By request: I think Charles originally used finches and not turtles but that's neither here nor there. You have described genetic drift and selection, albeit in a very basic format. The three primary components of evolution are: natural selection, mutation, and genetic drift. There are many kinds of natural selection all of which affect populations differently so in the name of simplicity and time we'll l just refer to natural selection as the only form of selection. We have so far two components: selection and drift. Obviously selection's job is to select and genetic drift's job is too form two separate, new populations. We lack mutation. Your post describes genes that are already in place. Fortunately, Darwin didn't write his theory based on a single observance of turtles or finches. He actually worked on it for a decade and refused to release it because he feared ridicule. He later released it because another scientist had come to the conclusion he had and Darwin wanted credit for it as well and released it along side the other researcher. Darwin has a book called: "On the Origin of the Species." If you read it I'm sure you can find some examples of mutation. All though, I strongly recommend that you base your understanding of evolution off of the modern theory, not Darwin's. Regardless, to show mutation happens I need you to only answer a few questions. Does DNA exist? If yes continue. Does DNA replicate itself perfectly? If no continue. Do two separate populations express genes differently depending on circumstance? If yes continue. Is there a cap on the amount an organism can diversify under certain conditions (camouflage, venom, cecal valves, perhaps the loss of the tail)? If no, you accept evolution.
You shouldn't come to conclusions so quickly. In the original post, I tried to keep it as simple as possible. Now you are not trying to tell me that these were the very first turtles on Earth? Because they obviously are not. Tell me, how do humans become so many different sizes? It can vary. Some are small and some a tall. Now couldn't that work for the neck too. One of the ways some people are so tall is by some freak thing that has happened. Now can't that also work with turtles, and their necks. So remember, I tried to keep it simple. So this mommy turtle doesn't necessarily have to be the first turtle on this island. This species of turtles could be a species of long necks. That is just how they started (and with my beliefs they were made by God). Now this island might only have long neck turtles. Then this one turtle is born and has a pretty small neck but long enough to reach some food, or maybe food that has fallen to the ground. Then this turtle passes on its gene for a short neck. Then you go back to my original statement. Does that answer your question. Because when a person is really really small or really really tall, you don't consider that evolution do you?
What you just said = evolution. Having an island full of long neck turtles, then one day a short neck turtle is born and survives better and passes its genes down to its offspring = evolution. What if god created evolution and you are trying to disprove it?
God did not create evolution because there are some very simple facts that make evolution impossible. And, in the bible, God creates everything in 6 days, man on the 6th. According to evolutionists, it took millions of years. Do you see how those don't even come close to coming together? And just in case you ask for a simple fact... The Irreducable Complexity Theory: To create organisms like the eye, every piece of the body part must be made at one time. If not, the useless piece of the body part would be destroyed through natural selection. Ex: Chris grows a cord that connects his eye to his brain. He has no eye, so his cord is not passed on. Chris grows a cord and part of his eye. The eye is useless, and not passed down. Chris would need 5 perfect mutations in one lifetime to make an eye. And doesn't it take millions of years for just an eye to grow? According to evolutionists... Please explain this to me. Now back to the turtle stuff. I never said the turtle was born and survived better. It survived WORSE! It COULD NOT get as much food as the other turtles. It could only survive off the fallen food and the food that hangs low. When this turtle reproduced, it passed on its genes to about 50 out of 100 turtles. The turtles that got long necks continued to survive perfectly. Now, there are too many turtles with short necks to all survive on that island. So, some turtles decide to swim to another island where they were in luck. The turtles had no clue that this island would be suitable for them, but it was, so small neck turtles were born here and raised, so then those turtles will reproduce, etc. You are saying that the turtles needed shorter necks so this turtle was born with a short neck. That is absolutely wrong! Remember, this turtle survived worse. Edit: So are you saying that if you have a tall man and a tall woman, then they have a kid, and this kid doesn't grow tall, he stays very short, then that kid grows up and reproduces, and this new kid is once again short, this is evolution? Don't try to skip over anything, also try to prove wrong the The Irreducable Complexity Theory.
You know what, I think I might do just that. A) Explanatory enough in of itself. Photoreceptors enable the organism to sense when it's eyes are being exposed to varying degrees of light, it can tell when it is in shade, full light, e.c.t. This is helpful. B) Organisms with sunken eye sockets give Photorectors better directional sensitivity. This is helpful. C) Organisms with even more sunken eye sockets give Photorectors even better directional sensitivity. This is helpful. D) Organisms with aqueous humour give diopteric power to the cornea. Eye becomes enclosed. This is helpful. E) Organisms with lens can view objects with sharpness, lens can change focal distance. This is helpful. F) Iris and smaller cornea develop. This is helpful. These are BIG steps in the development of the eye, with many smaller steps in between, but each refines the eye and adds something that allows for better vision. I've explained how a less-developed eye is more useful to survival than no eye at all, which proves Irreducable Complexity is wrong.
Yep (only if the environment favors smaller sized humans). That is one facet of evolution. Why do you take the 7 days of creation so literally and other parts figuratively? Isn't it just as likely that the author of the bible was merely trying to describe 7 phases (days) of the creation of the universe god made?
No! Stop arguing evolution if you don't understand genetics. Recessive traits can become dominant in the next generation. My girlfriend is taller than both of her parents! Why? Because her grandparents were tall and he aunts and uncles were tall. She got the genes that were recessive in her father's body.
I don't understand how that means that evolution is true. Can you please go into more detail because it is hard to argue something as simple as what you said. Simple, because I trust what the bible says. If Jesus wanted what was said said, then it should be true. When did I say that I take other parts figuratively? For the seven days: So are you trying to say this: On day 1, God created... Then he got bored and waited a while. On day 51, God created... On day 99, God created... And it goes on like that? Does that make sense to you? Then on day 402, God created... Then God waited another 40 days when he decided to rest. So on day 442, God decided to rest. Is that what you are trying to say? That something like that happened. But they decided to shorten it to seven days? I was talking directly to you Pepsi. You completely ignored the entire post pretty much. You say the entire turtle thing was a sign of evolution. Now that I tell you it survived worse, why do you ignore the post? I suggest you go back to that post and explain to me otherwise. Where are all my Christian friends? I could use some help here. I can't reply to everyone myself.
I now understand that, and I kind of always have. Though height can lead to a drastic change in survival rate, it is not adaptation and can not be classified as evolution (on a small scale). If you look at a species' overall height change over many generations (if the environment favors it), then height can be considered an adaptation. Things like curved beaks, larger ears, membrane films over eyes, thicker fur are all adaptations. I guess I am a prime example of what you said Nitrous. I am taller than my parents, but my grandparent is just as tall as me, as well as my great uncle. Why seven days? Why not seven hours? Or seconds? Why did it take god seven days to create the universe? Surely, he could have made it in the blink of an eye. I assumed you took the bible figuratively in places because if you took it all literally then you would be agreeing with many of the discriminations the bible has, but that is for another debate. I ignored the irreducible complexity part because two people before me disproved it. As for the turtles, I thought I answered it all. Your edit question pretty much summed everything up. If the turtles lived on an island where their food dropped from the bushes and was on the ground, then the turtles with long necks wouldn't need to have such long necks. Over generations their long necks would recede from disuse, and eventually the neck size would level off and stop receding (which is what you said). Your story basis itself off the conclusion that there were short and long neck turtles to begin with. Why was there a short and long neck turtle? Your story incorporates evolution as well. The recession of long necks on island B (I believe) is evolution through adaptation. All the animals on the Galapagos at some point had a common ancestor. It helps to explain the beak variations on finches, and it helps to explain turtle neck sizes. Here's another example: wolves. Across the world, there are wolves of every shape and size. Is it a coincidence that the wolves that live in cold conditions have thick fur whereas wolves in woods generally tend to be smaller? It wasn't that these animals all had every genetic variation possible embedded in their DNA (as it is impossible). It was that these wolves had a common ancestor someplace in the world and as the wolf population grew, the packs traveled to distant lands. Now, these lands were foreign, and though the wolves could survive here, they couldn't survive well, and over generations speciation occurred to all these wolves in different foreign lands. The wolves living in arctic conditions grew long, thick fur. Even us humans have a common ancestor we all originated from, yet we (in comparing different races) look different (skin color). As with wolves, turtles (long and short necks) have a common ancestor that can be traced back to. Do you believe those two turtles have a common ancestor? (it doesn't have the same ring as dogs though)
Excuse me, but I thought this debate was about the natural evolution of species, not genetic drift. Technically speaking, P3P5I, dogs haven't really evolved in the last couple of centuries naturally, because it has been us humans that largely have been controlling their reproducing, and thus traits.
True, but I was talking about before we domesticated dogs. Early domestication history can be traced back 10000-15000 years. The species itself has existed for millions of years. It wasn't our doing that makes the Huskie have thick fur, or that a Great Dane is large in size.
True, except for the bolded. Humans began domesticating wolves and bred desirable traits, later leading to the formation of the general dog species. Origin of the domestic dog - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2498669.stm http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-origin-of-dogs
You know, I heard that somewhere before. lol It does sound familiar. Let me modify my argument and replace the word "dog" with "wolf."
If you can't understand something simple how could you understand something complex and technical. Simplicity is for your benefit. If you accept those four principles I laid out for you, you accept evolution and either do not realize it or not not want to realize it.
Good God feels good to know a topic like this will never die.... I would like to fill in the gap of my time gone with a short word or two. I think something Simple and complex are one in the same, just as 1 can also equal infinity because Infinity/Infinity=1 seems fair call for me. Contrasting your idea of 4 simple points, i feel that the concept of maybe is never allowed in a scientific stand point after a test. SO is it so simple to say Maybe as well neither yes or no? It is a questions that has plagued scientist all this while. I pray... that the day will come that the scientific method be altered so that this maybe will be a possible solution.
There is a reason that scientists do not say 'maybe'. It's called 'subjectivity' and 'maybe' is drenched in it.
Explain to me how the theory of Light and Particle being separate ever joined into a single theory then? This is a bias's opinion of yours simply due to the fact that it is a solution you don't think is correct when in fact it is a common solution in math as well other ventures. Subjectivity which give you incorrect information due to the lack of realizing there could be maybe also errors your work. So careful what you say it is a double effect.
The theory was light being either a wave or a particle, and Einstein explaining that light had particle-wave duality. That's not the same as saying, "Well, maybe light is a particle and maybe it's a wave." 'Maybe' denotes a hypothesis, not an answer. 'Maybe' is guesswork based only off of prior knowledge without having tested it. 'Maybe' means that you haven't finished solving the problem yet. Such as? Forgive my lack of experience in that field, I was ignorant of the fact that 1+1 sometimes does not equal 2, but maybe another number. By the way, I forgot to answer that infinity divided by infinity think, but the answer is undefined. It is neither 1 nor infinity. Infinity is an abstract number, and thus you cannot do basic arithmetic with it properly. Math Forum - Ask Dr. Math