Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

The complexity of life Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Racoon)
    ok, we're onto something here. You of all people must be able to tell me then, what do bacteria evolve into if not another bacteria type?
    i am not a Biologist ? that is mainly for the ladies. and mr D.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the bear)
    :spank::bear::spank:

    :creep:
    Ooooh naughty bear :mmm:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Racoon)
    Indeed, it is. I totally agree with you on that point, we can see the evidence for that very clearly, as I said earlier one example is wolves to domestic dogs.
    You can't even get that right.

    What I am trying to say here is that there is no evidence in evolution for one species becoming another species


    Yes there is.

    I believe oddities found in fossilised form to be their own species.
    You can believe what you want - but personal ignorance does not make things true the way you want them.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Racoon)
    x
    Here I will attempt to not prove, exactly, but strongly support and lend credence to evolution, from first principles. Raccoon, if you have problems with any of these premises, this is your opportunity to pipe up. If you don't have any problems, or when those problems are cleared up, I will move on to the conclusion.

    1) Sufficiently genetically or physically different animals cannot interbreed to produce viable offspring. Evidence for this as as follows: mules, the offspring of horses and donkeys, are sterile, as are any other living offspring of different species, such as ligers, tiguars, and the like. Indeed, this is how species are designated as being separate - their inability to interbreed to produce viable offspring.

    2) Species adapt to their environments over long periods of time. Antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria are good evidence of this, but it has also been shown to occur in larger creatures - the peppered moth, which originally had light-coloured wings, grew darker and darker in coloration over the course of the Industrial Revolution in London, as the trees it lived in and camouflaged itself in became darkened by soot.

    3) Groups of organisms sometimes become separated and live separately for long periods of time. For this, imagine a group of animals that migrate to a different land mass, which then becomes isolated from their continent of origin by geological occurrences or perhaps rising sea levels. For example, Siberia and Alaska were once connected by the Bering land bridge, but that land bridge became submerged and impassable about 11,000 years ago. If a species had groups of organisms inhabiting both sides of that bridge, they would be unable to interbreed after it was submerged.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Yeah everything can't just happen by accident
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ninedartcharlie)
    You can't even get that right.

    [/b]

    Yes there is.



    You can believe what you want - but personal ignorance does not make things true the way you want them.

    There is actually no content in here to discuss?

    What didn't I get right and 'yes there is' what?

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/li.../l_015_02.html
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anosmianAcrimony)
    Here I will attempt to not prove, exactly, but strongly support and lend credence to evolution, from first principles. Raccoon, if you have problems with any of these premises, this is your opportunity to pipe up. If you don't have any problems, or when those problems are cleared up, I will move on to the conclusion.

    1) Sufficiently genetically or physically different animals cannot interbreed to produce viable offspring. Evidence for this as as follows: mules, the offspring of horses and donkeys, are sterile, as are any other living offspring of different species, such as ligers, tiguars, and the like. Indeed, this is how species are designated as being separate - their inability to interbreed to produce viable offspring.

    2) Species adapt to their environments over long periods of time. Antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria are good evidence of this, but it has also been shown to occur in larger creatures - the peppered moth, which originally had light-coloured wings, grew darker and darker in coloration over the course of the Industrial Revolution in London, as the trees it lived in and camouflaged itself in became darkened by soot.

    3) Groups of organisms sometimes become separated and live separately for long periods of time. For this, imagine a group of animals that migrate to a different land mass, which then becomes isolated from their continent of origin by geological occurrences or perhaps rising sea levels. For example, Siberia and Alaska were once connected by the Bering land bridge, but that land bridge became submerged and impassable about 11,000 years ago. If a species had groups of organisms inhabiting both sides of that bridge, they would be unable to interbreed after it was submerged.
    Thank you for your sensible and polite reply, I do appreciate that.

    1. Agreed, does not approve evolution just explains what we know about 'their inability to interbreed to produce viable offspring'.

    2. I don't believe there is evidence to support the theory that throughout the entire time of the 1800's Industrial Revolution, both shades were not present.

    Thick soot and air pollution killed the lighter coloured lichen, this left exposed the dark bark, therefore the darker moths survived as they were less exposed and the lighter coloured moths were more easily seen by birds.

    Since the clean up of soot and air pollution, tree lichen regrew allowing the lighter moths to breed without the threat of birds killing them off.

    Therefore the population balance of both the darker and lighter moths have increased or decreased according to the environment, not to them adapting.

    3. Yes, land which was once joined has moved and therefore areas around the world have species specific to its land mass.

    I've pipped up.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the bear)
    i am not a Biologist ? that is mainly for the ladies. and mr D.
    Really?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Sorry but if you don't believe in evolution then you are really stupid, and it is dangerous for you to spread this ideology that is based on fantasy.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _icecream)
    Yeah everything can't just happen by accident
    In deed it can't. Everything is far too complex. There is no way A could have reached Z by evolving.

    The stages in between wouldn't have facilitated life.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dinasaurus)
    Sorry but if you don't believe in evolution then you are really stupid, and it is dangerous for you to spread this ideology that is based on fantasy.

    Dangerous? lol

    If you can convince me evolution is true then I'll believe it, there is nothing dangerous about discussing a theory of something.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Racoon)
    Dangerous? lol

    If you can convince me evolution is true then I'll believe it, there is nothing dangerous about discussing a theory of something.
    How do you have a theory? You have a hunch not a theory. A theory requires a lot more groundwork such as the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Gravity (you believe in gravity right?).

    Well there's obviously fossil records which you seem to disagree with however. Similarities between species in terms of anatomy and biochemistry such as how DNA is made up of the same 4 bases for all life or that most life uses Cytochrome C.

    There's also bacteria which we see evolving incredibly quickly, with us needing to make new antibiotics each year.

    Similarity between the foetuses of mammals?

    Convergent evolution showing that unrelated species in the same niche will tend to develop similar methods to tackle the problems of their surrounding.

    Dogs and wolves? Humans and Chimpanzees? Do you not notice a similarity?

    What level of education do you have in Biology, this should've been covered in GCSE.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Racoon)
    Thank you for your sensible and polite reply, I do appreciate that.

    1. Agreed, does not approve evolution just explains what we know about 'their inability to interbreed to produce viable offspring'.

    2. I don't believe there is evidence to support the theory that throughout the entire time of the 1800's Industrial Revolution, both shades were not present.

    Thick soot and air pollution killed the lighter coloured lichen, this left exposed the dark bark, therefore the darker moths survived as they were less exposed and the lighter coloured moths were more easily seen by birds.

    Since the clean up of soot and air pollution, tree lichen regrew allowing the lighter moths to breed without the threat of birds killing them off.

    Therefore the population balance of both the darker and lighter moths have increased or decreased according to the environment, not to them adapting.
    You've hit the nail on the head there - you've actually described the process of natural selection. Darker-coloured moths in a dark environment blend in better, have more offspring, and pass on the genes for dark coloration, allowing those genes to spread though the moth population. You're quite right that both lighter-coloured and darker-coloured moths were present at all times.

    "Adapting" is still a valid term for what the moths did, however - although there was no conscious thought involved, the species' phenotype changed in response to environmental pressures.

    (Original post by Racoon)
    3. Yes, land which was once joined has moved and therefore areas around the world have species specific to its land mass.

    I've pipped up.
    If that's the only reservation you have about my premises, I think I can move on to the conclusion. When a species is divided into two smaller groups, which interbreed separately, they will accumulate genetic differences from each other, since their environments will exert different pressures on each of the separate groups. Eventually they will be so genetically different that they will no longer be able to interbreed, and evolution will have struck again - where once there was one species, now there are two. Those two species can then continue to accumulate differences from each other, since they no longer share a gene pool.

    Probably the most important thing that needs saying is, evolution is not the transformation of one species into a radically different kind of animal or organism - it's the splitting of a species into two very similar species, which become, very slowly, more and more different.

    Now I realise that since I'm trying to prove something to you, the onus of proof should be on me, but having accepted my premises, can you see any reason why biology shouldn't work as I've explained above?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Racoon)
    There is actually no content in here to discuss?

    What didn't I get right and 'yes there is' what?

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/li.../l_015_02.html
    I clearly quoted you and separated the replies. If you are incapable of following that then it speaks almost as much about you as your post I replied to.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Racoon)
    In deed it can't. Everything is far too complex. There is no way A could have reached Z by evolving.

    The stages in between wouldn't have facilitated life.
    Arguments from personal incredulity have no weight - they are just testimony to the lack of intelligence or knowledge of the person uttering them.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I wonder if someone should trot out Poe's Law here?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Nature's too complex for it to "just happen". Things with such complexity needs a creator/designer.
    Look up irreducible complexity
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Racoon)
    In deed it can't. Everything is far too complex. There is no way A could have reached Z by evolving.

    The stages in between wouldn't have facilitated life.
    And that's why I believe in God
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Supersaps)
    Right. I agree on that point.


    I'm just saying that evolution within species is very very well-documented.
    no evolution supporting change of kind however which is what people claim to be how humans came into existence
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Racoon)
    ok, we're onto something here. You of all people must be able to tell me then, what do bacteria evolve into if not another bacteria type?
    There is more than one species of bacteria. For somebody who's supposedly well-versed enough to press this point again and again, you don't even seem to know what a species is.

    (Original post by iluvarabdick)
    no evolution supporting change of kind however which is what people claim to be how humans came into existence
    Between your provocative username and the fact that you joined yesterday, there's no reason for anybody on this website to take you seriously.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 22, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Break up or unrequited love?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.