Speciation, adaptation, evolution, natural selection, autonomous free will, spirituality all.

I wonder....would a simple single celled autonomous organism necessarily require an autonomous capability within to adapt and improvise ( within itself ) to dominate its environment without having a purpose to do so?

I wonder....Would the genetic signature contain all the building blocks required to do so, and exist inherent upon itself ?

I wonder....would that DNA, for a lack of a better description, not have greater mass and volume than the single celled organism itself, in any case?

I wonder.....Would that original work not be of an intelligent and creative design, without being procreative?

I wonder.....would it not include the potential viability of every living organism in and of itself?

I wonder.....if my mind can tolerate the truth of such a possibility.

Such things proferred upon the natural world, existence and reality seem quite unnecessarily burdensome and without coherence if so.

Unless, of course, time is an illusion, or time dictates the need for economy of movement.






proof-reading and editing has evolved this little string......

I know for a fact that morphilogical differences do infact define a new species. The reason that Andre the Giant and Thumbilina would be able to produce is because they were not different species, they were mutations of a single species. If Andre went of with other "giants" and reproduced over houndreds of thousands of years and Thumbilina went off with other little people and they created there own colony the differences between the two groups would be so vast that they could not have healthy offspring. It normally take houndreds of thousands of years to create a new species not one generation. The key to a new generation is seperation. Say a any species is seperated. Lets say during migration a flock of birds gets seperated by a storm. Flock A goes to Maine flock B goes to Florida. After thousands or even houndreds of thousands of years Flock A will adapt to Maine and have a preference to the temperature there. That preference and adaptions to fit that enviornment will be inbread in the DNA of those birds. Flock B gets used to the enviornment there. Now say that there only difference is the food that they eat. The birds while only there diet differs they will not be able to bread with each other because of there diets, though a real situation more things would change but even a change in diet can make a new species as the organism will adapt there nutrient needs to that of the food availablity.

Tobias,

No offence received here.

Efficacy is effectiveness and somewhat prequalified as possessing a quality of power. I'm pat.

If I use big words, it's to save writing a book.

If it seems that I pigeon-hole you with a condensed version of my knowledge, I assure you it is not intended so as to appear that I'm being condescensious towards anyone.

Simple clear train of thought ; leading to the answer.

HIV is bye bye. soon. In man. Yes, more will die.

No. HIV is not speciating or adapting. It is surviving and breeding without constraint.

The chemical deterrants employed are known only to slow it's replications, not eradicate the menace.

Those chemicals are only speed bumps.

The virus recognizes the threat and camouflages itself.

That also slows it's breeding. Perhaps replication would be the wrong term here. Were it bacteria it would be correct to say replicate, but its a virus.

Anyway,...............

Let's clarify terminology. I believe that new species can adapt to their environment, but no matter how much the species changes, it will always be of the same kind. If you took the worlds largest people and breed them for size for 1000 years, you would end up with so large people. But they would still be people. Perhaps they would be considered a new speices, but they would still be of the humankind. The same is true for every other species on the planet, they will always be the same kind. We have thousands of species of dogs, but they can all mate with each other or if morphological or psychological adaptaions prevent that, then they could be artificially inseminated.

genus > species > sub-species ( taxonomy )

The "kind" which is described in the Bible would be Genus in biology.

The idea that any current species can not evolve into a totally different species is incorrect, according to science that has and continues to define evolution.

Oranisms begin simply. As they evolve the dna that makes the oranism what it is, gathers information and puts it to use. The oranism responds to the new information patterns in the reproductions that follow.

Each reproduction "sets" the previous dna, but it does not mean the dna can not continue to grow, hence change the organism.

The more complex the dna the more complex the organism becomes.
The more complex the organism, the longer it takes to see evolutionary changes. This is why more simple forms of life have always been used for testing evolutionary theory.

Humans are such a complex organism that the changes are not reflected outwardly as readily as much less organisms.
To say a bird will aways be a bird, is to be blind to the past of how that organism originally evolved.

However, at this point, in fact for tens of thousands of years, the humanids of this planet have been very resistant to "outward' evolutionary change. In this I mean that the changes are not outside the realm of being considered 'adaptive' only qualities. So we have become taller, thinner, less muscle mass, less bone density. We no longer have need of appendix, toncils, wisdom teeth. Along with all these remnants "vestigels" there is still a portion of the population that produce THREE sets of teeth. Our skulls are shaped differently, creating different facial features, jaw structures.

A great deal of the evolutionary changes are interal, within the dna strands, reflecting in our immune systems, the nature of our cell structure.

The complexity that has arisen from our growth through evolution, means that small changes are not likely to cause us to be speciated - especially given the fact that we are now such a mobil, cross cultural, global society. The more we breed with our divers pool of mates the less likly we are to see humans become anything but humans. However, should we survive another hundred thousand years, no doubt, one would be able to verify that a vast, and likely more profound change, between our generation and that future generation to exist.

Evolution can 'seem' to work backwards as in the case of the Whale or other aquatic creatures. Many have vestiges of organs, and limbs or skeletal structures that can not be totally accounted for. For this reason there are many theories. It would seem likely that at some point these creatures were evolving to land animals, then returned to the water. However, their dna still holds an anchient code that caused them to have these oddities. This is not de-evolution, as the dna still maintains the codes. Rather, it is an example of how dna, once encoded, will become dominant as the need arises.

There are many who focus on the 'theory' of this science. In so doing they refuse to accept the profound amount of 'proof' that now compiles the 'data' that is used in the creation of more theory.

The intellectual creature we have become, stems from our ability to be aware of self and in that awarness we began to question the world around us. The more inellectual we become the greater our need for more 'brain power'. This too affects evolution, as we create an environment more suitable, hospitable to us. Adaptation of our organism begins to affect the dna. In responce to our use of brain power, changes in the skull are required to allow for the development of more and greater brain capabilities.

You see our dna is so complex, at this point, that only, seemingly, insignificant changes can occur.

But asking questions when no one know the answers, requires that we postulate theroies and then attempt to follow these theories using unbased and previously attained knowledge.

Yes, evolution as a science has many if, or, and supposed, equivalents, but there is a great abundance of proven facts that have stimulated these new postulates.

If half a mind is open, half a mind might see, only, the questions, but if the other half is open as well, it can view the documentation of historical and proven data that has lead to the questions now being asked.

Redy,

You have sufficient capacities to grasp concepts and the mechanics of many different subjects as do I.

My post that mirrors your own are similar and yet the path followed diverges in each of our observations.

Flexibility exists in your point of view for things to be otherwise in your judgement.

I do not discount your judgement.

I applaud your methods.

I disagree with your conclusions.




That simple single celled creature would not be simple if it evolved into all of nature.

CreativeSoul,
Whether or not, you are in agreement with any of my posts, I much appreciate you kind remarks.

I make mistakes, I'm not a scientist, I'm not even college educated (yet). I know this to be a weakness, and often I am challenged by the posts that make me consider my point of view.

I have even changed some of my views, after doing my own research, or carefully reflecting on anothers words. There are times when my 'attitude' or 'opinion' are in need of adjusment.

There are so many questions, and too little time. It not worth building walls that place limitations on the answers to those questions. We place too much merit on the honor that protects our ego. My honor is a gift that others bestow on me, if I live up to that honor, it's only because I can give it up to say I'm wrong or that I simply don't know all the answeres.

That is circular reasoning. We know birds are evolving, because we know they evolved. You can't define a word using that word and you can't prove evolution by assuming evolution.

15 Years + Lions = New Speices.

Squirrels have been around for (according to science) 40 millions years in their current form. They don't evolve? Why don't squirrels evolve? Why is it that we see bats in the fossil record, but no almost-bat. Did bats evolve wings instantly? What did the bat originally evolve from? What about their sonar, did that spontaneously evolve? What did the first animal eat? Which did the woodpecker evolve first, it's tongue or it's beak? How did the girraffe evolve it's long neck? The girraffe's bloodflow to it's brain is so strong, that without special sponge-like material around the brain, the brain would be crushed by the bloodflow. The girraffe's neck is so long, that the veins have special locks that allow the blood to be moved up, because while their heart is strong, it's not that strong. So which did the girraffe evolve first, the sponge-like material around the brain, the lock system to it's neck veins, the long neck or the super strong heart. Or did they all happened by accident at the same time? Doesn't assuming such in incredibly complex system happened by accident strain credulity? There are billions of questions which cannot be answered by modern science. Evolution is a theory that is mostly holes. To believe another theory, doesn't cast doubt on the persons intelligence or education, because evolution requires a great deal of faith in order for it to be believed.

Redy:

I appreciate you because of your thirst for knowledge... accompanied by your humility... amongst many other things...

Live... Learn... Laugh... Love

Spider, as I said, I am not a scientist. I don't know that there are even answers to the questions you have asked. And at this point if I don't get my homework done, I will not evolve.

I do know that science is currently, actually has been, reviewing certain 'trigger' points, or events that cause an evolutionary pattern to ignite (as it were). I also understand that with the latest ability to identify millions of DNA strands, that much previously 'hidden' information is being discovered. Some of that has to do with the 'unseen' possibilities that some lifeforms have within them, to make these leaps of change. If they have ever been used, or how they got there, is most likely still in the conjecture stage.

But again, without theory, without the questions, without a desire to learn more, we will not become any more than we are.

First off all science has holes. By definition science can not be proven, because nothing is definate. So when an experimnet has the same result as another experimnet science says that these results support a theory, never ever ever is anything proven. People take "Laws" of science like human laws but they are not, but there are thories wich have not had an experimnet ever disprove them. For example gravity. People are taught that this is a law, but it is not, it is a theory. Hell even the theory of gravity has holes in it, while on a planet the theory of gravity works fine, but on an interplanetary scale it doesn't scientists are not totally sure how things totally work. So yes science is full of holes, but it is not science to say that if we don't know how it works God does it. God is something that con not be measured, so science can never prove or disprove God. So while you can believe anything you want, which i have no problem with, but do not call a religios belief a theory, because there is not a way to measure God, and if something is imeasureable it is not science.

The intelligent design movement is a movement to use science to prove how God created life.

The evolution movement is a movement to use science to prove how life developed aside from God.

Both are using science, both are probing nature, but they have different perspectives. Science as it stands is dead set on the fact that supernatural causation cannot happen. But the problem is that supernatural causation MIGHT be the source of life and species. Science has excluded one possiblity and will believe any other theory, no matter how impossible, because otherwise they would have to accept supernatural causation.

It's really tiring to hear how Christians don't want to learn or probe, when many of the worlds greatest scientists were Christians. The Bible encourages us to reason and think. The Bible presents a rational universe, which can be understood. There are Christians who oppose science and learning, but not all Christians feel that way. It's not fair to take the very worst of a group of people and paint all of the others. I have studied evolution and I know that I have too many questions about evolution to accept it. There are too many amazing creatures with amazing adaptations which couldn't possibly have resulted from accidents. The Rock Hyrax is the only animal on the planet with actual suctioncups for feet. It can run up a straight rock wall. They are unusual because they are "cold-blooded" mammals, but their feet are truely unique. Any small change to their feet would result in their death, I have never heard of a single suggestion of how a Rock Hyrax could have evolved.

proving God is real is easy. seek him and find Him.(I use Him as a personal pronoun because He has said to my heart, " I am your Father")

It is not science nor does it take a degree to find him.

It is a personal relationship that exists now with all, but not all have fellowship with God on a personal and intimate and passionate level. There is a difference between the two.

It is not available on the basis of privilege or exclusive to an elite few. It is available to whosoever will.

That is a HUGE difference between my reality and yours, Tobias.

I do not believe you will hear a Christian speak of God as a theory,( other faiths may ) AND BACK INTO THE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT BELIEF TO PROVE THE THEORY.

What we do proclaim,as Christians, is that we know Him and are known of Him and that He is waiting for you.

The methodology is as different as analysis and endearment can be.

Just some thoughts to ponder for understanding of our different approaches to inquiry insofar as this debate is concerned.

Peace.