Jimmy Dean,

You points about life elsewhere in the universe are interesting and valid to an extent.

You don't HAVE to believe in aliens simply because you believe in evolution, you don't even have to believe in extraterrestrial life. The process that drove evolution and the development of life on Earth has a repeatability of near 0%. Also, the exact conditions on the earth that made it hospitable to life may not be duplicated elsewhere within the universe, this is a completely plausible scientific probability.

I for one believe that we aren't alone. INFINITE means we likely aren't. I don't believe that life on other planets is any way like it is on Earth, the probabilities of evolution make it doubtful. However, I find it hard to believe that life in some form doesn't exist.

Is there intelligent alien life out there capable of travelling to Earth? Who knows. Maybe. Maybe not. IMHO, NO. The human race is no where near the capability of travelling beyond our solar system, let alone our galaxy. It'll be 20 years or more before we reach the nearest planet. My personal belief is that intergalactic Star Trek type travel is a physical impossibility given the resources we have available on the Earth, the nature of space, and our frail human bodies. Time may prove me wrong though.

 

IMHO, it's "silly" to deny all the repeatable and proven scientific evidence from several fiels of study that dates these fossils at 60 million years because you don't like the idea. That's silly.

Evolution on the scale of mammalia (macro)has not been "proven" as in 2+2=4, but pick up a book on the classification and "evolution" of the mammal and tell me that it doesn't at least make sense, even if it can't be proven. Take the horse as a good example. The fossil record shows the distinct evoltion of the horse from a small dog like creature to it's present form. The evolution can be traced through closely spaced (geological time) fossils.

The evolution of everything from mice to Blue Whales follows very distinct paths that can be traced both in the "make up" of living organisms and in the fossil record.

Waxy

 

fisher,

Adaptation = Evolution.

Waxy

 

No, adaptioin doesn't mean evolution...... sorry if that's against the rules to say. Something can adapt, but that doesn't mean it evolved! It's two different things, to evolve and to adapt. Does it not take a change in DNA to evolve from one species to another??? Now, how in the WORLD is that possible, if DNA always produces something exactly like itself?

 

i believe in evolution, evolution redefined as when Jesus comes into your life and changes your heart and your life into something that brings Him glory

 

Waxy:

Adaptation = Evolution

No, it doesn't.

 

Adaption that results in an increased likelihood of successful reproduction across generations is indeed evolution.

Adaption within one generation is not.


Whistler

 

YES, IT DOES.

As whistler pointed out, if an organism adapts to an environment in a way that increases its chances of survival, and that adaptation is passed on to it's offspring, THAT IS EVOLUTION.

Perhaps it is better stated as adaptation drives, or is the mechanism of, evolution.

It may be very rapid, or geologically slow, either way, it's the same thing.

Waxy

 

Natural selection accounts for the changes in an organism from generation to generation. Evolution says that mechanism can change that organism into a different organism, several different organisms, gradually or by mutation. They are not the same and don't go hand in hand. A horse is still a horse.
Natural selection continues to diminish the gene pool of each species and diminish the diversity of species. Maybe Darwin had it backwards and we are headed to only one form of life.

 

I don't understand how you can say this?
They are the same, and they DO go hand in hand.

If by natural selection, an organism changes enough as to become distinct from an original population, ie, a new species, that IS evolution.

Natural selection is the PROCESS by which evolution occurs.

Continued variation within a species, preferentially selected by an increase in survival rate, is what creates diversity within a species, not diminsh it.

I don't think we're getting anywhere here, I'm not sure if it's my lack of ability to make myself clear, my lack of understanding of evolution, or the general lack of a definition of evolution that everyone understands and is working with.

At any rate, until we are all experts and on the same page, this is fruitless.

Waxy

 

To whoever brought up DNA, are you exactly like your parents? either of them? will you kids be exactly like you?...there ya go change in DNA. not necassarily evolution, as that would require a general change in a specific species or tha species in a specific area/enviroment..but a change non-the less

 

I am with ya on this one Waxy. granted, i also sit on the other side of the fence, but hey....

 

I think the single biggest problem here is people's inability to think on a geological time scale.

If a horse or human can change and "adapt" as much as they have in a period of 1 generation or 10,000 years, imagine the change that can take place in 10,000,000 years. It's a time period beyond the grasp of most humans, it's infinite really.

Waxy

 

You can't have evolution without adaptation. Natural selection is the manipulation of traits already present in a particular organism. You have to add adaptation to natural selection to get evolution. The idea of adaptation means an organism can change itself. I could reproduce, with the same mate, a million offspring each one would be a different, unique, and individual human. Even on a larger scale no organism can produce something its not.

 

JCPSME,

Your definition of natural selection is incorrect. The traits DO NOT have to be already present. Genetic variation within the species creates the differences that give rise to the process of natural selection.

Your splitting hairs here based on your interpretation of evolution, adapatation, and natural selection.

Waxy