• 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!

Evolution

Does evolution happen

  • Total voters
    70



Redress said:
Tashah showed me a couple ultra cool images from gravitational lenses.
Click to expand...


I just had to go look those up, COOL!
 
Last edited:
ksu_aviator said:
No it is not. It is evidence that humans have changed over time. Further, evolution would have us believe that once a species changes, the older version is lost. Chimps, apes, monkey and all the other primates are still there.
Click to expand...

You have no idea what you are talking about. Evolution does not claim that older species are lost when newer ones evolve. Geographic isolation is a common mechanism of evolution that retains the older species while also creating an offshoot.
 

This is not limited to Squids, other Cephalopods have similar eyes. You can see a primitive form of cephalopod eye development in the Nautilus, its eye is basically a pin hole camera, and is similar to other cephalopod eyes, just not as developed. Regardless, there are differences between cephalopod eyes and invertebrate eyes, such as Cephalopods do not have a cornea, and they do not have rods and cones. but rather structures unique to them that serve a similar purpose. This is an example of convergent evolution, just as a bats wing and a birds wing are very similar because they serve the same function.

Just because the function of the eye develops in one lineage, this does not mean that a similar structure could not arise elsewhere. This is especially true when the gene9s) that controls eye formation and structures is shared by creatures as diverse as humans, fruit flies, and cephalopods (notably Pax-6 - discovered quite early on in the advent of genetic research in fruit flies).A separate yet convergent development is also supported when you look at the embryonic development of a cephalopod eye versus a vertebrate eye. The genes that control the development of the eyes for both cephalopods and invertebrates seems to have come from a basal ancestor to both invertebrates and mollusks (a cephalopod, and consequently a squid are both mollusks).



Same genes, with the same basic blueprint inherited from an ancestral lineage that are then expressed in a very similar fashion, although there are enough differences to point that they developed completely separate from each other.

From the same paper:

Comparative Analysis of Gene Expression for Convergent Evolution of Camera Eye Between Octopus and Human

So in summation.. we do not know the specifics, but there are shared genes that controls the development of the eye in the separate lineages, and they stem from a common ancestor - but here I am quoting from the paper, I will let it provide the summation:


Thanks for leading me to some fascinating information Celticwar. I am likely to spend some time over the next couple of days delving deeper into this, it touches on an area I have more than a passing interest in (not specifically cephalopods, I have had limited exposure to them and have not studied them all that much, but rather many of their marine invertebrate cousins). - This is not a damnation of evolution in the slightest however.

edit.. somehow this got chopped - a picture to show how dissimilar embryonic eye development is between cephalopods and vertebrates:

 
Last edited:
Speaking of evolution any one hear about this?

Fall From Grace
August 15, 2011

Readers of The Banner, the publication of the Christian Reformed Church in North America, reacted instantly to the news in January that two religion professors at Calvin College had written scholarly papers suggesting that evidence of genetics and evolution raised questions about the traditional, literal reading of Genesis about creation, the story of Adam and Eve, and the fall of humanity out of an initial idyllic state.

News: Fall From Grace - Inside Higher Ed
 
Redress said:
Do you believe evolution happened and is happening? Do you think a higher power guides evolution or is it random?
Click to expand...

It is a very sad there is a need for a poll on this question. I am curious if Rick Perry was the impetus for this discussion, since he has stated he doesn't believe in evolution?
 
I absolutely believe in evolution. Now, as far as the random or guided/started by higher power, I lean towards guided but really don't know.
 
Redress said:
Tashah showed me a couple ultra cool images from gravitational lenses.
Click to expand...

The images are cool, but the principles behind these things are even cooler (or nerdier, depending on perspective).



BTW, Tashah has probably forgotten more about the subject than I ever learned. The rare occasions that I have discussed physics with her (I think she generally prefers not to get involved in such discussions because they will invariably end up with her teaching people about the topic it rather than discussing the topic, and that can be tedious) have centered around this and other aspects of relativity. In those discussions I have felt ignorant of the topics, and I actually know a fair amount about them.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
Do you believe evolution happened and is happening? Do you think a higher power guides evolution or is it random?
Click to expand...

only a fool would deny that evolution is happening. the evidence is right before our eyes. I think the disagreement arises when you discuss micro vs macro evolution
 
rathi said:
You have no idea what you are talking about. Evolution does not claim that older species are lost when newer ones evolve. Geographic isolation is a common mechanism of evolution that retains the older species while also creating an offshoot.
Click to expand...

No, geographic isolation explains why we have different races, but not why part of the species evolved and part did not. If macro evolution where true, then the entire species would have evolved on similar paths rather than some evolving and some not. Further, if macro evolution where true, new races of humans would be evolving from primates today. They are not.
 

What is your definition of micro evolution and macro evolution?
 

I disagree with the theory of evolution, but it doesn't state that the older species would have all evolved.
 
marduc said:
What is your definition of micro evolution and macro evolution?
Click to expand...

microevolution, IMHO, is what Darwin described as natural selection. small changes in organisms that allow them to adapt to and better survive in their environment.

macroevolution, large changes that actually result in one organism changing into a completely different type of organism (ie dinosaurs evolving into birds )
 
marduc said:
What is your definition of micro evolution and macro evolution?
Click to expand...

This sums it up:


But, in large part I've been using macro evolution to describe changes from one species to the next and micro to describe changes to a species.
 

The terms macroevolution and microevolution are not really used by biologists. The reason being is that all of the phenomena of biology are ultimately obedient to the laws of physics and chemistry. As there are no physical or chemical barriers to adaptions / mutations (what you call microevolution) from eventually resulting in speciation (what you call macroevoltion), there is ultimately no difference between what you refer to as macroevolution and what you refer to as microevolution.

A common misconception about evolution is the notion of one species turning into another species. What really happens is descent through adaptive modification over time. Some populations prosper, others don’t. Over time, as populations become isolated from one another, the process continues until they do, indeed, evolve into different species. But at no point in that process do parents belonging to one species produce offspring that belong to a different species.

Evolution is simply change. Natural Selection is the term for the collective natural drivers for that change (adaption, mutation and so on).
 

and yet there is no hard evidence that a fish ever evolved into a reptile. :shrug:
 

ksu_aviator said:
But, in large part I've been using macro evolution to describe changes from one species to the next and micro to describe changes to a species.
Click to expand...

ok, I was just trying to make sense of your post and figure out where your erroneous conclusions stemmed from. lets revisit them. I agree with your summation, macroevolution is basically evolutionary changes at or above the species level, while micro occurs without genetic isolation.

lets revisit your previous post
ksu_aviator said:
If macro evolution where true, then the entire species would have evolved on similar paths rather than some evolving and some not. Further, if macro evolution where true, new races of humans would be evolving from primates today.
Click to expand...

genetic isolation is a key point to the macro evolution definition, this is typically due to two divergent lines no longer being able to reproduce. Changes in isolated genes would be unique to that isolated population. This contradicts your "the entire species would have evolved on similar paths" part. When a population is isolated ti then goes on its own path due to its isolated mutations and isolated selective pressures.

In light of genetic isolation why would there be a repeat of accumulated mutations that occurred in a separate line to emerge yet again, especially when the occurrence of mutations part is random? There would be new mutations to select from, and new selective pressures working on them, all of this adds up to an emergence of something that would NOT be human since they would have taken an entirely different path due to the isolation of their genes and the circumstances.

New races of humans evolving out of primates is not what the theory of evolution would predict would happen. If that were to happen it would contradict the fundamentals of the process as we know it - what you are describing is not in any way congruent with the theory of evolution.
 
OscarB63 said:
and yet there is no hard evidence that a fish ever evolved into a reptile. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Well, except for the species I posted a picture of earlier in this thread, and many others.
 
Redress said:
Do you believe evolution happened and is happening? Do you think a higher power guides evolution or is it random?
Click to expand...

truthfully, i don't know. i think evolution does happen, but i'm not so sure it's random. i wish god would tell me!
 
Redress said:
Well, except for the species I posted a picture of earlier in this thread, and many others.
Click to expand...

That's not hard evidence or evidence for that matter. It's merely speculation and claiming that the extinct creature is a link between two species. It's not hard evidence but merely theory and speculation.
 
Redress said:
Well, except for the species I posted a picture of earlier in this thread, and many others.
Click to expand...


um yeah, which post would that be? I looked at them all and all I saw was the fossil of the walking whale....which is still a whale. :shrug:
 
OscarB63 said:
um yeah, which post would that be? I looked at them all and all I saw was the fossil of the walking whale....which is still a whale. :shrug:
Click to expand...

You have no idea what a transitional species is. That is all I needed to know.
 
Redress said:
You have no idea what a transitional species is. That is all I needed to know.
Click to expand...

um yeah. a whale transitioning into a walking whale or vice versa is not hard evidence that a fish (maybe you don't know that a whale is not a fish) ever evolved into a reptile.

where is the hard evidence that your "walking whale" is a transitional species? what did it "transition" into?

problem is, you only think you know what a transitional species it
 

The funny part is you got this all wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…