Describe the process by which one animal evolves into another and list the steps in the process in chronological order.
One animal does not evolve "into another" but it branches into many different ones Evolution is not a time based development since it relies in other factors like environmental change , in a stable environment slightly different species / branches of the original may appear but it isn't standard . In a rapidly changing environment genetic "leaps" can happen quickly. So consider your question FAIL
You do your own homework otherwise I can take the stupid route and throw a book of genesis at you and claiming, "here's a short cut" Idiots cheat while the pure of heart seek.
I never knew there were this many uneducated people out there. I never knew people actually denied evolution, always thought that was a joke.
I have neither the time nor inclination to write a book on the subject. I refer you to "On The Origin of Species......" and whatever literature appeals to you on the subject of genetic mutations. In a nutshell, DNA undergoes mutations from time to time. The mutations are basically unexpected connections in the DNA string. These mutations sometimes cause physical changes in a creature. Sometimes these changes are positive for the survival of the species and sometimes they are not. If they are, they tend to be passed on to succeeding generations. If they are not, they tend to die off in the environment. So creatures, over time, continue to improve their survivability or they become extinct. This is the natural selection that Mr. Darwin wrote about. No two evolutionary steps are identical because no two species are identical and environment changes constantly. So there is no time line. Basically the evolution of a species into a new species is a slow process. It usually takes millions of years. Evolution into different variations of a species can be fairly quick. As an example the domestic dog is about 10,000 years old. Man has bred dogs from the wolf over that relatively short time period into countless varieties (great danes, chihuahuas etc.) The wolf, on the other hand, was millions of years on its evolutionary path. Agri-scientists can create a strain of corn or wheat in a matter of a dozen years. So it can get very fast in some situations with a little help from modern genetics. That's about as much as I'm willing to write. Hope it helped explain something for you.
Those who oppose evolution simply do not understand it. Here ya go. http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Mark-Ridley/dp/1405103450/ref=cm_lmf_tit_2
The internet is your friend, my friend. [video=youtube;SeTssvexa9s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeTssvexa9s[/video]
Well I can't do it with an animal but most cole crops (cabbage family) came from the original wild cabbage. This include brocolli,califlower, cabbage,kale,kolrabi,collards, etc. google.... brassica oleracia
I think you have mistaken the intent of the OP fishmatter. Note the stilted phasing of the question in the OP. That is not typical of a creationist, rather it appears to me that it is from a textbook. The OP is hoping to get someone to do his homework! That someone will not be me.
Thank you all for responding. You only get one chance to post in this section of the forum without revealing your beliefs, so I figured I'd ask the most basic question I have on the subject. In the other forum I belong to I asked if that was a fair question and they said no. If No one attempted it here the obvious followup is: why should anyone believe you if you can't describe the process in a coherent way? In the other forum there are about five evolutionists. Two of them offer little besides putdown lines. One of them, with far too much spare time, answers everything one way or another, usually adding a putdown line. Another gives scholarly answers with links and pictures when appropriate but some of the answers are obtuse to the question. The last one is a moderator. He has to read every line whether he wants to or not. He posts when he has an answer that might end the thread. They all say some ridiculous things sometimes, but only the types of things that can be mocked, not probed. Once in awhile I get two of them to fight each other. That's fun. That's a religious forum, but I have to wait weeks sometimes between theological or Bible questions I can help with. The political section there is pathetic. The same four people argue about the same things over and over. I joined here when I formed a political essay that was too good to waste on them. I'm a Christian and believe the Bible literally by faith because the God it presents has done so many good things for me. Only recently have I started to investigate whether the theory of evolution holds up within its own universe. Several questions come to mind. Can an average ornithologist look at a bird skeleton and quickly tell you what type of bird it is, or would he only be able to limit it to a few broad categories? With that in mind, are there any two fossils of complete animals that look enough alike so that all would agree they were the same animal, but differ in some perceptible way that follows a logical evolutionary path to suggest strongly that one was the ancestor of the other? The tyrannosaurus rex looks different enough from everything else that no one would misidentify its skeleton. Are there at least two complete skeletons of a tyrannosaurus rex, and if so are they identical or does one look less evolved than the other? Next, let's consider the comment above: individuals don't evolve, populations do. I see two scenarios. Scenario one: one animal is born with a mutation and passes it on to all its descendants. This mutation is so wonderful that eventually animals without the mutation can't find a mate, so it becomes universal. Scenario two: a million animals in one generation are born with the same mutation, so they quickly outnumber those without it. Which of those is correct?
Probably neither one. The first scenario is more likely but a failure to mate would not be necessary for a negative mutation to prevent survival. It could result from any number of environmental causes. You may want to read Darwin. He wrote the book based on his experiences in the Galapagos Islands. These Islands were formed like the Hawaiian Islands over a hot spot with the various islands moving away from the hot spot through plate tectonics. So each island grew from the hot spot at different times. Some are very much older than others. One interesting observation Darwin made is that there was species of bird which had bills of different shapes from island to island. The reason is that the food sources varied from island to island because of their differing ages. So the birds that developed a bill appropriate for that island's food source survived and those that did not died off according to the theory of natural selection. There were differences in the shape of tortoise shells from one island to another as well, all of which, resulted from mutations. Darwin didn't know anything about DNA and mutations but he had pretty firm grasp of basic genetics. Go to the source of the theory. It isn't a complicated scientific treatise. It isn't horribly entertaining but it isn't hard to read. You misunderstood the statement about populations evolving. What the poster meant was that a single animal doesn't turn into another animal. A species develops better characteristics for survival over time through natural selection. Something is a new species not because the old guys can't mate. It becomes a new species because the creatures without the mutations beneficial for survival became extinct and only the ones that were better suited for survival carry on future generations of the species. As you probably know, humans belong to the primate family, the same family as apes. We became humans when mutations caused some of our ancestors to have larger brains than the average primate ancestor. The creatures with bigger brains had a huge advantage over other animals because they could learn to use tools, control fire etc. That strain of ancestor finally evolved into you and me. Other strains of that ancestor are probably hooting and howling from trees in a rain forest someewhere. They got some mutations that were beneficial to their survival as well. But their mutations pale in comparison to the larger brain our strain enjoys. Some scientists believe porpoises have brains large enough to evolve into something very smart. The problem, they believe, is that the porpoises can't use fire. You can give that some thought.
Where have you looked for information about it so far? You understand there's a lot of complex information and sciency stuff involved in really understanding it, though you can certainly get the basics from a number of sources. Try YouTube searches - I recommend anything by Richard Dawkins on the subject, as well as anything from Atheist Alliance International (www.atheistalliance.org), which has videos posted on YouTube as well. From Dawkins, as you may be aware, you can find both books and documentaries, as well as lectures/talks, and then there's his website to check out - richarddawkins.net Here's a good one, though it's a bit aged: [video=youtube;0k9Bwt_aHq4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k9Bwt_aHq4[/video]
Additional videos I've found rather quickly: [video=youtube;axlVxk7UsqY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axlVxk7UsqY[/video] [video=youtube;8hTZ5AYzs8o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hTZ5AYzs8o[/video]
It's how they work. They don't want to ask actual scientists, so they ask laypeople. If we make a mistake it somehow disproves the science. It's pathetic.
The evidence for Evolution is so strong and so plentiful, that its time to call someone who says evolution doesnt happen an ignoramus and move on, or just ignore them and let them wallow in their ignorance.
Let's be fair, though - our schools are failing miserably at the teaching of both evolution and critical thinking. They seem to want to avoid controversy..
Let me be the first idiot who is trying to formulate a real answer here. (And I am a CHRISTIAN evolutionary proponent, for a curve ball for you. HAHAHA) Everything that exists must go through some sort of an evolutionary process, to obtain physical existence. This is because physical existence is determined by environmental conditions, and this allows only a discrete type set of objects and a finite quantity of objects to exist within it. Therefore, when the environment changes, the set of types and the quantity of objects must change with it. BUT ... all objects with all possible types exist coincidentally, outside this environment, i.e. outside the existing physical measurements. For example: consider your ipad1, ipad2, galaxys, and androids, or consider the 1980's PC offerings. There is only one that becomes stable and durable over time. So the set of types and the quantities are fixed by the environment. (And this is the same with biological systems too.) However, all of them have always existed as a concept/template, to which they all can be folded back into, irrespective of any timeline.
I'm not sure I get this. all objects with all possible types exist coincidentally, outside this environment, i.e. outside the existing physical measurements. Where is that, then? Certainly things do change with the environment, at least if they are capable, and life manages this thanks to mutation + the selection pressure created by the environment. The rest is potentiality - there are many possible permutations of the human genome that could exist as a living human being, but won't, due simply to the limitations of the environment. Would you say that all those people never conceived exist somewhere?
You have two options. 1) go to your local community college and sign up for a bio 101 class. You'll only get the basics, but its enough to make the connections if you actually want to. 2) look at one of the other countless threads where its been explained by numerous people fairly well. In all honesty, I'm assuming your mind is already made up and neither will satisfy you.
You may be right. Incidentally, the question is eminently answerable, but it's asked as if NOT being answerable would mean that evolution is false. Of course once someone bothers to answer it the OP will not change his mind because he didn't arrive at his opinion through reason. I see the OP is a biblical literalist. He's given up on reason, so nothing anybody can say or do can jolt him back to reality.
3) YouTube. Nova has some stuff about it there, and there are AAI and other talks related to cosmology and evolution. A real wealth of multimedia/edutainment bliss.
