Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evolution vs. Other Ideas, Come On In!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by FJV View Post
    For some reason it is easier for me to believe apes are descendants from humans.

    I see rather compelling evidence for this each day.
    Harsh...against the apes that is.

    Technically, humans arent descended from apes. Both modern apes and humans have descended from a shared ape-like ancestor.
    Last edited by tantalus; 24 Sep 12,, 22:33.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by tantalus View Post
      What holes then ? It is easy to see why gaps in the fossil record occur. Incidentally, even if the cambrian explosion did occur at the levels some believe (of which there are many good reasons to doubt), the scienitific community still hold that NS was the driving mechanism. There are many different credible theories to why a relatively rapid radiation over millions of years might occur.
      My problem isn't the explosion, or the evolution inside of species. But why are all living things today ultimately sourced no later than the Cambrian. Why has not a single new family of life arisen since? Evolution teaches that at some point a fish became a frog became a lizard became a dinobird or mammal. Yet once those forms are established in basic form there is never again a new seed of life planted.

      Interesting. So they have a group of peptides with impressive antimicrobial activites. Do you have trouble with the idea that these evolved in response to bacterial infections ?
      No, my problem is with the bacterias inability to overcome it.

      Well yes. Not everything has been studied. Not everything has been answered. But there is no evidence to suggest that evolution in the broad sense is false. Lots and lots of smaller details to still haggle over. The evidence is now so overwhelming I have to say there is no need to doubt it in the broad sense. Therefore it seems to me to be reasonable to predict that anything not known yet or which confusion exists over will be explained within the broad framework of how evolution is currently understood. I dont think such statements of confidence will satisfy you however and why should they. So tell me what specific questions cause you concern.
      The problem is the way it is presented in US schools. It doesn't have all the answers and there are some holes it doesn't even try to answer. I've listed some of them.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by zraver View Post
        My problem isn't the explosion, or the evolution inside of species. But why are all living things today ultimately sourced no later than the Cambrian. Why has not a single new family of life arisen since? Evolution teaches that at some point a fish became a frog became a lizard became a dinobird or mammal. Yet once those forms are established in basic form there is never again a new seed of life planted.
        Evolution only occurs at the level of the individual and the gene, not at the level of the family. When enough divergence has occurred, many genera, it becomes useful to group them as a family. It is arbitrary in the strictest sense but still a useful process. Classification only relates to what is there to be classified, so as we stand in the present, most recently are the new species that evolved, themselves grouped into genera which in all likely have evolved from extinct common ancestors. In the millions of years to come new species will evolve in new ways and imagine standing in an arbitrary time in the future, reclassifying the changed (and always changing tree of life on earth) and taxonomists will classify new families and genera of the species present now and Bang you have new families where in the real, current present (2012) there are only genera and species. Think about it, for example, at the time of the first fish, there were no fish families.

        Originally posted by zraver View Post
        No, my problem is with the bacterias inability to overcome it.
        Crocodilia are not completely immune to infection. Regarding the impressive immunity against certain bacteria at the present, it will break down. Perhaps the below examples, illustrate this breakdown is well under way...


        Siamese crocodile...not totally immune to microbial infection, but their resistance thereto is remarkably effective
        ACMA | Abstract | Antibacterial activity of plasma from crocodile (Crocodylus siamensis) against pathogenic bacteria

        Bacterial and fungal cultures were performed from cloacal swabs collected from 29 wild Nile crocodiles...Several of the bacterial and fungal species isolated have been implicated in cases of septicaemia in crocodilians. Knowledge of the normal intestinal flora will contribute towards the development of a crocodile-specific probiotic for use in farmed crocodiles.
        Normal intestinal flora of wild Nile croco... [J S Afr Vet Assoc. 2008] - PubMed - NCBI

        This last link is a remarkable encylopedia of bacterial and viral infections suffered by the crocodilia. You usually only get this kind of publication when there is an economical application behind it...case in point
        http://www.oie.int/doc/ged/D513.PDF
        Last edited by tantalus; 25 Sep 12,, 00:39.

        Comment


        • #19
          zraver,

          See The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection” by Charles Darwin. [http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2009/2009-h/2009-h.htm] Chapter 10 is “On the Imperfection of the Geological Record,” which should explain most of your concerns.

          In Chapter IV, “Natural Selection; Or The Survival of the Fittest,” Darwin asks, “. . .how is it that in each great class some forms are far more highly developed than others? Why have not the more highly developed forms every where supplanted and exterminated the lower?

          and answers, “. . . the continued existence of lowly organisms offers no difficulty; for natural selection, or the survival of the fittest, does not necessarily include progressive development—it only takes advantage of such variations as arise and are beneficial to each creature under its complex relations of life.”

          = = = =

          Of course, this is my 666th post . . .
          Trust me?
          I'm an economist!

          Comment

          Working...
          X