How do they say it? ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s just pressures to evolve? The door swings both ways though. IsnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t it also a list of creatures being Ã¢â‚¬Å“pressured to adapt & or evolveÃ¢â‚¬Â rather than go extinct? We'll just have to wait and see. Oops maybe our ancestorsr ancestors will have to do that.
And then there has to be a net increase otherwise we wouldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t have up to 30 million species on the planet. Are we losing species faster than we are gaining them? Evolution certainly canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t keep that up for very long. DonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t you think the money would be on them adapting? Otherwise we might have to change the name to devolution. If they die out that will be some negative points for evo right?
Animals are always under selective pressure of some form or another, regardless of whether theyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re endangered or thriving. A lot of the threatened species on our planet have become that way due to human activity, such as hunting or forestry, which happen on such a short time scale that in most cases there simply isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t time to adapt.
As for the extinction/speciation equilibrium, I honestly have no idea. The measurements are rates, and itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s difficult to accurately estimate the number of extinctions that occurred in the past based on the limited fossil evidence available.
I do not consider myself religious. Rather I believe I am an individual. You might say I believe in the primacy of the individual. I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t find many people that do believe what I believe even though many share my belief in God.
IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve always considered Christianity to be a religion, when I was a Christian and now as an atheist. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s says under your information that youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re a Christian, so IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m surprised that you choose not to call yourself religious. But each to their own, I can respect your choice for individuality.
On the other hand things are a little more simple for me and though I have studied evolution and creationism my choice is more personal and individual. As I have said in many other posts, I observe that I like others am creative (very much so). I have compared evolution to creativity and find the efficiency of creativity greater than evolution by any stretch of the imagination. If I want something in my lifetime I am going to create it or find a group of intelligent people that have already create what I want. I bet you do the same. You already told me you have an ipod.
IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m not sure I understand the comparison. Evolution really has nothing to do with efficiency... that would imply itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s moving towards some sort of goal or product.
But you shoot your own foot here exposing your inconggruency. You do not need understanding or intelligence. From an evolutionary point of view no knowledge at all is necessary to cause things to exist that are overwhelmingly more complex than an ipod. Just do it! Mutations and natural selection will ensure your success.
It seems like youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re suggesting that because evolution isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t driven by intelligence, neither is our understanding of evolution. That doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t make any sense at all. Atomic reactions arenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t intelligent, but the physicists who study them are.
You need intelligence to study evolution, even at a basic level. Evolution as a process does not depend on intelligence.
Does this mean you are going to study creationism in like fashion? If I studied auto mechanics I guess I would expect to be an auto mechanic. If I studied medicine I would expect to be a doctor., And if I studied evolution I would expect to be an evolutionist?
I think youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re mixing up definitions here. Ã¢â‚¬Å“EvolutionistÃ¢â‚¬Â refers to someone who believes in evolution, not an expert in the field. You wouldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t have to get a degree in political science to call yourself a Democrat or Conservative. These are examples of beliefs or ideologies.
A doctor, on the other hand, is not someone who believes in medicine. A doctor practices medicine, and thereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a big difference.
But you answer your question, I do try to educate myself in creationism as best I can. IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m already very quite familiar with Christianity in general, from 13 years of education at Catholic schools.
One therefore cannot justify the difference between the species based solely on genetic code as you concur. YouÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve made a good point about creationists blindness (and my own). Thanks!
I never said the genetic code was useless when comparing species; it can be an extremely useful tool. My point was that the size of the genome and the number of genes on there own tell you absolutely nothing. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s the content that matters.
If I handed you two books, one with 100 pages and one with 1000, you would not be able to tell me which contains the most information unless you took the time to read them. The 1000 page book could a bunch of nonsense words, while the 100 page book might be a collection of mathematical theorems and proofs.
Similarly, geneticists gather information by Ã¢â‚¬Å“readingÃ¢â‚¬Â genomes rather than just comparing their size.
I have postulated the idea that life is the culprit that does all the work but evo gets the credit. I suspect life reads the DNA code and thus directs the fabrication of each critter and also provides a software function to animate said creature once the body is constructed. I think Biology is more a function of life than biology is a cause of life. Science holds the latter view does it not?
IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m very confused... biology is the study of life, not a function or cause of anything.