Endzone2 Wrote:Another thing I don't understand about evolution. If we all just evolved from the same blob millions of years ago, how did the blob know to make boys like boys and girls like girls. I mean, you know, how did evolution know to make the boy kind of like fit into the girl--do you know what I mean? I mean I know there are different sizes, and all (don't know if that is part of evolution) but how did evolution know to make boys like boys and girls like girls? We all evolved from the same blob didn't we? Does anybody know what I'm talking about with the boys n girls thing? ;-)

Here's the story....

There was this planet, that just happened to be in the perfect location in relation to the sun, which just happened to be located where it was. The planet just happened to have an atmosphere that was life worthy, unlike the other planets. On this planet, there was this pool of stuff that just happened to be there, and within it, these one cell organisms developed that just happened to live even though that would have been impossible with the atmosphere. This one cell organism one day just happened to split and create more one cell organism even though something like that had never happened before. Then even later, that one cell organism just happened to add another cell. Then it just happened to add even more cells. Some of the cell just happened to become specialized and only handle certain functions. Way Way Way down the line, those cells just happened to become humans. I know this just happens to leave out all of the major inovations like the eye, the brain, the opposible thumb, etc that just happened to happen, but you get the idea. By the way, it just happens to be a load of crap.

GrayBeard Wrote:

Endzone2 Wrote:Another thing I don't understand about evolution. If we all just evolved from the same blob millions of years ago, how did the blob know to make boys like boys and girls like girls. I mean, you know, how did evolution know to make the boy kind of like fit into the girl--do you know what I mean? I mean I know there are different sizes, and all (don't know if that is part of evolution) but how did evolution know to make boys like boys and girls like girls? We all evolved from the same blob didn't we? Does anybody know what I'm talking about with the boys n girls thing? ;-)

Here's the story....

There was this planet, that just happened to be in the perfect location in relation to the sun, which just happened to be located where it was. The planet just happened to have an atmosphere that was life worthy, unlike the other planets. On this planet, there was this pool of stuff that just happened to be there, and within it, these one cell organisms developed that just happened to live even though that would have been impossible with the atmosphere. This one cell organism one day just happened to split and create more one cell organism even though something like that had never happened before. Then even later, that one cell organism just happened to add another cell. Then it just happened to add even more cells. Some of the cell just happened to become specialized and only handle certain functions. Way Way Way down the line, those cells just happened to become humans. I know this just happens to leave out all of the major inovations like the eye, the brain, the opposible thumb, etc that just happened to happen, but you get the idea. By the way, it just happens to be a load of crap.

Well said sir.

Endzone2 Wrote:Another thing I don't understand about evolution. If we all just evolved from the same blob millions of years ago, how did the blob know to make boys like boys and girls like girls. I mean, you know, how did evolution know to make the boy kind of like fit into the girl--do you know what I mean? I mean I know there are different sizes, and all (don't know if that is part of evolution) but how did evolution know to make boys like boys and girls like girls? We all evolved from the same blob didn't we? Does anybody know what I'm talking about with the boys n girls thing? ;-)

Yes, that's actually a huge issue for evolutionary theory. Frankly, how did the first male/female orgnaism reproduce?

This is also a puzzler especially since plants also have males and females.

There is much diversity and much similarity among all life...it speaks of intellegent design, but not the general progression that evolutionary theory would like.

lmfao this thread gets better and better

Sexual reproduction was a major breakthrough for life on earth. To try to understand how it began we can look at single celled organisms. The distinction of "boy" and "girl" would take millions of years to develop as multicelled organisms were created and it was necessary to protect the young in gestation periods.

Fanatical Wrote:lmfao this thread gets better and better

Sexual reproduction was a major breakthrough for life on earth. To try to understand how it began we can look at single celled organisms. The distinction of "boy" and "girl" would take millions of years to develop as multicelled organisms were created and it was necessary to protect the young in gestation periods.

And this makes sense, how?

I understand there are advantages to sexual reproduction...there's just no good explanation as to how this formed.

Some humans have both male and female parts as well...

Well logically when trying to understand life on the smallest scale our reference should be life on the smallest scale. How did the first sexual reproduction begin? What were the factors that allowed it to occur and spurred its advance and continuation? I'm not a paleobiologist so I haven't kept up on the subject. If you really are interested I would recommend searching scientific journals before dismissing that no one has an idea.

Fanatical Wrote:If you really are interested I would recommend searching scientific journals before dismissing that no one has an idea.

That's the point. I have researched these concepts...in the primary literature. Much of it is out of my area of expertise, but I know enough when someone is exaggerating their conclusions. Usually it's not the primary literature article, usually it's some 2ndary source like Sci Am or a textbook.

I'm not really sure what you're asking doc. Are you asking how evoultion occured or why?

Fanatical Wrote:I'm not really sure what you're asking doc. Are you asking how evoultion occured or why?

How. "Why" is more of a philosophical question, even in this context. If someone says "They why is b/c of natural selection" or something similar, they really haven't answered "why", they've answered, "how".

It's a common human trait to name something, and then feel we understand it. It's true from the earliest myths, to fairy tales like Rumplestilkskin, to contemparary enlightenment thinking.

Even Feynmann makes a similar observation in the last of his autobiograpies.

The why question is beyond science, but it's worth a moment of inspection as to why scientists like to dabble in this area, even when they claim they don't.

Competition makes Darwin's finch evolveBy RANDOLPH E. SCHMID
The Associated Press

SCIENCE/B. ROSEMARY GRANT VIA AP
The arrival on Daphne island of the large ground finch, Geospiza magnirostris, caused another species to change, scientists say.WASHINGTON -- Finches on the Galapagos Islands that inspired Charles Darwin to develop the concept of evolution are now helping confirm it -- by evolving.

A medium-sized species of Darwin's finch has evolved a smaller beak to take advantage of different seeds just two decades after the arrival of a larger rival for the birds' original food source.

The altered beak size shows that species competing for food can undergo evolutionary change, said Peter Grant of Princeton University, lead author of the report that appeared in Friday's issue of the journal Science.

Grant has been studying Darwin's finches for decades and previously recorded changes responding to a drought that altered what foods were available.

Scientists are rarely able to document changes in the appearance of an animal in response to competition from another animal. More often it is seen when a creature moves into a new habitat, or the climate changes and it has to find new food or resources, said Robert Fleischer, a geneticist at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History and National Zoo.

This was certainly a documented case of microevolution, added Fleischer, who was not part of Grant's research.

Grant studied the finches on the Galapagos island Daphne, where the medium ground finch, Geospiza fortis, faced no competition for food and ate both small and large seeds.

In 1982 a breeding population of large ground finches, Geospiza magnirostris, arrived on the island and began competing for the large seeds of the Tribulus plants. G. magnirostris could break open and eat these seeds three times faster than G. fortis, depleting the supply of these seeds.

In 2003 and 2004 little rain fell, further reducing the food supply. The result was a high death toll among G. fortis with larger beaks, leaving a breeding population of G. fortis with small beaks that could eat the seeds from smaller plants and didn't have to compete with the larger G. magnirostris for large seeds.

That's a form of evolution known as character displacement, where natural selection produces an evolutionary change in the next generation, Grant explained in a recorded statement made available by Science.

The research was supported by the National Science Foundation.

The Grant study has been going on for decades and is one of the best studies going on in larger animals. The Beak of The Finch by Jonathan Weiner is a great book detailing this and a few other studies in this area.

No one debates population shifts or microevolution.

To call this "evolution" countermines any effort at a serious discussion. It is either a straw-man argument or an illogical appeal to "scaling up" a known process.

In fact, this always strikes me as an effort by supporters of current evolutionary theory, to obfuscate the real problems with the theory.

The emperor has no clothes, telling me to look at the pretty blue sky doesn't change that.

How could an example of a species changing itself to adapt to a changing enviroment not be discussed on a topic of evolution? This is one of the fundamental ideas of evolution itself.

DrTorch Wrote:No one debates population shifts or microevolution.

Actually, until now, I thought you disputed the mechanism of "natural selection" and the veracity of evolution, whether it be micro or macro. I think it's incorrect to say that no-one debates microevolution, but certainly the Discovery Institute and the like is clear in their acceptance of microevolution.

Fanatical Wrote:How could an example of a species changing itself to adapt to a changing enviroment not be discussed on a topic of evolution? This is one of the fundamental ideas of evolution itself.

there is a squirell (i never can spell that word) in the grand canyon that has two different populations each of them different one is on the western side and the other on the eastern side. its pretty cool if you look it up.

DrTorch Wrote:No one debates population shifts or microevolution.

To call this "evolution" countermines any effort at a serious discussion. It is either a straw-man argument or an illogical appeal to "scaling up" a known process.

Another note. Listening to the polemics in evolution vs. creation science debates, an assertion I see repeatedly is that there is no distinction between micro and macro evolution in the literature by evolutionary biologists. I believe in this article as well as topics I've seen on the NAS site (I think), I have seen reference to "micro"-evolution.

I am interested in fleshing out more precisely what it is that you do believe - Dembski, for instance, doesn't dispute many of the cosmological findings regarding the age of the universe or the basic chronology accepted amongst cosmologists. I believe that it is fair to state that he believes in something like evolution by design - that is, pre-ordained changes from one form of life to another. He is certainly not a 5000-year-old-earth style creationist. Is this something like what you believe?

Fanatical Wrote:How could an example of a species changing itself to adapt to a changing enviroment not be discussed on a topic of evolution? This is one of the fundamental ideas of evolution itself.

Obviously you don't understand the questions. The question up for debate is, "How did we get finches to begin with?"

And if you think you can answer that b/c they've got larger beaks now, then you don't know squat about science.

I45owl Wrote:

DrTorch Wrote:No one debates population shifts or microevolution.

Actually, until now, I thought you disputed the mechanism of "natural selection" and the veracity of evolution, whether it be micro or macro.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I don't think this is particularly interesting, to be honest.

Quote:I think it's incorrect to say that no-one debates microevolution,

You're probably right. There are knee-jerk reactionaries in every group. But even they calm down when they finally listen to the details.

Quote:but certainly the Discovery Institute and the like is clear in their acceptance of microevolution.

DrTorch Wrote:e]

Obviously you don't understand the questions. The question up for debate is, "How did we get finches to begin with?"

Finches always existed. Any statement to the contrary is the work of the Great Deceiver.