What is an "evolutionist"?

[crochet1949]

One other observation -- In the world of People -- there are a group of 'little people'. They are somewhat unusual because there are Lots of them. It's Dwarfism -- there's also Gigantism. Some would speculate that just Maybe they are a transition form ? And considering that dwarf parents Can produce regular size people and obviously the other way around. But its' because of growth hormone problems. Genetics. But they are still People. A speculation is that Maybe people Are gradually transitioning into something else? The same with Gigantism -- transitioning into something bigger / better? But there is no Need for anything To transition either smaller Or really taller. Both these conditions cause Problems for the people involved. Manufacturers have figured out how to accommodate their size with extra small, short or extra high / tall homes, etc. But their bodies have Problems.

[hughfarey]

"A question, do we see any more transitions taking place Now? A response would Probably be that the process takes too long for a persons' life span to witness it."
Good question, and yes we do. Transitional stages between different species happen very slowly, yes, and any individual which is part of that progress has a perfectly well adjusted lifestyle. There are no fish desperately trying to turn themselves into birds, or centipedes into butterflies. Evolution progresses by the continuous adaptation of species to fit changes in their environment, and by species dividing into two by groups becoming reproductively isolated. Examples of the former are commonplace - just look up "examples of evolution today" on Google - but speciation takes longer and is less exciting. However, as groups of animals speciate, they become less and less able mutually to reproduce, and their offspring become less and less fertile. Consequently, any two groups of organisms that can still interbreed and produce fertile offspring, but don't, can be considered transitional between one species and two, as can any two species than can interbreed but don't produce fertile offspring. A number of American bears demonstrate the first, and, say, cows and yaks, sheep and goats, or even lions and tigers, demonstrate the second.

"The concept of transition from water to land. Why would 'nature' decide that a transition was necessary In the first place? Why not just have creatures stay in the water? Why have land creatures?" Another misunderstanding, if I may say so. 'Nature' didn't decide anything. There are plenty of organisms still in the water. Groups of aquatic organisms living close to the shore had huge unexploited food reserves only a few feet away. Those whose genes gave them slightly stronger fins could exploit the closest of these reserves, and pass this trait onto their offspring, some of whom had even stronger limbs and could climb even further out of the water. It took millions of generations, and not a few genetic mutations, for independent land animals to evolve. Amphibians are still exploiting the intermediate stage.

"Where did the water come From that the aquatic life was living in? To Me, there are just too many unanswered questions." That's OK, but one of the reasons your questions are unanswered is because you've never tried to answer them. Try Googling "where did water come from" for detailed discussions about the current ideas.

"We have beautiful cars, airplanes, boats, etc. Great designs. But Someone designed them. Parts and pieces didn't just 'get together' and 'over time' a car, boat, etc. appeared. And a car won't transition into a tractor or an airplane. But they do have parts in common; engines, tires, etc. But we can tell the difference in those three. They are also non-living things. Not capable of reproduction. But they all had a Designer." You are quite correct that not being capable of reproduction is a major obstacle to the evolution of a tractor from a car, but nevertheless, in some ways they provide quite a good example of evolution. No vehicle today is designed from scratch. The designer works from earlier versions, which derived from still earlier versions, and as we go back in time each earlier version is less and less suitable for the job it had to do, but it was the best at the time. Any individual modification to produce a new kind is very small compared to the previous one, but over time the improvements have been huge. No doubt, if cars, like horses, were capable of reproduction, then, like horses, those which suited the needs of their environment best would have been selected, and a fine variety of cars to suit different purposes, just as there is a fine variety of horses to suit different purposes, would have evolved.

"We just had kittens born -- we can tell by their coloring who their dad is. Put a black and yellow cat together and get an assortment of colors -- but you'll never get a half-something that will survive. They won't somehow produce a puppy." No, they won't, and perhaps you won't drown the ones you can't keep; but over the years, domestic cats have always had kittens, and those which suited their owners best have been selected, and those which didn't have not survived to breed. Your cats are very unlike the first domesticated cats, and the difference is entirely due to artificial selection. Domestic dogs are not descended from cats, but both dogs and cats are descended from a common ancestor whose offspring gradually divided, individual species by individual species, into the variety of cat and dog forms we see today.

[Audie]

"A question, do we see any more transitions taking place Now? A response would Probably be that the process takes too long for a persons' life span to witness it."
Good question, and yes we do. Transitional stages between different species happen very slowly, yes, and any individual which is part of that progress has a perfectly well adjusted lifestyle. There are no fish desperately trying to turn themselves into birds, or centipedes into butterflies. Evolution progresses by the continuous adaptation of species to fit changes in their environment, and by species dividing into two by groups becoming reproductively isolated. Examples of the former are commonplace - just look up "examples of evolution today" on Google - but speciation takes longer and is less exciting. However, as groups of animals speciate, they become less and less able mutually to reproduce, and their offspring become less and less fertile. Consequently, any two groups of organisms that can still interbreed and produce fertile offspring, but don't, can be considered transitional between one species and two, as can any two species than can interbreed but don't produce fertile offspring. A number of American bears demonstrate the first, and, say, cows and yaks, sheep and goats, or even lions and tigers, demonstrate the second.

"The concept of transition from water to land. Why would 'nature' decide that a transition was necessary In the first place? Why not just have creatures stay in the water? Why have land creatures?" Another misunderstanding, if I may say so. 'Nature' didn't decide anything. There are plenty of organisms still in the water. Groups of aquatic organisms living close to the shore had huge unexploited food reserves only a few feet away. Those whose genes gave them slightly stronger fins could exploit the closest of these reserves, and pass this trait onto their offspring, some of whom had even stronger limbs and could climb even further out of the water. It took millions of generations, and not a few genetic mutations, for independent land animals to evolve. Amphibians are still exploiting the intermediate stage.

"Where did the water come From that the aquatic life was living in? To Me, there are just too many unanswered questions." That's OK, but one of the reasons your questions are unanswered is because you've never tried to answer them. Try Googling "where did water come from" for detailed discussions about the current ideas.

"We have beautiful cars, airplanes, boats, etc. Great designs. But Someone designed them. Parts and pieces didn't just 'get together' and 'over time' a car, boat, etc. appeared. And a car won't transition into a tractor or an airplane. But they do have parts in common; engines, tires, etc. But we can tell the difference in those three. They are also non-living things. Not capable of reproduction. But they all had a Designer." You are quite correct that not being capable of reproduction is a major obstacle to the evolution of a tractor from a car, but nevertheless, in some ways they provide quite a good example of evolution. No vehicle today is designed from scratch. The designer works from earlier versions, which derived from still earlier versions, and as we go back in time each earlier version is less and less suitable for the job it had to do, but it was the best at the time. Any individual modification to produce a new kind is very small compared to the previous one, but over time the improvements have been huge. No doubt, if cars, like horses, were capable of reproduction, then, like horses, those which suited the needs of their environment best would have been selected, and a fine variety of cars to suit different purposes, just as there is a fine variety of horses to suit different purposes, would have evolved.

"We just had kittens born -- we can tell by their coloring who their dad is. Put a black and yellow cat together and get an assortment of colors -- but you'll never get a half-something that will survive. They won't somehow produce a puppy." No, they won't, and perhaps you won't drown the ones you can't keep; but over the years, domestic cats have always had kittens, and those which suited their owners best have been selected, and those which didn't have not survived to breed. Your cats are very unlike the first domesticated cats, and the difference is entirely due to artificial selection. Domestic dogs are not descended from cats, but both dogs and cats are descended from a common ancestor whose offspring gradually divided, individual species by individual species, into the variety of cat and dog forms we see today.

Might you post a summary of the above?

[Audie]

One other observation -- In the world of People -- there are a group of 'little people'. They are somewhat unusual because there are Lots of them. It's Dwarfism -- there's also Gigantism. Some would speculate that just Maybe they are a transition form ? And considering that dwarf parents Can produce regular size people and obviously the other way around. But its' because of growth hormone problems. Genetics. But they are still People. A speculation is that Maybe people Are gradually transitioning into something else? The same with Gigantism -- transitioning into something bigger / better? But there is no Need for anything To transition either smaller Or really taller. Both these conditions cause Problems for the people involved. Manufacturers have figured out how to accommodate their size with extra small, short or extra high / tall homes, etc. But their bodies have Problems.

Hey, watch who ya calls short!!! I am over five ft tall, even if not by much!!



IF there were something that enhanced the survival and reproduction of people under 4 ft tall, relative to taller people who were at some disadvantage of even .01%, say, then a simple mathematical projection would show where things would stand in a few hundred years.

Evolution does not just happen any more than the course of a river is simply arbitrary.

Gravity pulls the water downhill; the terrain along the way determines if there will be waterfalls, braided channels, evaporation pan. or perhaps the river dives underground.

Evolution is powered by mutation. The environment determines which ones will be successful.

People are somewhat an exception to the environment thing, at present, as we make our own environment in large part, and health care props of those who might have died otherwise.

But who knows the future, if there is a certainty, it is that things will change.

[hughfarey]

Q. Are transitional forms still taking place?
A. Yes. Sub-species which can interbreed but don't, and species which can interbreed but produce sterile offspring.

Q. Why did 'nature' require expansion from water to land?
A. It didn't. Animals whose limbs were strong enough took advantage of the unexploited food supply. Species diverged into two, one of which was better suited to a more terrestrial lifestyle. Further evolution extended the possibility towards a fully terrestrial animal - the reptile. Amphibians maintain an intermediate lifestyle.

Q. Where did water come from?
A. Google "Where did water come from?"

Q. Vehicles are designed by people.
A. True, but they still show evolutionary progression towards the more comfortable, more useful, more economic, etc. in small design increments. No doubt this would occur without human designers if cars, like horses, could reproduce...

Q. Cats do not give birth to puppies.
A. True. Cats and dogs are derived from wild versions of the domestic animal, and both share a common ancestor who lived about 50 million years ago.

[hughfarey]

On dwarfs: The increasing population of the world, the reduction of living space, the limitations of energy resources and the development of machines all mean that it is not necessary for people to be tall. If some recognition of this made it universally 'cool' to be short, then short people of both sexes would be preferentially selected for as mates, to the detriment of tall people, and an overall reduction in human height could be established in quite a few generations. If taller people were recognised as unnecessary consumers, so that short people positively avoided them, then in a million years or so the human population could split into two species, and possibly the taller one would subsequently become extinct.

[crochet1949]

hugh -- 1) in other words sub-species Didn't interbreed and producing sterile off-spring Can't produce a transitional form.
2) how would aquatic forms know there was Indeed nourishment on the land -- What causes a form To split into two different forms in the first place? Why would aquatic life forms Need a terrestrial environment -- what's wrong with staying put in the water? Why were reptiles Needed. Why would they simply 'develop'.
3) so Now I'm simply supposed to Google the answer.
4) People were the designers Of the vehicles -- even If vehicles Could reproduce -- Someone Still had to Design the first one. And that very 1st vehicle could easily Stay the same way -- Or it Could always Reverse itself and re-absorb back into nothingness.
5) and how do you Know What was here all those 50 million years ago. Speculation.

So-- it's not Necessary for people to be tall. So -- people select their mate for their height or lack there of. And I'm Certain than genetics pays attention to limitations of energy resources and the development of machines which make it unnecessary for people to Be tall. Your 'if's are a bit amusing. So --if short people stopped being attracted to Tall people and avoided them , then, Possibly in a million or so years from now .......... I hope you don't mind that I'm chuckling.

[crochet1949]

audie -- I'll answer this way -- there's really No 'reason' Why any of these things would simply end up taking place. Maybe it's called circular reasoning. "Stuff' had to happen in order for more 'thing's To take place. But 'stuff' and 'things' didn't Need to happen in the first place. But they Did -- in order to get animals on land instead of staying in the water. But the biggest trick is in How a Man - like We are today --- ever became a product Of -- and No, I Don't buy into the 'slowly but surely -- inch by inch -- step by step -- etc by etc.

[hughfarey]

hugh -- 1) in other words sub-species Didn't interbreed and producing sterile off-spring Can't produce a transitional form.

I'm not sure you understand what I said. Sub-species do not 'produce' transitional forms, they are transitional forms.

2) How would aquatic forms know there was Indeed nourishment on the land -- What causes a form To split into two different forms in the first place? Why would aquatic life forms Need a terrestrial environment -- what's wrong with staying put in the water? Why were reptiles Needed. Why would they simply 'develop'.

I have already explained the answers to these questions. Why are you asking them again? The nourishment was not far onshore, just out of reach to 'normal' members of the species but within reach of those with slightly stronger fins and slightly greater mobility. Those members of the species who could reach the new food supply mated with each other preferentially to 'normal' members such that their respective gene pools eventually became too different for fertile offspring to be possible. Overpopulation or other environmental pressures drove aquatic animals to exploit a new food resource.

3) So now I'm simply supposed to Google the answer.

. Yes. If you don't know something but wish you did, then why not look it up?

4) People were the designers Of the vehicles -- even If vehicles Could reproduce -- Someone Still had to Design the first one. And that very 1st vehicle could easily Stay the same way -- Or it Could always Reverse itself and re-absorb back into nothingness.

Yes they did, although even the first cars were only minor improvements at the end of the development of wheeled transport up to that time.

5) and how do you Know What was here all those 50 million years ago. Speculation.

No; fossils with characteristics common to both dogs and cats.

So-- it's not Necessary for people to be tall. So -- people select their mate for their height or lack there of. And I'm Certain than genetics pays attention to limitations of energy resources and the development of machines which make it unnecessary for people to Be tall. Your 'if's are a bit amusing. So --if short people stopped being attracted to Tall people and avoided them , then, Possibly in a million or so years from now .......... I hope you don't mind that I'm chuckling.

That's OK, It was only a lighthearted speculation about the future of human evolution.

[Audie]

audie -- I'll answer this way -- there's really No 'reason' Why any of these things would simply end up taking place. Maybe it's called circular reasoning. "Stuff' had to happen in order for more 'thing's To take place. But 'stuff' and 'things' didn't Need to happen in the first place. But they Did -- in order to get animals on land instead of staying in the water. But the biggest trick is in How a Man - like We are today --- ever became a product Of -- and No, I Don't buy into the 'slowly but surely -- inch by inch -- step by step -- etc by etc.

The transition to land is not mysterious. There are fish today that climb out of the water, and go about on land.

There are fish that gulp air to supply oxygen when the water cannot support gill-breathing.
A big advantage for fish to survive the drought; all their competition died.

A fish that can travel from one pond to the next has a big advantage, drought or no drought.

One capable of catching food on land has an advantage.

Where do you see this transition to land as being impossible, in, you know,
an earth made by an infinitely wise God?

[Philip]

Audie: Where do you see this transition to land as being impossible, in, you know, an earth made by an infinitely wise God?

IF God had chosen evolution as His mechanism, by all means, it was possible. If He made the earth in 6 literal days, or over six very long periods of undetermined periods - really, HOW God created does not matter, as He could have done it in any way, at any speed (instantly to billions of years) - it really is no problem for a Being who has no limitations in power or ability. But we get into trouble when we say, "but God never would have done it like this or like that." Were you THERE? Do you know the mind of God? Gotta be careful with such things.

[Audie]

Audie: Where do you see this transition to land as being impossible, in, you know, an earth made by an infinitely wise God?

IF God had chosen evolution as His mechanism, by all means, it was possible. If He made the earth in 6 literal days, or over six very long periods of undetermined periods - really, HOW God created does not matter, as He could have done it in any way, at any speed (instantly to billions of years) - it really is no problem for a Being who has no limitations in power or ability. But we get into trouble when we say, "but God never would have done it like this or like that." Were you THERE? Do you know the mind of God? Gotta be careful with such things.

Works great with no god at all!

Not sure who "we" are, but that latter was not something that would occur tome to say.

[abelcainsbrother]

Francis Crick who won a Nobel prize for his work in Genetics in his "Central Dogma" explains that although genetic information can travel outwards from the DNA in the cell nucleus in order to direct the formation of proteins,information from the body cannot travel back into the nuclei of germ cells and modify the DNA pattern. In other words environmental pressures cannot effect the DNA of any life.

[Audie]

Environmental causes of change to DNA..info as close as your nearest wiki page.

DNA damage is an alteration in the chemical structure of DNA, such as a break in a strand of DNA, a base missing from the backbone of DNA, or a chemically changed base such as 8-OHdG. Damage to DNA that occurs naturally can result from metabolic or hydrolytic processes. Metabolism releases compounds that damage DNA including reactive oxygen species, reactive nitrogen species, reactive carbonyl species, lipid peroxidation products and alkylating agents, among others, while hydrolysis cleaves chemical bonds in DNA.[1] Naturally occurring oxidative DNA damages arise at least 10,000 times per cell per day in humans and 50,000 times or more per cell per day in rats,[2] as documented below.

DNA damage is distinctly different from mutation, although both are types of error in DNA. DNA damage is an abnormal chemical structure in DNA, while a mutation is a change in the sequence of standard base pairs.

DNA damage and mutation have different biological consequences. While most DNA damages can undergo DNA repair, such repair is not 100% efficient. Un-repaired DNA damages accumulate in non-replicating cells, such as cells in the brains or muscles of adult mammals and can cause aging.[3][4][5] (Also see DNA damage theory of aging.) In replicating cells, such as cells lining the colon, errors occur upon replication of past damages in the template strand of DNA or during repair of DNA damages. These errors can give rise to mutations or epigenetic alterations.[6] Both of these types of alteration can be replicated and passed on to subsequent cell generations. These alterations can change gene function or regulation of gene expression and possibly contribute to progression to cancer.

[abelcainsbrother]

Environmental causes of change to DNA..info as close as your nearest wiki page.

DNA damage is an alteration in the chemical structure of DNA, such as a break in a strand of DNA, a base missing from the backbone of DNA, or a chemically changed base such as 8-OHdG. Damage to DNA that occurs naturally can result from metabolic or hydrolytic processes. Metabolism releases compounds that damage DNA including reactive oxygen species, reactive nitrogen species, reactive carbonyl species, lipid peroxidation products and alkylating agents, among others, while hydrolysis cleaves chemical bonds in DNA.[1] Naturally occurring oxidative DNA damages arise at least 10,000 times per cell per day in humans and 50,000 times or more per cell per day in rats,[2] as documented below.

DNA damage is distinctly different from mutation, although both are types of error in DNA. DNA damage is an abnormal chemical structure in DNA, while a mutation is a change in the sequence of standard base pairs.

DNA damage and mutation have different biological consequences. While most DNA damages can undergo DNA repair, such repair is not 100% efficient. Un-repaired DNA damages accumulate in non-replicating cells, such as cells in the brains or muscles of adult mammals and can cause aging.[3][4][5] (Also see DNA damage theory of aging.) In replicating cells, such as cells lining the colon, errors occur upon replication of past damages in the template strand of DNA or during repair of DNA damages. These errors can give rise to mutations or epigenetic alterations.[6] Both of these types of alteration can be replicated and passed on to subsequent cell generations. These alterations can change gene function or regulation of gene expression and possibly contribute to progression to cancer.

Please explain how any of that is modifying the DNA of any life.Even radiation that causes mutations has never been shown to modify DNA and cause life to evolve,it always remains what kind of life it is,like wolves that live in Chernobyl for example that live in radiation.Mutations is not modifying DNA either and causing life to evolve.You can find a video on youtube that shows wolves that live in chernobyl and they remain wolves and their DNA has not been modified because of environmental hostile conditions that they have adapted to,or atleast they have not died yet from it. And even fruit flies in a lab never evolved from a fruit fly,despite the damage the radiation did they remained fruit flies,just messed up fruit flies.

Do you believe dinosaurs evolved wings to escape predators,or fish evolved blindness because they live in dark water with no light? Because there are evolutionists that teach these myths despite the lack of evidence.This is why I believe Francis Crick's "Central Dogma" it is based on evidence that shows and demonstrates that the DNA of any life is not modified because of environmental hazards despite evolutionists today teaching it can,like the link you posted,it implies it,but does not really say it. The point is to show that environmental hazards can modify DNA and cause it to evolve. Producing a messed up fruit fly zapped by radiation over and over just does not demonstrate it.