I'm no biological expert or whatever but I do not see how that constitutes evolution. Gaining immunity to something you are exposed to somehow explains how single-celled organisms became humans? Passing mutated genes on to your offspring also explains that too?
And if you want evidence, take a quick google and read up yourself.
You're saying this as if it is an instantaneous process. It is not. Also, see posts below for other problems.marrilpet said:If it is in their best interest to mutate and grow into a higher organism, why do they not do so?
I would like to turn this around and say: why is this implausable? It rather is the most plausable way to explain the rise of human life.marrilpet said:You've got to admit: monkeys to humans is somewhat plausible, bacteria into humans (even over millions of years) is not.
you have no idea what you are talking about. every organism has its own niche and as long as it fills that niche it will continue to survive (excluding extraneous circumstances, e.g. natural disasters, disease, etc.) please do some research before you jump to ridiculous such as the ones above. natural selection is not flawed. its merely a balancing act on the part of nature.This is what most people, Mike Huckabee included, disagree with on the grounds of evolution: bacteria evolving into greater life forms, including monkeys, which humans eventually evolved from. You've got to admit: monkeys to humans is somewhat plausible, bacteria into humans (even over millions of years) is not.
Additionally, the argument made by evolutionists saying that apes evolved into humans through natural selection is flawed. With natural selection, all organisms without the advantageous trait are wiped out and the new organisms with the beneficial mutation continue to live on. If this is the case, why do monkeys, birds, and all lower life forms still exist? If it is in their best interest to mutate and grow into a higher organism, why do they not do so?
Because it isn't, necessarily.If it is in their best interest to mutate and grow into a higher organism, why do they not do so?
A layman's opinion on a scientific subject is pretty much always flawed. If somebody thinks that quantum physics are flawed because "the same thing can't be at two places at once", maybe that's because he doesn't know shit about quantum physics. People who disbelieve evolution are guilty of the same failure: they give their opinion on something that they don't understand.This is what most people, Mike Huckabee included, disagree with on the grounds of evolution: bacteria evolving into greater life forms, including monkeys, which humans eventually evolved from. You've got to admit: monkeys to humans is somewhat plausible, bacteria into humans (even over millions of years) is not.
No they aren't wiped out. What the fuck.Additionally, the argument made by evolutionists saying that apes evolved into humans through natural selection is flawed. With natural selection, all organisms without the advantageous trait are wiped out and the new organisms with the beneficial mutation continue to live on.
Look I'm sorry to be so blunt but you don't know what you're talking about and it shows. First, you assume that monkeys, birds, etc. are "lower life forms" and that evolution has to weed them out. That's false - evolution weeds out life forms that are not adapted to their environment. Sure, other animals are less intelligent than we are, but if they survive in their environment, they'll prosper. Organisms don't just get up one day and tell themselves "hey I'll mutate into a higher organism just like these guys". Evolution pretty much directly entails variety and that's why it works so well.If this is the case, why do monkeys, birds, and all lower life forms still exist? If it is in their best interest to mutate and grow into a higher organism, why do they not do so?
The results can't stare you in the face if you don't look at them and they don't mean much if you have no background to understand them. Most people let other people think for them on matters they don't understand. Unfortunately, religion (in its fundamentalist flavor) has enough leverage to misinform the people who trust it over people who know their shit. But you can't blame someone for not doing his research if it doesn't matter (it would matter if he wanted to allow schools to teach creationism, but besides that, who cares). We all do the same and it's kind of difficult to tell people that they can't trust religion on anything.So: from experiments such as these, we can see evolution as it happens. How can you disbelieve evolution with these results staring you in the face? Mike Huckabee did not say that he did not believe in macroevolution. He did not say that he did not believe in men descending from apes. He said that he did not believe in evolution. And that is bullshit.
That is evolution. You don't have to have every possible manifestation of evolution for something to be evolution. Environmental pressures lead to a change in the population. You don't have to create 'new' genetic material in evolution.Actually Surgo, neither of those things is evolution. The bacteria didn't evolve a resistance to the antibiotic. Those members of the bacteria culture that were ALREADY resistant to the antibiotic survived the exposure and then reproduced, passing the genes along. The same thing happened in the next batch. That's an example of natural selection and population shift. No evolution took place because no new genetic material was created from the process.
natural selection =/= evolution, even if it is a part of the process
That's because that's not what happened. No modern respectable scientist is claiming that humans evolved from monkeys, but rather, that the modern monkey and the human share a common ancestor.Err looks like I kind of spun the topic in a new direction, so sorry if I ruined the intent. Anyway, I always took macroevolution to mean the evolution of one species into something new, i.e. monkey to human, and I am skeptical to this!
It's not bacteria to humans. A simplified timeline runs something like:This is what most people, Mike Huckabee included, disagree with on the grounds of evolution: bacteria evolving into greater life forms, including monkeys, which humans eventually evolved from. You've got to admit: monkeys to humans is somewhat plausible, bacteria into humans (even over millions of years) is not.
I know of no scientist that makes that claim.Additionally, the argument made by evolutionists saying that apes evolved into humans
This is false. Let's consider the example of a mutagen. Say there is something in the water that messes with some gene or another. Only a small subset of the species drinks this water, and thus only that species is influenced. The old group was obviously adapted to live as they were, and if the new group is lucky, the mutation will prove to be a net benefit. Alternately, the new mutation will only be a net benefit in some areas (those mutations that are purely negative or beneficial only in areas in which that species doesn't live will likely die out), and thus that new species will either gain a competitive advantage in that area and outcompete the old version of the species (possibly killing them all off in that area, or maybe just lowering their population), or else the mutation would put them into non-competition with the older version of themselves (for instance, they may have a different diet), which would have little-to-no effect on the old species. Evolution is often local, not global.through natural selection is flawed. With natural selection, all organisms without the advantageous trait are wiped out and the new organisms with the beneficial mutation continue to live on.
It's not always in their best interest. An increased brain size means massively increased dietary intake and larger cranial capacity. In a desert, for example, there is not the food to support this increase, so even if a smarter creature had a theoretical advantage over its less intelligent comrades, it wouldn't be able to live long enough to put it to good use. The larger cranial capacity also means greater size, which many creatures simply cannot have.If this is the case, why do monkeys, birds, and all lower life forms still exist? If it is in their best interest to mutate and grow into a higher organism, why do they not do so?
Not quite. If you have 5,000,000 children, and all of them die before they can reproduce, your line is still dying out. Compare the strategy of the turtle (lay a bunch of eggs in one place, and a lot of the baby turtles can make it to sea before being eaten, and hopefully enough of those will survive long enough to have baby turtles of their own) with the human (have few children, but spend time raising them to ensure that a maximum amount live to adulthood).yes. evolution isnt really survival of the fittest, its more who can leave the most offspring.
But it is a sign that they may not be the best person to have a great influence in choosing where federal funds go for scientific research.i agree with brain on huckabee. people don't have to believe in evolution to be good leaders. it will obviously bias their opinions but i don't think any sane person would cut scientific funding just because they refuse to believe in it. an athiest in the white house wouldn't remove churches from america because there is proof that faith is flawed.
i guess i have to agree with that but presidents are not allowed to change funding or allocate resources to other areas of research on a whim, there are votes and papers to be filed, not to mention the ever vigilant groups of activists for any cause. a change in funding due to disbelief of a subject as large as this would be nearly impossible to rationalize, especially with the current events that the world is experiencing on behalf of the US. to do so would require an almost complete devotion to the subject and whoever is elected will not have the luxury of that much free time with the war in iraq, the genocide in darfur, or the AIDS epidemic in africa to name a few examples. there are too many people who see this as trivial and their sheer numbers would shut him down before he even got started not to mention the whispers of impeachment that would surely roll of the tongues of the population if he followed that course of action.But it is a sign that they may not be the best person to have a great influence in choosing where federal funds go for scientific research.
you cannot compare humans to other species. humans have no predators. they are very very different from other species in terms of evolution. your example is proves my point. if you have 5 million children, and all of them die then they obviously are not "fit" for survival. you interpreted what i said wrong. its not just who can have the most babies, it who can have the most babies survive. those who have the greatest number of offspring survive are the most fit and will pass on traits that are advantageous for survival in a particular environment.Not quite. If you have 5,000,000 children, and all of them die before they can reproduce, your line is still dying out. Compare the strategy of the turtle (lay a bunch of eggs in one place, and a lot of the baby turtles can make it to sea before being eaten, and hopefully enough of those will survive long enough to have baby turtles of their own) with the human (have few children, but spend time raising them to ensure that a maximum amount live to adulthood).
we also have the most polluted gene pool by about 30-60% of ANY animal population. Where's your pedestal now? I'd say that there are far more dangerous things than predators out there for the human race...war being an obvious example. One you might not be aware of is our little plasmodium friend called "malaria". You honestly can't tell me millions of deaths per year to malaria doesn't count as predation. Another terrifying and impending thing is an airborne plague. Wasn't the black death responsible for 1/3 of Europes population dying at one point? I'd take a few bears and lions over that ANY day if we are talking about individual mortalities.you cannot compare humans to other species. humans have no predators.
There are actually two different measures. For those that care for their young and have a conservative amount of young, success is measured by those offspring that go on to have offspring of their own. Therefore successfulness reproductively means you basically have to be a grandparent. For something that spawns en mass, such as insects, it's simply a measure of how many infants survive in the wild as they don't put any effort into infant care.you interpreted what i said wrong. its not just who can have the most babies, it who can have the most babies survive.
Incorrect. Luck cannot be denied. Do you have any idea how many turtle hatchlings bite it to birds on the way to the water just by dump luck? Do you know how many actually DROWN in the waters along the beach on their way into deeper water because they are so tiny? A bad wave hitting or a bird dumbly selecting you is all it takes for your 'fitness' to go out the window. Of these lucky ones, fitness is a big issues though. It's not a matter of a single generation passing genes, as you seem to fixate on. It's the accumulation of many, many reproductive events eventually leading to a more solid set of traits for their environment.the ones that are "fit" enough to survive will, the ones that are not won't.
Actually humans had a rapid evolution leading up to modern man. If you think the 1 million years it took to get from some 'cave man' and cycle through several different species is anything but very rapid, you are incorrect. People are not in stasis, as many people think. Think about it this way: We have undergone a HUGE environmental shift, making it easier on us. We also have intellectual pressures as well as artificial stress that is off the charts. Surviving offspring doesn't necessarily mean the genes will be passed- do you think someone with severe downs syndrome or autism has much chance of reproduction? Sorry if it offends anyone, but they aren't exactly reproductively competative.this is why humans evolve very slowly. because every offspring we have is cared for and allowed a chance to survive.