Evolution Article

[imported_elp6n]

Mutation of one frog species over 50 million years into 160 different species is evolution.

Perhaps where our differences of opinion lie is in the basic definition of evolution. Mutation of the sustained variety is evolution. Evolution isn't this grand explosion of one species into another (such as fish into bird or other crazy things).
It's a very slow transitional change.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Evolution: change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. </div></div>

As for the other (probably most) popular argument:
Do I myself think we are direct descendents of apes? No. (There's no proof yet)
But I do believe the genus homo has experienced evolution over millions of years.

For those interested, the National Geographic has an interesting article on bats this month. It discusses the evolution of bats that created the fruit eaters, nectar eaters, bug eaters, meat & blood eaters.

[Gotch]

I don't agree that is evolution. In fact it is a word play by evolutionists to call mutation (which is proven and in evidence) evolution, because actual evolution (which is necessary for the evolutionary theory to be true) is not proven nor in evidence.

That is an example of mutation which for sake of argument can be called micro-evolution, but that is not a scientific term. Technically it is mutation. Mutation does not equal evolution.

[imported_elp6n]

And my opinion is that sustained mutation is evolution
Matter of differing opinions here. I'm making my statement, you're making yours, neither of us will change sides. [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif[/img]

[imported_Counts]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mutation does not equal evolution. </div></div>

Mutation in itself is not evolution BUT you have to have mutation in order to have evolution along with enviromental factors that favor a mutation over the same crecher without that mutation

[imported_elp6n]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Counts</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mutation does not equal evolution. </div></div>

Mutation in itself is not evolution BUT you have to have mutation in order to have evolution along with enviromental factors that favor a mutation over the same crecher without that mutation

</div></div>
Exactly! That why I refer to sustained mutation.
A single mutated tadpole isn't evolution - it could be a screw up to die off and have no benefit to the species. But a single mutated tadpole whose mutation poses benefits, and creates more tadpoles of that kind because it survives better - that's the beginning of evolution.

[Gotch]

No.....in the end you have to have that species to species leap for the evolutionary theory to be correct. The only means by which evolution can explain the variety of species is untold numbers of species to species leaps. We have no real evidence of that ever happening. In fact the evidence suggests otherwise.

A species can mutate till the cows come home but until the cows turn into something other than cows you still have nothing but inter-species mutation, which does not explain the variety of species and which is not evolution.

[imported_Counts]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gotch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No.....in the end you have to have that species to species leap for the evolutionary theory to be correct. The only means by which evolution can explain the variety of species is untold numbers of species to species leaps. We have no real evidence of that ever happening. In fact the evidence suggests otherwise.

A species can mutate till the cows come home but until the cows turn into something other than cows you still have nothing but inter-species mutation, which does not explain the variety of species and which is not evolution.



</div></div>

Horses and Donkeys, Lions and Tigers - There are 2 examples of different species that can still inter-breed. Lung fish have gills but do not need to be in the water all the time due to a being able to get oxigan out of the air (make me think of a jump from fish to anfibian)

If you are looking for old Betsy to have a calf that is NOT a cow it anit going to happen it would take 1000000's of gererations for that kind of think to happen

[Gotch]

Horses and donkeys are both members of the same genus (equus if memory serves) Tigers and lions are too of course. No big mystery nor any evidence for species to species evolution there. Not to mention that nearly all such off-spring are sterile

The Lungfish is actually more problematic for the evolutionist than it is evidence to support his theory. The fossil record shows the lungfish appearing suddenly. No transitional forms are available to support adequately the theory of its evolution. But admitting there might be transitional life forms undiscovered, how would the lungfish arrive according to the theory of evolution?

A non-lungfish interacting with environmental change turns into a lungfish yet all other internal organs, egg laying habits and functions remain completely in common with other fish? Why has this transitional creature remained unchanged for all these millions of years?

[imported_ut1]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gotch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No.....in the end you have to have that species to species leap for the evolutionary theory to be correct. The only means by which evolution can explain the variety of species is untold numbers of species to species leaps. We have no real evidence of that ever happening. In fact the evidence suggests otherwise.

A species can mutate till the cows come home but until the cows turn into something other than cows you still have nothing but inter-species mutation, which does not explain the variety of species and which is not evolution.



</div></div>
Exactly. You have a bunch of different breeds of dogs and cats, but they're still dogs and cats.

Show me a frog that evolved into a mammal and I'll be impressed. [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif[/img]

[sup-rbeast]

Not exactly a frog that has turned into a mammal...but how bout a reptile-bird hybrid..
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19208580/