Starmer And The Southpost Triple...
News0 min ago
Evolution Of One Species To Another
On R&S threads, Theland often states that while evolution most definitely occurs *within* a species, (eg. Darwins finches) there is no evidence that one species has ever evolved into another. Im no scientist, (much less an evolutionary biologist) but I can see what he's saying.
Ive recently been viewing some You Tube vids from evolutionists debunking creationism....and for balance, creationists debunking evolution.... but nowhere can I find anything to suggest that there is any fossil record of one species turning into another.
Can anyone help me out here?
Thanks.
Ive recently been viewing some You Tube vids from evolutionists debunking creationism....and for balance, creationists debunking evolution.... but nowhere can I find anything to suggest that there is any fossil record of one species turning into another.
Can anyone help me out here?
Thanks.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by nailit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
You assume the transision period was long enough to leave sufficient evidence. Recall that tyrannosaurus rex was around for 5 million years let we have only 50 examples to study.
Perhaps more relevant, having accepted a species changes, to split into two requires two groups of the original species to remain apart. So what you will see in the fossil record is just one group changing in one way over time, and another changing in a different way. Even if you find all that, you don't see a species changing to another species as such, but two cases of a species changing and experts deciding at one stage it is called XXX and at another time YYY. It may not even be realised that one is the ancestor to the other.
Maybe these days the DNA record is a better guide than the fossil record as it's more difficult to deny.
Perhaps more relevant, having accepted a species changes, to split into two requires two groups of the original species to remain apart. So what you will see in the fossil record is just one group changing in one way over time, and another changing in a different way. Even if you find all that, you don't see a species changing to another species as such, but two cases of a species changing and experts deciding at one stage it is called XXX and at another time YYY. It may not even be realised that one is the ancestor to the other.
Maybe these days the DNA record is a better guide than the fossil record as it's more difficult to deny.
-- answer removed --
In most cases of evolving a new feature, the changes begin with the duplication of a set of genes that code for something. They can undergo trivial changes without corrupting the function. If both copies mutate substantially, usually the organism fails to thrive.
However individuals where one set of the genes continues to only have minor changes but still code the original function do just fine, leaving the second copy to undergo mutations which may eventually code for some entirely new feature.
At every step, only the mutations that don't cause a serious problem are passed on, selecting only the successes. The fact that only working changes are passed on ensures that the useful mutations always dominate in a population.
However individuals where one set of the genes continues to only have minor changes but still code the original function do just fine, leaving the second copy to undergo mutations which may eventually code for some entirely new feature.
At every step, only the mutations that don't cause a serious problem are passed on, selecting only the successes. The fact that only working changes are passed on ensures that the useful mutations always dominate in a population.
Claiming that evolution can only occur within a species is like saying it is possible to walk but only within a single suburb.
Given long enough, sufficient steps accumulate to walk anywhere. Similarly, given long enough, many small changes will accumulate to become big changes resulting in a different species.
Given long enough, sufficient steps accumulate to walk anywhere. Similarly, given long enough, many small changes will accumulate to become big changes resulting in a different species.
spungle, its not a work of fiction and fantasy, that would be a stupid thing to suggest. Its a readable scientific factual work written by two genuine actual scientists and interspersed with chapters of a Pratchett story. this is why Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen are on the front cover as authors along with Terry Pratchett.
I do wish that I'd have paid more attention in school science lessons but my frame of mind is more philosophical (always top in religious education and literature). BUT I still have a problem in envisioning a fish taking a breath of air and deciding to walk on land...IT DOESNT HAPPEN!.... EVER!
No amount of vids or internet sites has ever addressed this problem. (at least not to my own satisfaction)
I fully get variation within a species...Neanderthal to modern man, etc but a fish to a human?? Or a dinosaur to a bird?
Give me some evidence, not speculation.
No amount of vids or internet sites has ever addressed this problem. (at least not to my own satisfaction)
I fully get variation within a species...Neanderthal to modern man, etc but a fish to a human?? Or a dinosaur to a bird?
Give me some evidence, not speculation.
"I still have a problem in envisioning a fish taking a breath of air and deciding to walk on land..."
It doesn't have to (but have you heard of the mudskipper, or the lungfish ?) because one can evolve amphibian qualities first before leaving the water. And then evolve further over umpteen generations after opting to stay away from the wet stuff.
It doesn't have to (but have you heard of the mudskipper, or the lungfish ?) because one can evolve amphibian qualities first before leaving the water. And then evolve further over umpteen generations after opting to stay away from the wet stuff.
//because one can evolve amphibian qualities first before leaving the water. And then evolve further over umpteen generations after opting to stay away from the wet stuff.//
Can you give me any evidence of this O-G?
Its anologous to saying that humans can (or one day will) breath in outer space. We cant, won't and never will do. Not without artificial apperatus anyway.
Can you give me any evidence of this O-G?
Its anologous to saying that humans can (or one day will) breath in outer space. We cant, won't and never will do. Not without artificial apperatus anyway.
The evidence is that amphibians exist. And that there is no known reason why a species living in water only couldn't mutate air breathing ability, as it doesn't stop them continuing to live in the water, so no reason for the mutation to die out once it emerges. As the suggestion is sound and answers things that, "a deity created it", doesn't, it has to be the accepted wisdom. Evolution is like that; massive overhauls aren't likely, but accumulated change resulting in something new is expected/inevitable.
//The evidence is that amphibians exist//
And no one doubts it.
//And that there is no known reason why a species living in water only couldn't mutate air breathing ability, as it doesn't stop them continuing to live in the water, so no reason for the mutation to die out once it emerges//
Then give me some evidence.
As I said, its anologious to manking breathing in outer space. Its NEVER going to happen. Man will never breath in outer space and fish will never breath out of water. EVER!
And no one doubts it.
//And that there is no known reason why a species living in water only couldn't mutate air breathing ability, as it doesn't stop them continuing to live in the water, so no reason for the mutation to die out once it emerges//
Then give me some evidence.
As I said, its anologious to manking breathing in outer space. Its NEVER going to happen. Man will never breath in outer space and fish will never breath out of water. EVER!
I mean, Theland, once you realise that life has been around for about 4 billion years on this planet, it's not too much of a stretch to say that maybe trying to find much evidence of evolutionary change in about 30 years is like looking for a needle in a haystack the size of the Solar system.
You can disagree, but it's frankly pathetic to mock, especially when -- to be blunt -- you have not the first clue what you are talking about.
You can disagree, but it's frankly pathetic to mock, especially when -- to be blunt -- you have not the first clue what you are talking about.
Jim,
Ive not overlooked lungfish, if anything I'm grateful for the education. But im still stumped as to how a fish (even over millions of years) managed to breathe and walk on land? (from what ive read, the lung fish does neither of these things)
Will Man ever manage to breathe in space? And in doing so become another species?
Ive not overlooked lungfish, if anything I'm grateful for the education. But im still stumped as to how a fish (even over millions of years) managed to breathe and walk on land? (from what ive read, the lung fish does neither of these things)
Will Man ever manage to breathe in space? And in doing so become another species?
Lungfish can breathe air directly -- granted, it can't really do much more than that, but then the point is that it shows that fish can develop the necessary modifications to adapt to life even outside water. It should be possible to imagine a creature similar to, perhaps even the direct ancestor of, the lungfish developing the same breathing technique (because, in so doing, it could "escape" a limited way onto land from predators, for example), and then developing still further modifications to make the most of that escape, and so on.
Much as Theland mocks it, though, you really do need a lot of time, or a lot of generations, to see this sort of process in action. The fossil record can give glimpses, but tracking the complete progress of a species across the eons is probably forever impossible.
Breathing in space, incidentally, is not a helpful analogy. Space is, after all, a perfect vacuum, so there is nothing there to breathe. The difference between air and water is still stark, of course, but rather less stark than between nothing at all and air.
Much as Theland mocks it, though, you really do need a lot of time, or a lot of generations, to see this sort of process in action. The fossil record can give glimpses, but tracking the complete progress of a species across the eons is probably forever impossible.
Breathing in space, incidentally, is not a helpful analogy. Space is, after all, a perfect vacuum, so there is nothing there to breathe. The difference between air and water is still stark, of course, but rather less stark than between nothing at all and air.
Creatures evolved to take oxygen from water via gills then further evolved to take oxygen either by gills or by taking oxygen from the air. Further creatures evolved to no longer require both sources of oxygen and stayed on land, some decided to stay in the water. This took millions of years.
For man to breathe in space they would have to be in space 24/7. They would have to be in a situation where they were subjected to both oxygen and no oxygen situations for many thousands of years, In this time there offspring would evolve to spend more and more time in the oxygen free environment, until eventually in maybe a million years, they would evolve sufficiently to live without breathing oxygen. This will never happen for various obvious reasons
For man to breathe in space they would have to be in space 24/7. They would have to be in a situation where they were subjected to both oxygen and no oxygen situations for many thousands of years, In this time there offspring would evolve to spend more and more time in the oxygen free environment, until eventually in maybe a million years, they would evolve sufficiently to live without breathing oxygen. This will never happen for various obvious reasons
I'm just chipping in here, but I have recently heard on R4, that it is now certain that birds are the descendants of dinosaurs (in fact I have teased MrJ2 by singing 'Feed the dinosaurs') because they share well over 95% of the same DNA. Since dinosaurs were reptiles, doesn't that prove the evolution of one species to another?
Dinosaurs = egg-laying, cold-blooded reptiles
Birds = egg-laying, warm- blooded....not sure if they class as mammals. Maybe they are at a halfway house?
I will be happy to hear informed opinion on this.
Dinosaurs = egg-laying, cold-blooded reptiles
Birds = egg-laying, warm- blooded....not sure if they class as mammals. Maybe they are at a halfway house?
I will be happy to hear informed opinion on this.
