But it takes so long to evolve

Yes it just happens. It is not directed or planned.It is both sudden and gradual. The change happens suddenly. That change will be beneficial, harmful or neutral. If it is beneficial, for example it allows access to a new food source or movement into a new ecological nitch, then those animals that have that new ability will gradually become a different species. But the change was sudden. The reproduction until there are sufficient numbers to become a seperate population will take time.If it is harmful, then that group will gradually die out.Most of the changes will be neutral, for example eye color. In those cases the change will stick around.And evolution can occur in brief periods, particularly during times of great population stress or sudden enviromental changes. Some good examples are the variety of birds found on isolated islands where species have rapidly evolved to fill the myrid of possible habitats. But it can also be slow like the evolution of the different species of Homo.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Something I think has been forgotten.There seems to be a picture of a sharp line in time and space between the old and new. I don't know if it's been determined but I'm sure the forest to savannah change would have taken some 1,000's of years.Also there would be some intermediate environment. There is room for some preadaptation and, as has been pointed out, there is room for a life style involved with both.There seems to be some picture, also, that as soon as our ancestors came out of the trees they'd be on a savanah with lion and leopards after them just as you'd have today. I don't think it would be like that.If the forests were retreating quickly it is possible that the new environment would be a challenge for the predators too. They would need some time to adapt as well. It is possible that getting away from the forest would be an advantage until the predators adapted to it as well.I think the real challenge for all of us here is that we would like more resolution in the fossil record. Right now we have a few 100 specimens spread over 5 or 6 million years. This isn't enough to track the change from forest to savanah that could well have taken place over time scales of around 100,000 years (or even 10,000's). It may take centuries to find some 10's of samples from a very specific time frame around 6 million or so years ago.I think that fossils don't form well in a forest environment anyway. Is that correct? The chemistry isn't good for preserving the bones. WIthout those details we will have a tough time being sure of what happened in detail.One other line of research will arise as we understand exactly which genes do what and the difference between us and chimps (as a stand in for what we may have evolved from). We do know that our physical from (walking up right for example) evolved early, very early. Our brains came in stages, later and more slowly. We have some evidence of the brain changes.I think that we understand that a significant fraction of the difference between our and chimps genomes are in the area controling brain development (that shouldn't be a surprise). What may be found is that the changes required to get us upright and much more adapted to the open savanah aren't all that large. If we knew the exact genetic changes we might well be able to hypothosize that only 100's of generations are enough to lift us to our feet.

{sigh of relief} If the trait was not disadvantageous, it might linger in the gene pool a bit longer, yes. Random mutations would get to it in the end, though.Do I take it that you understood the notion of induced traits versus random mutations?I notice that you are one of the few creationists who are really trying to understand evolution, by asking questions, digesting the answers and discussing things. Great job, thanks.

---

"It's amazing what you can learn from DNA." - Desdamona.

I don't think I do. I am guessing an induced trait = natural selection, or taking a trait available. And random mutations are how the morphological changes happen. I would have to study more to go further as I get confused when we add the mechanism of mutation. I can understand that traits available in the gene pool already can be used = natural selection - I should really be trying to find that topic - and ask over there. Your welcome. I try my best to understand evolution. It is a bit complex. Only recently have I really tried to familiarize myself with some of the biological basics. In the past I just kind of tried to show evidence of a young earth and dealt with trying to debate geological stuff.[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-29-2004]

Gets tough sometimes doing that doesn't it. But if it will help in anyway, just remember that not all the Evos here are those damed, twice and thrice damned Atheists. There are even a few of us Christians that might be called Evos. Remember, Evolution is not Rocket Surgery. Even us Christians can understand it.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Wow - a christian Jar? But weren't you talking against christianity of late? - Maybe I confused you with someone else. I guess you can join Truthlover and be put under "christian evo". How then do you justify being a chimp with your faith?

Mike,A hot topic in evolutionary circles right now is Molecular Clock Theory. It is still a work in progress but it has shown some promise. The Molecular Clock Theory (MCT henceforth) uses the inferred or measured mutation rates seen in organisms and tries to extrapolate back into the fossil record. That is, the rate at which mutations build up in the genome can potentially be used to calculate when two species branched away from their common ancestor. MCT predictions have been corroborated by the fossil record, but the results are still hotly debated. The most difficult hurdle that MCT research has to overcome is agreeing on accurate mutation rates. Differing mutation rates between taxonomic groups also poses a problem. All in all, MCT is an attempt to answer your question in post #1. For the current research, go to http://www.pubmed.com and search for "molecular clock evolution" (without the quotation marks).

Many horrible things have been done in the name of Christianity.If someone is really a Christian, IMHO they must understand it fully. They must understand the Good and the Bad.Might well be a good thread.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Sorry, missed the question. Chimp or Chump?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

I don't think I do. I am guessing an induced trait = natural selection, or taking a trait available. And random mutations are how the morphological changes happen. I would have to study more to go further as I get confused when we add the mechanism of mutation. I can understand that traits available in the gene pool already can be used = natural selection - I should really be trying to find that topic - and ask over there.

---

An analogy I find helpful is a combination lock on a briefcase. Pretend that there are 10 tumblers, each with a 0-9 (like those on a briefcase). Starting with the first tumbler, you randomly choose a number. If you hit the right number for that tumbler, a green light will flash above the tumbler. Proceeding down the line, you do the same at each tumbler, randomly picking numbers and stopping once the light comes on . In this analogy, random mutation is the process of randomly picking the numbers. Natural selection is the flashing green light. While mutations are random, the selection for the "right number", or a beneficial mutation, is not. The "green light" will only come on when the right number is randomly hit. This is why natural selection is often called a process of accretion, since the "right numbers" or beneficial mutations are kept and more are added to them. Without selection, you would have to get all 10 numbers right at the same time. Using the analogy, selection allows you to get the right combination in a maximum of 100 tries (10 tries at 10 tumblers) while a system without selection requires a maximum of 10^10, or 10 million tries.

I like that analogy Loud, mind if I use it sometime?I have always used the Yahtzee analogy.
Throw the dice randomly
Pick the dice that are kept back for the next throw
Pick up the ones that are not kept and throw again...rinse and repeat

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"

Yes - thanks Loudmouth, I haven't really forgotten about NS, and random mutations, but "induced trait" I am not familiar with. Good analogy though. It's when I am told names or phrases I don't understand = confusion. "Induced" - never heard of that one till now.

quote:

---

"Induced" - never heard of that one till now.

---

Parasomnium was trying to show the difference between specific mutations that occur in response to a specific stimulus (induced) and random mutations that are kept in the genome because of their benefice to the organisms. Induced traits are non-random since they occur as a result of a stimulus. And, of course, the induction of traits through this type of mechanism are not observed in nature. Instead, we see a wide array of mutations, some are beneficial and some detrimental, but still independent of the environment.

quote:

---

I like that analogy Loud, mind if I use it sometime?

---

Yeah, sure. I vaguely remember some other analogy using a combination safe, and that's where it stemmed from. I like how the analogy illustrates the step wise nature of evolution, and how selection overcomes the large probability of getting all beneficial mutations in one go (1:100 from 1:10 million). I've been waiting for the right moment to bring this one out. It's amazing how I always get my best ideas during the 45 minutes it takes for me to walk home. Newton has his apple tree, I have the footbridge over the Boise River.

Many horrible things have been done in the name of Rome. Does that mean Romans today should be punished for it?You can do anything in the name of christianity or Christ but that doesn't mean it is christianity or Christ - doing it. And dare I say - the ugly. So I will remain a chump not a chimp.