|Speciation and evolution are observed in the lab in repeatable experiments[/QUOTE] *There is a difference in evolution. *There is micro evolution and there is macro evolution. *Micro evolution is the change *shown in a lab, within a species, such as longer hair, slightly different coloration. *An example of this would be as pointed out earlier, moths that are born with dark brown coloration would be able to hide better in the city, thus increasing their chance of survival. The moths with dark brown coloration would breed and live longer than those lighter ones, so there would be darker ones in the city as opposed to lighter ones in the fields. *Macro evolution on the other hand is between species, such as from fish to lizards. *This has Never been shown in a lab, thus our lack of links between species today. *Another point. *Ask your Christian friends how when it says in Genesis that God created the heavens and the earth, they can interpret this to mean evolution? *It says all over the Bible, "The heavens were created by your hand." *"Man was created in God's image", " God saw all that He created and it was good." *Now you mentioned that transitional forms abound. *Would you mind telling me one the furtherance of my knowledge? This is a cool post, keep it up! [img]http://www.**********.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif[/img] [img]http://www.**********.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif[/img]
i was going to write the same type of response that you wrote to capslock but you beat me to it!! *I am also a Christian and i believe natural selection is true but evolution is not. *Natural selection says that only the strongest will survive. *An example of this is the brown and white moths mentioned in several other posts. The brown moth was able to live longer in the city because of its brown color. *This color allowed it to blend in with its surroundings and kept it from being eaten by a predator, like a bird. *The white moths would stand out and would not survive. *Soon all the white moths were eaten and the brown moths were left to survive. This is what i believe happened. * I do not believe that the white moths were able to think, "Hmmm, if i were brown then i would survive," and then they evolved. *
This is a very interesting post to start discussion. *I hope i did not offend anyone as this was not my intention, I merely wanted to state my beliefs. [img]http://www.**********.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif[/img]
* * * * * * * *-buckeye
Capslock, I must say though, I'm impressed with your site so far. I too am trying to figure out HTML languaging and yours looks good! Keep up the good work!
Either learn to live with the changing enviroment or die. The vft adjusted and started to use bugs as a source of nutrients. That is my thought. It is unfortunate that many plants/animals can not adjust to the changing enviroment due to humans screwing things up (I don't think vft's can handle it either).
My two dollars fifty three cents worth of info,
How did the VFT "learn to adjust" Travis? You have an interesting point of view, I want to hear it! [img]http://www.**********.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif[/img]
|Quote (SnowyFalcon @ July 18 2003,06:49)|
|How did the VFT "learn to adjust" Travis? *You have an interesting point of view, I want to hear it! *[img]http://www.**********.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif[/img][/QUOTE]|
I do? lol Thank You! [img]http://www.**********.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif[/img]
It is more evolving over time (evolution) to meet the changing enviroment. Due to the lack of nutrients in the soil vft's (sundews, neps, sarrs, yada, yada) developed methods of catching insects for added source (an aid not requirment to live). I believe in the "Theroy of Evolution" and Nature always wins too [img]http://www.**********.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif[/img] . I also believe capslock and Seminole's point of view.
Thanks for taking interest,
First off, I love all my pft friends, and know that this sort of debate can get charged. If it looks like it's going to start, I'll quietly bow out, as it's not worth losing friends over.
A few things to consider: We can all agree that mutations occur. We see it all over our own plant collections. Even if one mutation in a thousand confers a benefit to the plant, it will increase it's survival rate, and eventually become a standard feature of the species. All the negative mutations result in a lower survival rate, and eventually die out. Repeat this process over several hundred million years and you have evolution.
Next, speciation is defined by most scientists this: when the fertile progeny of a species can no longer mate with the parent, a new species is born. This has been observed both in nature and in the lab. Often when a group of a species becomes, say, physically isolated from the rest of a group, their driving environmental factors change and often a new species is the result. Speciation is not necessarily a large or particularly noticable evolutionary step at all, it's just the one that prevents interbreeding and sets the two species off on different paths.
Finally, there is no difference between micro- and macro-evolution, and most scientists don't even use the terms. You will never see a lizzard become a bird, or an ant become an elephant. Large-scale changes occur over hundreds of thousands or millions of years. If you grant that micro-evolution exists and can be observed, you've just unwittingly acknowledged "macro" evolution, which is the same thing over a MUCH longer time frame.
And lastly for snowyfalcon, my Christian friends who've spoken on the matter (which includes my parents, btw) read Genesis as an allegorical account rather than literal. The meaning is the same, it's simply the hand of God that's put it all (evolution) into motion. This is a fairly mainstream Christian viewpoint, though not shared by everyone, obviously.
For anyone's interest, here are some links:
Talk.origins home page
This is a great site for all things evolution.
Malo Periculosam Libertatem Quam Quietum Servitium
My photos are copyright-free and public domain
I have similar inclinations, Capslock. I don't want to start a argument, just discuss the pros and cons of our beliefs.
First off, in replying to your first statement about one good mutation over 100 years, happening again and again to make evolution. If you take the smallest cell in the human body and then you look at the flagellum. At the base of the flagellum is basically a rotary engine, with somewhere around 13 major pieces. How could something this complex have evolved. If it took millions of years for this to develop, then the flagellum wouldn't have worked for all that time. A stationary cell could not find food, and therefore would die. This mutation would not work out into evolution. The only way this could work out is if there was a Divine Intellect who put all the pieces together at the start of Creation.
In replying to your second topic about speciation. Both a Chihuahua (sp?) and a Great Dane are dogs. Can they mate? No, of course not. Is the Chihuahua a different species? No.
The third topic deals with micro-evolution. Whether the moths are light brown or dark brown, they are still moths. Take Charles Darwin's study on the finches for example. That was a study of micro-evolution. Same species, varied beak sizes and shapes. When he got back to England he decided to apply his theory of micro-evolution to a larger scale. He says in his book, Origin of the Species, that if one thing can be found that cannot be explained by small incremental jumps, then his whole theory of evolution would fall apart.
The next point was on the book of Genesis. You said that the book of Genesis was allegorical. How did you make that determination? You cannot pick and choose what parts of the Bible that you believe and what parts you choose to make into a myth. Either the whole thing is the Word Of God or it is a allegorical myth. If the first, then Creationism is true. If the second, then Christ is a allegorical character and really has no saving power to take your sins away from you. [img]http://www.**********.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif[/img]
The links are very informative. But here is a few things of what they said.
| Note that fossils separated by more than about a hundred thousand years cannot show anything about how a species arose. Think about it: there could have been a smooth transition, or the species could have appeared suddenly, but either way, if there aren't enough fossils, we can't tell which way it happened. [/QUOTE]|
Really? We can't tell which way it happened because there is not enough proof for evolution? The next thing.
|Why don't paleontologists bother to popularize the detailed lineages and species-to-species transitions? Because it is thought to be unnecessary detail[/QUOTE]|
Unnecessary detail huh? It is unnecessary to prove evolution with species to species transitions? This would be the only proof possible for evolution, yet this site is deeming it unneccesary.
I hope I'm not stepping on anybodies toes here. I feel strongly about my opinions and love to talk to others about them.
By angeljr8282 in forum General Discussions
Last Post: 12-09-2008, 09:55 AM
By Botanicadenta in forum Venus Flytrap (Dionaea ) Care Information & Tips
Last Post: 08-30-2008, 08:17 AM
By silverwhite in forum Venus Flytrap (Dionaea ) Care Information & Tips
Last Post: 02-19-2007, 01:20 PM
By horticulturist in forum Venus Flytrap (Dionaea ) Care Information & Tips
Last Post: 02-26-2004, 04:06 PM
By horticulturist in forum Identify That Plant!
Last Post: 02-24-2004, 10:42 AM