But where did the energy come from for this matter to exist then? I think the big bang is just something that happens infinitly throughout the universe, but requires energy to happen. My point would be, science will always try to find the cause, but then that effect has a cause. I just simply believe it ALL does have a cause (source of energy/matter) cball: why are you here bro? I never asked for your opinion again..
I was way too drunk when I was typing last night. lol. Basically, I think environments only change the characteristics of a species, but doesn't have the power to change the entire structure of the species dna. This is what creates ethnicity/race, but does not separate them from the species (much like the different types of apes, or any other species). If this were untrue, why would species have so many different types that did not evolve to different beings?
So there was selection pressure, but not any more? I would think there are the same amount roughly per species (besides humans) than there always have been (besides endangered species of course) If there population has grown, wouldn't that only improve there odds of "selection pressure"? I tend to think if one was born different, they would still have to mate with original, right? So wouldn't that ultimately create only one species? Where does the new species mate come from?
Selection pressures still exist, but if an organism can survive and reproduce as is then there isn't any reason for it to change. All you are doing is offering conjecture about what you "would think." Just because you think something ought to work a certain way doesn't mean that it will or does. The questions you keep asking are really good indicators that you either greatly misunderstand evolution or are being disingenuous. Do you know what selection pressure means? The bolded question leads me to believe that you don't.
A new species comes from an accumulation of changes over a long period of time. Say a bird is born with a mutation that results in a curved beak, which in turn allows it access to a wider variety of flowers for food. This mutation increases its fitness because it has more food sources. The mutation is passed on the the bird's offspring, also increasing their fitness. This mutation may then spread to the population at large because it allows those with curved beaks to out compete those without for food sources resulting in a large majority of those birds now having curved beaks. This is one way in which evolution may occur, and it is the accumulation of these mutations that can result in new and different species.
Yes I agree. But that curved beak won't cause a new species of birds in my eyes.. Much like japanese and american have baby.. well its different from both, but there still human (and always will be), regardless of looks. Japanese have a separate appearance because of environment, but they will always be human in my eyes. Are you saying they will evolve separate from us americans if they only bred japanese? (I mean as a whole species, not just appearance)
Which is why I said it's the accumulation of changes that results in a new species, not just a single mutation.
I see your point, and agree mostly, but I think these changes define there species, not create a new one. Read my edit for my view.^
Just because you think something doesn't make it so. Arguing that small changes cannot accumulate and lead to larger ones is like arguing that a person can walk ten feet everyday but they'll never walk a mile. Your edit does nothing to further your point because it doesn't address anything to do with mutation or the accumulation of changes over time. You use an example of two organisms of the same species giving birth to what I can only conclude is another normal human and then act as if somehow you've found a hole in evolution.
Well I think these mutations caused our differences from japanese and americans appearance, but we are still both human. I don't see the japanese evolving separate from me, besides appearance, and maybe more intelligence. (please consider how separate the japanese have been from other cultures. Thousands of years) But your saying they will eventually become there own species, correct?
Which is why I said it's the accumulation of changes that results in a new species, not just a single mutation. Isn't there appearance/intelligence a beginning of the "accumulation"? (assuming they stay in Japan) But why are they still human? (and always will be in my eyes, even if they look completely different.) Think of different types of apes. Why only one human? These different types of apes are all still apes
The accumulation of changes is how we get different species, but isn't necessarily what defines one. Defining a species involves a lot more than morphology. The term ape, more specifically hominidae, reflects the family an organism belongs to, not the species.
Calling something a new species is just a way of defining it. Evolution is the gradual change of organisms over time. Whether or not we consider them new species is irrelevant. If you change the color of a balloon from green to red, you can argue all day about whether or not it's a new type of balloon. It doesn't change the fact that the balloon did CHANGE. That's all evolution is saying. Organisms change over time. Classification and taxonomy have nothing to do with it.
Which is where I think "god" comes in. (remember, this is only my opinion) I think "god" began each species with specific dna, with the ability of evolution to adapt. I think this is why you see differences in a species between different environments, but they are still of that species. I can't see dna completely evolving itself without a higher force to erase its initial structure. I think "god" kept improving his past dna until he finally got to the perfect being (probably thought more intelligence would self-destruct itself too quick). And then allowed to only exist how it saw fit. I have no proof for this theory that others would consider, obviously, but this is just my theory of evolution. Where else would the intelligence for dna come from?
Then why do similar species share a lot of their genetic code? So do you deny the concept of mutation? DNA can only change as a result of God's actions? If God is omniscient and omnipotent, why would he need to improve anything he created? He should be able to create perfect organisms right off the bat. Chemistry and physics.
Because he tried slight improvements, until he thought it was right. We are perfect, I don't know what you meant by that? All species are perfect in fact. Free will is perfection in my eyes. I think mutations cause evolution. Just not new species. What would a new mutation do? Mate with the old. Then it mixes with the colony, and you have a new appearance. Doesn't mean this happening infinitely while cause a new species? Look at americans. I would consider us mutts of all the different races of humans. Doesn't make us any more or less humans. Purebreds do exist, and they don't evolve to new species in my eyes. Just new appearances.
But if he's really all-knowing, he would never have to make improvements. Again, creating a new species doesn't mean anything in evolution. Species are just a way of identifying organisms. It's not like the animals are thinking "I'm a Homo habilis, I think I'll evolve into a Homo erectus now." They are unaware of their species. It means nothing to them. They evolve to be the fittest organisms in their current environment. How we humans classify them is irrelevant.