WHOA! WHOA! WHOA! Back up for a minute. There was just a question on here involving evolution. Pathofreason?

Question

just stated that a turtle can never be a horse, that evolution is not one species turning into another species, that that is a theist's misconception of evolution. Do not evolutionists TEACH that we started as a single cell organism, eventually evolved into fish, then into a creature that crawled out of the water onto land, eventually became mammal, then eventually into a common ancestor of both ape and human? Well that sure DOES sound like species to species evolution, so what gives?

Pathofreason/ what don't you GET about a single celled organism eventually becoming a human that does not involve one species evovling into another species?

Rouge Scrapbooker/ like I just said, a fish into a mammal is what evolutionist claim took place, two different species, one became the other.

Even those who believe in evolution can't seem to agree on what to agree on.

Answer 1

Sorry, no evolutionist atheist can answer this one at present time. They have turned into thick-skinned sea creatures in response to global warmings' glacier melts.

Answer 2

I don't know that you've noticed, but the ocean is a very very large place. Many different ecosystems abide therein. Even on land, if you had to walk, you would find natural barriers that keep one thing away from another, even certain types of trees have their own little valleys. They have lived there for generation after generation, untouched by anything else in the world (like New Zealand for instance) You are living with the idea of all this information given to you all at once, and you are used to the idea of traveling within hours, the span of a country that took your ancestors MONTHS to traverse using horse and oxen (and determination!) We have seen so much and we know so much, and still we do not understand. Just go for a walk in a wild life preserve, or out into the wilderness. The World is a very big place if you are using just your own two feet.

Answer 3

Ok first off, all you had to do is write me an email haha

Secondly, A species is defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. Can a turtle breed with a horse? No of course not, Why? Because they are 2 different species. our particular species evolved from a common ancestor. I was merely pointing out that whenever I talk to "Some" not all Theists about evolution they seem to think that Evolution means a monkey turned into a human one day. .

cadisneygirl76: When you said Species to Species evolution what exactly did you mean? Please elaborate to us all how one species can evolve into a completely different one?
Maybe you should allow for Email contact to discuss this topic, instead you went on a rant during your question. If you want to know anything Email me, But half of what you said is stereotypical Creationist propaganda.


Listen if you guys don't understand the basic concepts of Evolution nothing I say is ever gonna make sense. You just have to be careful of your wording. If you don't understand things like Speciation or Divergence of Spieces nothing any of us say is gonna matter. For future reference just be more specific when asking questions. And if you ever want to discuss something email me.

Answer 4

Yes, you are quite correct. I think what Pathofreason might be saying is that one modern species can't evolve into another modern species (e.g. cat into dog). However both cats and dogs had a common ancestor which was neither cat nor dog, and would have been a different species to both. One of its lines of descendents gradually changed over the generations to become modern cats, and another to become modern dogs. But there is no single clear point at which one species "becomes" another: it is the result of an accumulation of changes over time.

It would have been a carnivore (as are modern cats and dogs) but not the same as any modern carnivores.

Be careful of "became". No individual animal "becomes" anything else. Rather the gradual steps of change occurred at the time each new generation reproduces - "becoming" is a characteristic of lineages, not individual animals.

Answer 5

But these species evolved into similar species and it took millions of years for that evolution to happen. A turtle is a reptile and a horse is a mammal. Those two species cannot evolve from one to another any more than a peanut can evolve into a cow.

Answer 6

basic misconception in your question: these creatures which youre talking about evolving from each other all existed in different time periods. they didnt "change" into the next in the line over night. they lived and died millions and millions of times, and ever time the most suited to survive carried on, and in some cases, that meant being bigger or having more chlorophyll or being quick enough to catch things so youd have a bigger tail... all sorts of things! can you imagine a million million generations? thats being born, living a full life and dying off 1,000,000,000,000 times. you cant count that high if you spent the next 15 years trying to thats how big that number is. early on life lived and died at alarming rates, like hours.

your example however, of a turtle and a horse... those creatures live within the same time period and they evolved along different genetic lines for millions of years, like at least 250 million years (250,000,000).

in all this though, dont get me wrong, i havent said anything about the existence of God or the non-existence of God. This has nothing to do with that, its just evidence and science and logical thought. i have no clue why its that way, i just know that it is the way it is. that is what gives.

EDIT: single celled organisms evolving into multicell organisims isnt that big of a stretch. when one of the amoebas divided, one among millions sponteniously didnt seperate like the rest of them and ended up growing into a little ball of microbs. they continued to grow and divide in this conglomeration for millions of years until eventually the ones on the outside started to become specialized to taking in nutrients while the ones on the inside became specialized to utilizing them. the groups of amoebas which could communicate the best with each other in these groups naturally had a higher survival rate and went on to reproduce. we can observe these effects in bacterial populations in the lab in real time so we absolutely know that this is a real phenomenon. forget the word "evolution" cause that has too heavy of an implied meaning and gets misdefined ALL THE TIME. instead replace it with "natural sellection" which we have proved BEYOND ANY DOUBT does occur within populations and over long periods of time this process can select out the most adept individuals out of a populations. really nothing is "evolving", the effect is those creatures which suck at life dont reproduce and those which dont suck at life go on to make more offspring and therefore the next generation will contain more traits of the most sucsessful individuals. theres nothing difficult about it except having an open mind. this however can be the most difficult thing of all, especially when youre told to do other wise....

one other thing: the concept of "Species" is something which we have invented to try and understand why life appears in so many different forms. really there is no black and white dividing lines for species, its more of a spectrum, so youre hesitation to accept "species to species" conversions really makes no sense. even within the human population there is considerable genetic variability, to the point where if we wernt all human, we might classify some genetic lines as subspecies, for instance aborigional australians and native people of the philipenes have 44 chromosomes, while the rest of the human population have 46. we have different appearences and different aptitudes for different environments. if we were being observed as any other animal we might be hundreds of "species". its just a term we invented to try and understand natures natural diversity. where you draw the line between species is for the most part arbitrary, so youre hesitation and clinging to these lables is also... somewhat arbitrary

Answer 7

Path
I was not claiming anything of the sort (turtle to horse overnight) and you accused me of believing that when I asked the question so your answer right now seems a bit insincere given how you posed your answer in response to my question


oh please path
I completely explained what I was talking about when I said species to species evolution in the details later
If you choose not to read them and make assumptions then I cant do anything about that.
I can claim you are spouting the same tired anti religious crap that others constantly do, too, when you automatically assume that anyone who is talking about species to species evolution thinks that a dog is beoming a horse overnight. In fact, it was pretty much the basis of my question. You make assumptions that I dont understand the gradual genetic changing because I dont agree with species to species evolution. You have made assumptions now twice that anyone who doesnt believe in it or claims it is evolution doesnt know what evolution is. You are the exact kind of person that I was asking about. Why is it you assume that people dont know what they are talking about if they dont agree with you? I have a hard time believing that you really think everyone that speaks of human evolution or species evolution thinks that it happened overnight.

Answer 8

It crawled out? lol, yea, it just "had" lungs capable of doing that. And whales are mammals. And monkeys share 98% of our DNA, and there is about a 1-2% difference in DNA among humans. Why are humans different, why do some have a better VO2 max? or why do we have an appedix? why do the chinese and japanese have a larger area activated in their brains for visual processing?

Answer 9

i think i know what he means. creationists sometimes ask for a cat giving birth to a dog before they will "believe in evolution". macroevolution in a single generation. that is clearly ridiculous, and not what evolution predicts. your description seems accurate enough however (i would only add that as that was happening, other life forms were also evolving - there is no particular reason to follow the path of humans, except that we are interested in it because we are humans).

Answer 10

I probably should start another quesion, but Im curious. If we did all start as a one cell organism, were there break offs of the one cell to then start the different lines of species originally?

Answer 11

What's everyone talking about? Just this evening, I saw a cat change into a dog. Oops, time for some more of my meds!