have their influence.

My epiphany about evolution occurred when I was a teen. I discovered Archaeopteryx, a fossil with a reptilian skeleton but covered with elaborate feathers. If the feather impressions had not been preserved it would have been classified as a primitive dinosaur. But not only did the animal have feathers, they were asymmetric feathers, a feature found only in birds capable of flight. This animal was not the ancestor of all modern birds but an offshoot of the main line of evolution. But all the birds you see around you today descended (evolved) from the same primitive dinosaurs as Archaeopteryx did. They provide testimony that evolution is fact, not theory.
 
sKiTzo:

Evolution is either a theory or an hypothesis (opinions vary) and could be falsified at some point in the future. Regardless of its present status in the scientific community, evolution was not the only process at work in shaping Earth's natural history over the last 3.8 billion years during which we now conclude that life has existed on this planet. Other drivers operating were extinction, devolution, random chance, geology and geomorphology, hydrospheric and atmospheric chemistry, and of course natural selection (mediated by genetic and epigenetic factors, location and pure luck). The story of life's' long sound-track on Earth is orchestral rather than a Darwinian solo.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Last edited:
When an organism decides it needs to better itself as a species, what process takes place that leads to the final product of the next mutation? There can't ever be a plausible answer to this so, by default, evolution is easily debunked.

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
Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.
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
 
Nope, the carriers of the "taste bad" gene just have to survive getting fatally chewed on at a higher rate than those lacking the "taste bad" gene.

Now calculate those odds. How man random offspring of one species get born as oddball, bad tasting critters? We're talking genetic mutations, here. Overall, the species doesn't taste bad. These are the out liars.
 
Evolution is obvious to see. Look at dogs.
 
Look at the text below...what physically happens in full detail between mutations? When an organism decides it needs to better itself as a species, what process takes place that leads to the final product of the next mutation? There can't ever be a plausible answer to this so, by default, evolution is easily debunked.

Are we supposed to think that the previous one just ****s out the next more complex one? Did the first chicken egg not require a chicken to lay the egg? Did the first human baby not require an adult female human to birth it? Let's say it didn't. If no one fed it and clothed it it would just die after a short time. It would have to be a female that can self-fertilize in order to have more humans...

Once again, you are wildly misinformed. Organisms do not decide they need to change and what, their environment shapes the population over time with statistical advantages and disadvantages.
 
Look at the text below...what physically happens in full detail between mutations? When an organism decides it needs to better itself as a species, what process takes place that leads to the final product of the next mutation? There can't ever be a plausible answer to this so, by default, evolution is easily debunked.

Are we supposed to think that the previous one just ****s out the next more complex one? Did the first chicken egg not require a chicken to lay the egg? Did the first human baby not require an adult female human to birth it? Let's say it didn't. If no one fed it and clothed it it would just die after a short time. It would have to be a female that can self-fertilize in order to have more humans...

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.
 
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?

For example, Any book or video about it that I've ever seen shows the branching off from one organism to the next, each becoming more complex, but they don't show the process in between each one because it would be an impossible mechanism. Are we supposed to think that the previous one just shts out the next more complex one? Did the first chicken egg not require a chicken to lay the egg? Did the first human baby not require an adult female human to birth it? Let's say it didn't. If no one fed it and clothed it it would just die after a short time. It would have to be a female that can self-fertilize in order to have more humans. Ten thousand gazillion years could go by and there's just no way it could ever happen. It's astounding that intelligent people seriously put forth such an absurd theory and actually believe it to be sufficient.

If anybody knows these answers I'd be interested to see them.

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...
 
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?

For example, Any book or video about it that I've ever seen shows the branching off from one organism to the next, each becoming more complex, but they don't show the process in between each one because it would be an impossible mechanism. Are we supposed to think that the previous one just shts out the next more complex one? Did the first chicken egg not require a chicken to lay the egg? Did the first human baby not require an adult female human to birth it? Let's say it didn't. If no one fed it and clothed it it would just die after a short time. It would have to be a female that can self-fertilize in order to have more humans. Ten thousand gazillion years could go by and there's just no way it could ever happen. It's astounding that intelligent people seriously put forth such an absurd theory and actually believe it to be sufficient.

If anybody knows these answers I'd be interested to see them.


A good example is perhaps the E. coli long term evolution experiment.
In 22 years, researchers have followed and studied 50'000 generations (the equivalent to 1'000'000 years of human evolution), all starting from the same 12 initially identical populations.

Changes have been noticed :

Of the 12 populations, six have so far been reported to have developed defects in their ability to repair DNA, greatly increasing the rate of mutation in those strains.

Over the course of the experiment, the populations have evolved to specialize on the glucose resource on which they grow.

Also, look at the average height of humans.

average height.jpg

The global population is getting taller. 15 cm increase in only 170 years ! Can you imagine what kind of changes would occur in 20 million years ?

Hell, look at dog cross-breading. We have a lot of dogs that differ significantly from pure breads. Look at some of the new breads that are being developed like the Shiloh Shepherd Dog, a larger, smarter, German Shepherd.

All in all, we can witness small changes across generations of animals that have a shorter life span than we do. If you have millions and millions of small changes, the end result will not ressemble at all the starting point.
 
Now calculate those odds. How man random offspring of one species get born as oddball, bad tasting critters? We're talking genetic mutations, here. Overall, the species doesn't taste bad. These are the out liars.

Yep, if those with the mutation (say a plant with thorns or a toad with vile tasting warts) are also different in appearance then the chewers that figure this out will also likely survive at slightly higher rate - since they waste less time and energy attempting to feed on undesirable meals and devour only the plants or toads that lack the outlier trait. This predator/prey relationship then multiplies the effect of that advantage proffered only to the outliers (prey and predator alike) such that, over time, more outliers survive and thus reproduce at a higher rate than the regular ones do.
 
Now calculate those odds. How man random offspring of one species get born as oddball, bad tasting critters? We're talking genetic mutations, here. Overall, the species doesn't taste bad. These are the out liars.

ttwwt answered sufficiently, but I wanted to point out your mention of odds.

Competition/survival is a feature of all living organisms. Getting chewed on, so to speak, is not rare, it's the norm.
Similarly, taste bad vs tastes OK, is unlikely. It's more likely that it's tastes bad vs tastes slightly worse. And a slight difference over a lot of "rolls" results in clear winners.

Remember you're rolling these dice over a billion years * the number of individual organisms...it's a big number. Maybe on the order of let's just guess, 10^20.
Remember your Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy? The Infinite Improbability Drive?
 
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?

For example, Any book or video about it that I've ever seen shows the branching off from one organism to the next, each becoming more complex, but they don't show the process in between each one because it would be an impossible mechanism. Are we supposed to think that the previous one just shts out the next more complex one? Did the first chicken egg not require a chicken to lay the egg? Did the first human baby not require an adult female human to birth it? Let's say it didn't. If no one fed it and clothed it it would just die after a short time. It would have to be a female that can self-fertilize in order to have more humans. Ten thousand gazillion years could go by and there's just no way it could ever happen. It's astounding that intelligent people seriously put forth such an absurd theory and actually believe it to be sufficient.

If anybody knows these answers I'd be interested to see them.

You received some good answers/explanations.

Do you feel better about the explanation of how we, or any species, has gotten to where it currently is?
 
Look at the text below...what physically happens in full detail between mutations? When an organism decides it needs to better itself as a species, what process takes place that leads to the final product of the next mutation? There can't ever be a plausible answer to this so, by default, evolution is easily debunked.

Are we supposed to think that the previous one just ****s out the next more complex one? Did the first chicken egg not require a chicken to lay the egg? Did the first human baby not require an adult female human to birth it? Let's say it didn't. If no one fed it and clothed it it would just die after a short time. It would have to be a female that can self-fertilize in order to have more humans...

There is no decision involved in a genetic mutation. A plant did not one day decide to try producing thorns just as a toad did not one day decide to grow vile tasting warts. What happens is that some genetic accidents (mutations) provide the odd with a slight survival bonus over those that are normal. Over time, this means that more of the lucky odd pants and animals survive and reproduce than the normal do.
 
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?

multiple individuals with the mutation some critters have large batches of offspring and if your predators start avoiding you because they munched on your relatives and weer harmed or learned you taste bad that could make life easier for you
 
Look at the text below...what physically happens in full detail between mutations? When an organism decides it needs to better itself as a species, what process takes place that leads to the final product of the next mutation? There can't ever be a plausible answer to this so, by default, evolution is easily debunked.

Are we supposed to think that the previous one just ****s out the next more complex one? Did the first chicken egg not require a chicken to lay the egg? Did the first human baby not require an adult female human to birth it? Let's say it didn't. If no one fed it and clothed it it would just die after a short time. It would have to be a female that can self-fertilize in order to have more humans...

? organisms dont decide they just dont make perfect copy of themselves or their genes those differences help harm or dont make much of a difference
 
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?

For example, Any book or video about it that I've ever seen shows the branching off from one organism to the next, each becoming more complex, but they don't show the process in between each one because it would be an impossible mechanism. Are we supposed to think that the previous one just shts out the next more complex one? Did the first chicken egg not require a chicken to lay the egg? Did the first human baby not require an adult female human to birth it? Let's say it didn't. If no one fed it and clothed it it would just die after a short time. It would have to be a female that can self-fertilize in order to have more humans. Ten thousand gazillion years could go by and there's just no way it could ever happen. It's astounding that intelligent people seriously put forth such an absurd theory and actually believe it to be sufficient.

If anybody knows these answers I'd be interested to see them.

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
 
Now calculate those odds. How man random offspring of one species get born as oddball, bad tasting critters? We're talking genetic mutations, here. Overall, the species doesn't taste bad. These are the out liars.

if it helps them survive even if it just makes local predators much on the species less then the trait is likely to spread within the populations of the prey species

seems like recipe for a positive feed back loop
 
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?

For example, Any book or video about it that I've ever seen shows the branching off from one organism to the next, each becoming more complex, but they don't show the process in between each one because it would be an impossible mechanism. Are we supposed to think that the previous one just shts out the next more complex one? Did the first chicken egg not require a chicken to lay the egg? Did the first human baby not require an adult female human to birth it? Let's say it didn't. If no one fed it and clothed it it would just die after a short time. It would have to be a female that can self-fertilize in order to have more humans. Ten thousand gazillion years could go by and there's just no way it could ever happen. It's astounding that intelligent people seriously put forth such an absurd theory and actually believe it to be sufficient.

If anybody knows these answers I'd be interested to see them.

It's not hard to understand that certain traits give some things a better chance at survival than others, especially in an ever changing world/environment. Clearly, when the earth became more oxygenated, traits for breathing it favored those who had that ability over those who did not. Right?
 
Back
Top Bottom