if creationism is false then is everything evolving just when the flukes come along ?

Question

.. if a species evolves together as a group then why assume that any animal today is a "link" in the evolutionary chain leading to human .. if they are all evolved ? isnt that "evidence" alittly dicey to be using in the theory since it is evolved?
..and on the other hand if its localized mutation and only some members of the species evolved, then is it also to be assumed that only that "line" kept evolving and progressing to a new species while leaving the rest behind? if that is the case, then wouldnt that mean that each mutation that formed a new line would be an entirely different animal until one of its members mutates again? and if its such a slow process then wouldnt there be millions of in-between missing link species unaccounted for .. and if mutation was the cause wouldnt that be observable and at some points happen rather quickly to some groups ?.. anyway, as an evolutionist, which is more correct? the evolving at once theory or the localized evolving one? or somthing else?

Answer 1

"In the beginning, God created....." ......since then things have been evolving.

Answer 2

Posting a science question in the religion and spirituality section often means the asker does not really want an answer. His goal is to ask a question that he believes proves some scientific knowledge to be wrong, or that science does not yet answer, and make the implicit claim that the only other explanation is a god, and specifically, the same god he happens to believe in.

It's the "god of the gaps" - intellectually bankrupt, since it favors ignorance instead of knowledge, and because of the contained logical fallacy.

However, on the off chance that you really want to know the answer:

No animal today is a 'link' - they're all the (current) leaves of the evolutionary tree.

Mutations are very very small - a single mutation does not result in speciation.

Evolution is a very slow process - but then, life had billions of years to evolve to its present state.

Please, pick up a book. You're embarrassing not only your fellow christians, but americans in general.

In the meantime:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
http://www.talkorigins.org/

Answer 3

Evolving at once is a dicy business as it requires a population to change in so radically a sense that this population becomes a genetically unique species incapable of reporducing with former members of it's previous species while still all chaging in so uniform a sense to one another as to be sexually compatable with one another.

Then you have your numbers problem that demans that this localized group of a species is isolated enough as to be able to develope in such a sense as to break away from the rest of its species but still large enough in numbers to survive as a unique group long enough to become a species. In some incidents this is arguably possible, but in the most widespread and successful of species this becomes increasingly difficult.

As to your second line of thought, well... localized mutations built up overtime as a way of evolving is even worse, what with the natural rate of genetic mutation alone. I'm not going to even complicate things with such hair splitting as the rate of "positive" genetic mutations that would actually increase an organism's rate of survival, as such rates are... I've never been good with scientific notations.

Answer 4

One need only look at the variety of human beings to see how evolution works. Some have evolved for warmer climates, some for colder climates, some for areas where height is an advantage, others where being small is good. Of course, NOW we travel the globe and intermingle and the characteristics are blending together, but 2000 years ago those living in one area looked pretty much the same - but different from those in other parts of the globe.

Mutations are often a small difference, and quite often have no effect at all...until they add up over millions of years, just as a pinball eventually tumbles into the hole.

Answer 5

Yes. It's called natural selection.

There are two theories of evolution. Lamarck's states that people gain 'aquired characteristics' i.e. someone swims more, the offspring are good at swimming. This is obviously long.

Darwin's sates that very small mutations happen over millions of years. For example a slightly darker moth would be more camouflaged against a tree than a white one and therefore would be eaten less. Those who were best adapted would survive to pass on their genes to offspring whereas less well adapted ones would die out.

OK?

Answer 6

".. if a species evolves together as a group then why assume that any animal today is a "link" in the evolutionary chain leading to human .. if they are all evolved ? isnt that "evidence" alittly dicey to be using in the theory since it is evolved?"

I'm sorry, but huh?

Evolution: Change in allele frequency in a population over time.
Speciation: When a population can no longer breed fertile offspring outside of itself.

Example: Betty Blue Butterflies are sometimes Green. A small group of Betties land on an island and are isolated from all others. This island possesses bluebug eaters. The bluebug eaters eat the blues that are born. Since Green is a homozyg recess, in this instance, there are no more blues in one generation. The Greens are now a breed, or subspecies. Slowly, over time, the Greens, and the Blues on the mainland change. They are now unlike the original Blues. Maybe the Greens breed in the fall and the Blues in the Summer, when all used to breed in spring. Now you've got functional speciation....a few million generations more and these butterflies have enough genetic differences to be unable to breed together even with scientific intervention....

Before you say it's impossible You can do it with fruitflies in under 3 years....is your god so impotent he can't do in millions of years what I can do as an undergrad?

Answer 7

Good Point ! If evolution is ones` belief to be fact , then what is the determining factor that directs a life form to evolve into another stage ? Also ; If evolution is ones` belief to be fact , then why does the life form in question always progress to a higher form of life and not regress into a lesser form of life , as evolution is not an organized process ? Man`s own known scientific facts proven by man himself in all of recorded human history state that matter cannot create itself from nothing ! You cannot create order from disorder ; And knowledge is known by man and his science unable to create itself from nothing ! There was an original source of knowledge in place when the world was formed , as there had to be a beginning starting knowledge to be learned from and built off of to increase knowledge !

Answer 8

it truly is powerful! the biggest distinction is: Conservatives believe in God, smaller government, and private duty. Liberals go through a psychological sickness and believe (study as dream) that the State (i.e. government) ought to play the function of God with a view to create a Heaven in the international (the place there is not any want for inner maximum duty b/c the government will make all selections for all persons). i'm enormously constructive that's what the story above gets at.

Answer 9

Individuals don't evolve. Populations evolve. It's been observed. No LIVING animals is an ancestor to humans. They are decendants of common ancestors. The molecular data is too solid to ignore. All known life on Earth descended from a common ancestor.

Answer 10

This is a weakness of the evolution 'model'. However, there are similar weaknesses in the Creation 'model'.

We cannot "prove" either model is correct since we cannot scientifically repeat the process over and over again to prove either one.

It's a matter of belief.

Answer 11

If you want the answer, ask in biology and not here. Asking here only proves your motives to attempt to prove evolution incorrect.