The Thinking Christian on COSMOS and evolution
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-03-2014, 06:20 PM
RE: The Thinking Christian on COSMOS and evolution
(27-03-2014 06:14 PM)TheThinkingChristian Wrote:  
(27-03-2014 06:12 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  No my explanation of macro and micro evolution as a start. I will go into more detail on evolution if you want.

Oh okay lol sorry bout that!

Alright lets continue. Next is something called convergent evolution. This is when animals of two different groups evolve similar patterns due to their environment being the same, or because they both coincidentally used the same shape in a certain body part. Mososaurs and Cetaceans both have a convergent evolution. Both of these animals are tetrapods(includes amphibians and amniotes). During there evolution both of these animals where able to first adapt to their marine environment and then evolve to suit it. Over the years eventually both of these animals where able to become marine super animals.

http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/typesofdin...asaurs.htm

http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] ♪僕は恐怖の一定した状態に住んで、不幸、逃すもう?僕は、それはもう痛いときも気づかないと
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2014, 06:22 PM
RE: The Thinking Christian on COSMOS and evolution
(27-03-2014 06:16 PM)TheThinkingChristian Wrote:  
(27-03-2014 06:13 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  No. Again speciation is macro. Adaptation is just getting used to. If a animal gets used to an environment and the generations show no change, that is adaptation. Second the generations are different from before, that is evolution.

Yeah I mean that I though that micro and adaptation were pretty much the same thing. So what do you mean by micro I.E. dogs? When dogs interbreed?

What is micro exactly if not the adaptation to environment and such within a species?

Micro is changes in a population of the same species. Dogs are micro because despite all the changes they are still Canis lupus familiaris. Macro as I said before is speciation. SO when you see ring species that is macro evolution.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] ♪僕は恐怖の一定した状態に住んで、不幸、逃すもう?僕は、それはもう痛いときも気づかないと
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2014, 06:32 PM
RE: The Thinking Christian on COSMOS and evolution
(27-03-2014 06:22 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  
(27-03-2014 06:16 PM)TheThinkingChristian Wrote:  Yeah I mean that I though that micro and adaptation were pretty much the same thing. So what do you mean by micro I.E. dogs? When dogs interbreed?

What is micro exactly if not the adaptation to environment and such within a species?

Micro is changes in a population of the same species. Dogs are micro because despite all the changes they are still Canis lupus familiaris. Macro as I said before is speciation. SO when you see ring species that is macro evolution.

I'd advise against using that terminology ("micro"/"macro") at all, Paleo. It's tainted by association, not to mention a fundamentally meaningless distinction.

"Evolution" means a change in a population's makeup over time.

As originally proposed this mean a change in phenotype. Now we know it as a change in genotype.

Because given the three precepts of the theory:
A) individuals within a population exhibit variation
B) variation influences likelihood of survival and reproduction
C) variation is hereditary
the result is inevitable. It cannot be denied by a rational, thinking observer.

The next question is how variation influences survival. This is known as selective pressure. Selective pressure may be stabilising - in which case a trait is already at a local adaptive minimum; it may be directional - in which case the population will exhibit a gradual shift; or it may be divergent, in which case there are multiple directions favoured away from the present state.

If divergent pressure persists, sub-populations may emerge which favour different adaptive directions. If the two become sufficiently different they are considered different species. Therefore speciation is also an inevitable consequence of the precepts of the theory.
(and has been observed many, many times)

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 10 users Like cjlr's post
27-03-2014, 06:34 PM
RE: The Thinking Christian on COSMOS and evolution
(27-03-2014 06:13 PM)TheThinkingChristian Wrote:  
(27-03-2014 06:07 PM)Jeffasaurus Wrote:  I highly recommend The Greatest Show On Earth: The Evidence For Evolution by Richard Dawkins.

Where can that be found to watch?

At a bookstore. You can "watch" the pages turn.

Quote:And I don't know about Dawkins, with the whole selfish gene thing... Not that I know a ton about his works. Just a little so I coudln't make a good judgement there.

I am watching the videos on the Khan Academy app about evolution though lol

I'm not familiar with the Khan Academy (is that inside the U.S.S. Botany Bay?Wink), but there are several decent YouTube videos to be found.

[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRcmPL4codsbtiJhpFav3r...-w_49ttW6a]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like Jeffasaurus's post
27-03-2014, 06:38 PM
RE: The Thinking Christian on COSMOS and evolution
(27-03-2014 06:34 PM)Jeffasaurus Wrote:  
(27-03-2014 06:13 PM)TheThinkingChristian Wrote:  Where can that be found to watch?

At a bookstore. You can "watch" the pages turn.





[Image: ezgif_save_1.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TSG's post
27-03-2014, 06:49 PM
RE: The Thinking Christian on COSMOS and evolution
(27-03-2014 06:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(27-03-2014 06:22 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  Micro is changes in a population of the same species. Dogs are micro because despite all the changes they are still Canis lupus familiaris. Macro as I said before is speciation. SO when you see ring species that is macro evolution.

I'd advise against using that terminology ("micro"/"macro") at all, Paleo. It's tainted by association, not to mention a fundamentally meaningless distinction.

"Evolution" means a change in a population's makeup over time.

As originally proposed this mean a change in phenotype. Now we know it as a change in genotype.

Because given the three precepts of the theory:
A) individuals within a population exhibit variation
B) variation influences likelihood of survival and reproduction
C) variation is hereditary
the result is inevitable. It cannot be denied by a rational, thinking observer.

The next question is how variation influences survival. This is known as selective pressure. Selective pressure may be stabilising - in which case a trait is already at a local adaptive minimum; it may be directional - in which case the population will exhibit a gradual shift; or it may be divergent, in which case there are multiple directions favoured away from the present state.

If divergent pressure persists, sub-populations may emerge which favour different adaptive directions. If the two become sufficiently different they are considered different species. Therefore speciation is also an inevitable consequence of the precepts of the theory.
(and has been observed many, many times)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevo...ml#concept

Yes you are right evolution between the two fundamentally are no different. However these distinctions are used to explain what type and how large the evolution is. I understand why you don't want to use it, creationist stole the word and ruined(like everything else)it. So take a look at the source, it shows a actual evolutionary biologist came up with the terms to distinguish how far the evolution takes it.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] ♪僕は恐怖の一定した状態に住んで、不幸、逃すもう?僕は、それはもう痛いときも気づかないと
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Metazoa Zeke's post
27-03-2014, 06:51 PM
RE: The Thinking Christian on COSMOS and evolution
(27-03-2014 06:10 PM)TheThinkingChristian Wrote:  
(27-03-2014 06:04 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  Evolution is the best model of biodiversity that we have. You see evolution every time you see a change in the population. There are two levels of evolution micro and macro. Micro is within a population 9(i.e dogs) macro is when a large genetic change happens (i.e speciation)

Edit

But all we can really se is micro-evolution. Isn't that really just adaptation? Which can be accepted as not evolution at all? But simply how species work depending on their geographical location and such?

*at the risk that thepaleothicfreethinker explained it better*

micro- and macroevolution are the same thing,only is the so-called macroevolution the change of populations over longer time periods (like thousands of years)

it works like this:
random mutation occurs when new offspring is created.
Most of the time this is not benefitial for survival,some times it is benefitial,and sometimes it is the opposite of benneficial(sorry,the word won't pop in my head)
now,when it(the mutation) is not benefitial,it will not spread much in future generations,when it is the opposite it will die out,and when it is beneficial it will spread trough the population in future generations. And over time,all these mutations lead up so much that they cannot mate with the other that did not have the same mutations.

To give you an example:
suppose you had a group of mice and you split them in 2 groups.
Now,you set different conditions for both groups,like colder temps for one and higher tems for the other.
When the mice reproduce,there will occur random mutations,and if they are beneficial tey will spread trough future generations. Since beneficial is relative to the conditions (thick fur would be beneficial in cold areas,whereas not in hot areas).
After a few hunderd generations the mice would differ so much,and after a few thousand generations they would differ even more,maybe even different enough tmice from group a cannot crossbreed with group B.

You can read up about the lensky project where a complete new bacteria appeared due to mutations after a few thousands of generations. This new bacteria could life on citric acid on aerobic(ar anearobic) conditions,whereas the previous generations could not. It is easy to follow evolution trough bacteria since these reproduce fast

I don't really like going outside.
It's too damn "peopley" out there....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2014, 06:56 PM
RE: The Thinking Christian on COSMOS and evolution
(27-03-2014 06:17 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(27-03-2014 06:01 PM)TheThinkingChristian Wrote:  ...
Evolution is unproven.
...
I am willing to check out the evidence! I question everything though,
...

(27-03-2014 06:03 PM)TheThinkingChristian Wrote:  ...
I believe in the Bible
...
I ... question EVERYTHING a lot lol.

I too have looked at the evidence and come to the conclusion that evolutionary theory is by far the best explanation for how life works.

Actually, I would go further and say that the fundamental concepts of 'grow' and 'divide' apply to planetary systems and chemical reactions too.

Whereas my studies of the bible and quran etc. reveal only the nature of earlier generations in attempting to create 'best practice' for their time and there is no value in them other than as museum artefacts.

So obviously, I am curious as to how, assuming we were both looking at the same evidence, you and I came to completely opposite conclusions.


And... Hi.

I was going to say 'Hi' in your intro thread but Muffsy was in there stomping on toes and I prefer a clear dance floor.

Well, as I've said before, I don't know all of the evidence. But it's not as though I "just believe" in God. You may not accept experience as evidence, but my experience is undeniable. But there is the issue right? It's my experience, and unprovable to you or others...

Aside from that there are the various arguments that I've come across, the cosmological, the moral, ontological, the historical person of Jesus, fine-tuning (thinking Anthropic principle here), natural laws, blah blah blah... You know....

I still have a TON of questions yet to be answered, but that is the main reason I am here! I seek knowledge from both atheists and theists alike. If there is a God, which I believe there is, then I want to know about it!

Anyway... And HI as well. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2014, 06:58 PM
RE: The Thinking Christian on COSMOS and evolution
(27-03-2014 06:51 PM)Lightvader Wrote:  ...
benefitial
benneficial
...

These are not the words you are looking for.

Beneficial

and maybe... detrimental?

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
27-03-2014, 06:58 PM
RE: The Thinking Christian on COSMOS and evolution
(27-03-2014 06:20 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  
(27-03-2014 06:14 PM)TheThinkingChristian Wrote:  Oh okay lol sorry bout that!

Alright lets continue. Next is something called convergent evolution. This is when animals of two different groups evolve similar patterns due to their environment being the same, or because they both coincidentally used the same shape in a certain body part. Mososaurs and Cetaceans both have a convergent evolution. Both of these animals are tetrapods(includes amphibians and amniotes). During there evolution both of these animals where able to first adapt to their marine environment and then evolve to suit it. Over the years eventually both of these animals where able to become marine super animals.

http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/typesofdin...asaurs.htm

http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

I thank you for the sources! And the info Smile How do we know all of this stuff? Have paleontologists uncovered all of this? Like I said lol, I don't know much about evolution, especially regarding how we know all this stuff about all these creatures...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: