Food For Thought. - Politics

[rrfpacker]

nohitter,

What you call evolution, I call adaptation, others call it micro-evolution and I won't quibble about the label. As far as I know, the bacteria, weeds, etc. do not become a new species (correct me if I'm wrong), they adapt. It's still the same weed, flu, rhinovirus, just stronger. No different than humans, millions of whom never get sick, others get sick all the time. Different, still homo sapien.

To clarify, I consider evolution to mean the changing of one species to another and I disagree with the premise.

[nohitter151]

nohitter,

What you call evolution, I call adaptation, others call it micro-evolution and I won't quibble about the label. As far as I know, the bacteria, weeds, etc. do not become a new species (correct me if I'm wrong), they adapt. It's still the same weed, flu, rhinovirus, just stronger. No different than humans, millions of whom never get sick, others get sick all the time. Different, still homo sapien.

To clarify, I consider evolution to mean the changing of one species to another and I disagree with the premise.

"Species" is an arbitrary label given to living things by man. It has no meaning in the greater context of the universe. You call it "adaptation", but evolution is adaptation - nothing more. If a bacteria "adapts" to live in a new environment (surrounded by toxins), that is no different from an aquatic animal that "adapts" to live in a new environment (on land).

I think that people simply cannot comprehend the enormous time scales by which "macro-evolution" occurs, and that is why they cannot believe it. If you agree that evolution does occur as you described above as "adaptation" or "micro-evolution", then all you need to do is imagine that occuring constantly. Over enough time (millions of years), the species will have made so many adaptations that it seems a completely new species.

[rrfpacker]

"Species" is an arbitrary label given to living things by man. It has no meaning in the greater context of the universe. You call it "adaptation", but evolution is adaptation - nothing more. If a bacteria "adapts" to live in a new environment (surrounded by toxins), that is no different from an aquatic animal that "adapts" to live in a new environment (on land).
>>>I don't think species is an arbitrary label, it is THE definition of each living organism.
>>>But it is different, and that's where we differ. The bacteria is still the same bacteria, it's DNA structure is still the same. The aquatic animal has to have its DNA stucture completely change in order to adapt for life on land. This has never been observed and there is no fossil or scientific evidence for it, there is only conjecture.

I think that people simply cannot comprehend the enormous time scales by which "macro-evolution" occurs, and that is why they cannot believe it. If you agree that evolution does occur as you described above as "adaptation" or "micro-evolution", then all you need to do is imagine that occuring constantly. Over enough time (millions of years), the species will have made so many adaptations that it seems a completely new species.
>>>Again, I disagree. I don't believe that any amount of years would be enough for the first "lifeform" to mutate, adapt, whatever, to form not only a tree, but a fish, and a cow and on and on. And not only do I not believe that could happen, I don't believe there would be any reason for this "lifeform" to create a nervous system, circulatory system, digestive system, brain, etc. And how would it know how to reproduce itself? There just isn't any evidence that this has happened.

"the species will have made so many adaptations that it seems a completely new species."
>>>Even if this could happen, if one species adapted so many times it became something else, is the original (from millions of years ago) still around? Are all the adaptions still around or did they die out? Are they all now new species?

So here we are again, each of us with our own belief, enjoying the debate, but not yielding our beliefs. As I said before. Isn't this fun?

[nohitter151]

But it is different, and that's where we differ. The bacteria is still the same bacteria, it's DNA structure is still the same.

That is wrong. DNA can be observed to change quite readily / easily in colonies of bacteria. Anyone who's taken a basic microbiology course would know this.

[rrfpacker]

But it is different, and that's where we differ. The bacteria is still the same bacteria, it's DNA structure is still the same.

That is wrong. DNA can be observed to change quite readily / easily in colonies of bacteria. Anyone who's taken a basic microbiology course would know this.

Structure was the wrong way to say what I wanted to say. What I meant to say was that the DNA has not changed enough to create something new, it is still bacteria...it has not evolved into anything more complex. There is no fossil or observed evidence that any organism has become more complex or has become something else. Or, there is nothing that shows a frog becoming a dog.

[nohitter151]

Structure was the wrong way to say what I wanted to say. What I meant to say was that the DNA has not changed enough to create something new, it is still bacteria...it has not evolved into anything more complex. There is no fossil or observed evidence that any organism has become more complex or has become something else. Or, there is nothing that shows a frog becoming a dog.

There is substantial evidence for it. Of course, we can't observe such changes with actual DNA for several reasons, mainly because such changes take millions of years and we've only even become aware of DNA's existence in the last century.

[rrfpacker]

Structure was the wrong way to say what I wanted to say. What I meant to say was that the DNA has not changed enough to create something new, it is still bacteria...it has not evolved into anything more complex. There is no fossil or observed evidence that any organism has become more complex or has become something else. Or, there is nothing that shows a frog becoming a dog.

There is substantial evidence for it. Of course, we can't observe such changes with actual DNA for several reasons, mainly because such changes take millions of years and we've only even become aware of DNA's existence in the last century.

Nohitter,
Here is where most of these discussions come to a conclusion. I say there isn't any fossil evidence to support the changes you say are happening, you say there is. So we get to agree to disagree.

[rrfpacker]

Who knew our illustrious colleague, Roving Cowboy, continued something with such interesting roots.