Jump to content


Photo

Adaptation, Random Mutation, Or Both?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
12 replies to this topic

#1 The Debatinator

The Debatinator

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 198 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Chicago, Illinois

Posted 18 January 2006 - 08:45 PM

Just for verification would evolution be clasified as adaptation, randomization, or both?

Also, on the subject of adaptation, how can organisms that have obviously already adapted need further adapting? What I mean to say is that animals are already suitible for thier environment. Wouldn't that fact halt evolution if that ws the case?

#2 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 19 January 2006 - 02:46 PM

Just for verification would evolution be clasified as adaptation, randomization, or both?



I would say evolution is adapting.

Not sure what you mean here, but the random part is the ‘shotgun’ approach taken, i.e you don’t know what is to befall the next generation so you bet both ways with your siblings, some bigger some smaller, (as an easily understood example), then if the environment changes to favour the small, at least some of your children survive.

Also, on the subject of adaptation, how can organisms that have obviously already adapted need further adapting? What I mean to say is that animals are already suitible for thier environment. Wouldn't that fact halt evolution if that ws the case?


Basically yes. The shark is a good example, relatively little change over the eons. Because it’s environment has changed so little.

#3 The Debatinator

The Debatinator

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 198 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Chicago, Illinois

Posted 19 January 2006 - 03:45 PM

So if evolution is adapting why go as far as the shark? Are ther not organisms before the sharks time that had adapted to their environments thus halting evolution? I'm pointing specifically at older forms which evolved into sharks that shared the same environment.

#4 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 19 January 2006 - 07:32 PM

So if evolution is adapting why go as far as the shark? Are ther not organisms before the sharks time that had adapted to their environments thus halting evolution? I'm pointing specifically at older forms which evolved into sharks that shared the same environment.


The driving force for evolution is the environment.
The environment includes thing like, where you live, what you eat, temperature, terrain, who you live with, and most significantly how rapidly that environment changes.
How you reproduce and live, determines how you will respond to that changing environment.

In the case of the shark (and indeed most aquatic life), it’s needs were quite simple, warm wet, few competitors.

But having an edge is what it’s all about. You may be one species of organism amongst many similar, but if your all competing for the same limited resources, only the best will come to the front. It’s called the Red Queen Principle, which is applicable not only to evolution but to many human endeavours also. Have a read of the link it might clear things up a little.


There is also a couple of successful solution to life/evolution that could help, a) survive by overwhelming numbers, thus micro-organisms, appear not to have changed much, :rolleyes: survive by evolving complexity and specialising. Both work and I think answer your question of why there appears to be some creatures that don’t evolve.

#5 The Debatinator

The Debatinator

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 198 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Chicago, Illinois

Posted 24 January 2006 - 07:09 PM

What environment do humans belong in?

#6 The Debatinator

The Debatinator

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 198 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Chicago, Illinois

Posted 26 January 2006 - 05:20 PM

Is my question that invalid?

#7 The Debatinator

The Debatinator

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 198 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Chicago, Illinois

Posted 28 January 2006 - 10:33 AM

I know it's a fopaux to reply again and again in a dead thread but come now. Surely those expert, ivory tower dwelling scientists have figured out man's environment.

#8 Guest_kingreaper_*

Guest_kingreaper_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 January 2006 - 08:36 AM

What environment do humans belong in?

View Post

Your question assumes a purpose to humanity, that we were created to be within a certain environment.

I do not believe any such thing, thus I do not believe that humans "belong" in any environment as such.

As to what evironment we're naturally found in, well, look at the different types of towns and cities and rural settlements. That's where we're naturally found now (naturally in this situation must refer to "in general" not "without human intervention" because humans automatically intervene in human matters.

#9 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 29 January 2006 - 08:06 PM

What environment do humans belong in?


If we were not clever, I would answer mild tropical, given that we are naked.

But we are clever, we are one of the few animals that change the environment to suite our need and not adapt to them.

#10 lwj2op2

lwj2op2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 292 posts
  • Location:Ridgecrest, California
  • Interests:God, Family, Country, friends.<br />Apologetics, though not well versed.<br />Health, running, bike riding, outdoors.<br />Divorced (by my wife) father of four-23s, 20d, 18s &amp; 13s.<br />Remarried 2 more kiddos 6d, 4s<br />River Boat Captain about 16 years on the Colorado.<br />Power Plant operator at a Geothermal site, just past 5 years.
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ridgecrest, California

Posted 30 January 2006 - 11:16 AM

Your question assumes a purpose to humanity, that we were created to be within a certain environment.

I do not believe any such thing, thus I do not believe that humans "belong" in any environment as such.

As to what evironment we're naturally found in, well, look at the different types of towns and cities and rural settlements. That's where we're naturally found now (naturally in this situation must refer to "in general" not "without human intervention" because humans automatically intervene in human matters.

View Post


Evolution seems to imply every specie has a place it "belongs". Polar Bear, Rhino, Whale, each specie (ToE) is adapted to an enviroment. Your response seems to imply that tis is not true and that if humans have a place to belong, it is in constructed areas. How can this be? There were no constructed areas available IF we evolved.

#11 Guest_kingreaper_*

Guest_kingreaper_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 January 2006 - 01:25 PM

Evolution seems to imply every specie has a place it "belongs". Polar Bear, Rhino, Whale, each specie (ToE) is adapted to an enviroment. Your response seems to imply that tis is not true and that if humans have a place to belong, it is in constructed areas. How can this be? There were no constructed areas available IF we evolved.

View Post

I didn't interpret the question as "Where did humans evolve to live" Which would have gotten from me the answer: Equatorial africa to begin with, then the majority of the land surface of the Earth (depending on the race etc.)

#12 lwj2op2

lwj2op2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 292 posts
  • Location:Ridgecrest, California
  • Interests:God, Family, Country, friends.<br />Apologetics, though not well versed.<br />Health, running, bike riding, outdoors.<br />Divorced (by my wife) father of four-23s, 20d, 18s &amp; 13s.<br />Remarried 2 more kiddos 6d, 4s<br />River Boat Captain about 16 years on the Colorado.<br />Power Plant operator at a Geothermal site, just past 5 years.
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ridgecrest, California

Posted 01 February 2006 - 03:49 AM

I didn't interpret the question as "Where did humans evolve to live" Which would have gotten from me the answer: Equatorial africa to begin with, then the majority of the land surface of the Earth (depending on the race etc.)

View Post


That is what I suspected. I only pointed it out to ease future debate. I have been caught in many such errors in distinction, and grateful for the corrections I have received. It seems there is another above, "the majority of the land surface of the Earth". Most of the land surface is still inhospitable to humans. Only about 2% of the surface has human habitation which can be classed as a city. I did not find a number in my short search but would guess human habitation to be far less than have the land of Earth. Are you aware that if every human (near 6billion) were given a 3 bedroom house with garage, yard etc. the space required would only cover the State of Texas. To give 2 acres each would barely cover Australia. (hope I remembered those correctly). If we all wanted to hold a meeting, the county of Los Angeles in California would allow plenty of seating for the entire planet with room for hot dog stands.
Went a little further than I planned with that, oh well. I got the intent of your post.
Getting back to the theme of the thread. Hmmm, can the obvious adaptation of humanity to the varied environments we find ourselves occur in a biblical history? Yes. Up to the Tower of Babel humanity was centered in a limited region. I have often wondered if there was much variation in hugh then. God caused humanity to be dispersed throughout the world after the tower. From this point there began the differences some call "races" today. In fact there is more genetic and physical difference between man and woman than in people compared by color. Here is where adaption and even specialization play a role. Each region posed enviroments for humans to adapt to. As they remained in these areas, some traits were beneficial and sought after in a mate. In Afria it is understandable they are dark, easier to hide and hunt itn the jungles there. This traight would have no value in the snowy areas of Europe.
Adaptaion, mutation, specialization all obviously occur. The question that remains unporved is, can these bring about a new specie? So far only speculation and assumption have allowed plausible answers. No evidence is available to support macroevolution.

#13 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 01 February 2006 - 01:40 PM

Getting back to the theme of the thread. Hmmm, can the obvious adaptation of humanity to the varied environments we find ourselves occur in a biblical history? Yes.


Using Biblical history I would have thought not, since the descendants of Noah only provide a limited gene pool. Plus man is more or less civilised at that point, e.g. farming, towns, etc and such a life style much reduces the evolutionary pressure of the environment.




Up to the Tower of Babel humanity was centered in a limited region. I have often wondered if there was much variation in hugh then. God caused humanity to be dispersed throughout the world after the tower. From this point there began the differences some call "races" today. In fact there is more genetic and physical difference between man and woman than in people compared by color.


Saw the first episode of “Race” last week, in that they state, "there is more genetic variation between a group of penguins than in all of humanity!" The genetic code that accounts for ‘race’ is practically negligible.


Here is where adaption and even specialization play a role. Each region posed enviroments for humans to adapt to. As they remained in these areas, some traits were beneficial and sought after in a mate. In Afria it is understandable they are dark, easier to hide and hunt itn the jungles there. This traight would have no value in the snowy areas of Europe.
Adaptaion, mutation, specialization all obviously occur. The question that remains unporved is, can these bring about a new specie? So far only speculation and assumption have allowed plausible answers. No evidence is available to support macroevolution.


What you have stated is correct, but there are a couple of reasons why humanity has not split into two or more species. I.e the difference we call race is practically nothing at all at a genetic level.
Non biblical history explains the situation of dark and light skin as adaptations during our expansion out of Africa as hunter gatherers and thus much more susceptible to the environment. e.g. it would be very advantageous to have a dark skin if you are exposed to strong sunlight for much of your life. The Eskimo represents the expansion of a mid tropics dweller that has not adapted (by skin colour) to the artic, i.e. skin colour is not that important as opposed to Human intellect and doing without the optimum body plan.

If I were to bet on a race of humanity that would be first to speciate (had we remained hunter gatherers) I would think the African pygmy would be a prime candidate, due to the lack of interbreeding with the rest of the world population.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users