Question for evolutionists?

Question

Tell me if you think this is right:
Evolution is the theory that life evolved from a lower life form to a higher life form. The theory states that genetic mutations caused that bearer of the mutation to live longer, causing it to be able to breed more. Part of the next generation that had the mutation also lived longer, bred more, and caused the increase of population with the mutation. This was repeated over and over with many, many mutations and many, many generations until the type of life form had evolved to a different and higher life form (also dropping any parts now useless to its type).

And if it is right, how did we get lungs? According to this theory, the lungs would have to have been fully functional from the first day on, in order for it to aid in natural selection, other wise what ever had 'evolved' in it's place would drop off as a vestigial organ!
On a related note, how did the big bang create life? To my understanding,it only created dust and gases which clumped to make stars and planets. Since even the least of the life forms are amazingly complicated, how did they come from simply dust?

Answer 1

Once fish developed small limbs they were able to crawl out of the water for short periods of time on land where there was a huge supply of plant life and with the low amount of other animals fish spent less and less time in the water.



From this point skin grew over the gill flaps and they developed internal lungs, since these lungs were moist breathing was possible on land.



Don't forget there's fish that still spend long amounts of time on land before returning to the water which was the same case with the fish back then.



With more time on land these "fish" began to develop longer limbs and the lungs developed to take in more oxygen and soon animals couldn't breath in the water.



Water only has 3% oxygen while air has 21% oxygen so from that point on animals quickly suffocated in the water.



You seem to think evolution means instant adaptation and it's not. It's all trial and error.

Answer 2

"Evolution is the theory that life evolved from a lower life form to a higher life form."



No. It's not.



"The theory states that genetic mutations caused that bearer of the mutation to live longer, causing it to be able to breed more."



Not necessarily.



"Part of the next generation that had the mutation also lived longer, bred more, and caused the increase of population with the mutation. This was repeated over and over with many, many mutations and many, many generations"



More or less.



"until the type of life form had evolved to a different and higher life form"



Nope.



"(also dropping any parts now useless to its type)"



Nope.



"how did we get lungs?"



You just described it, can't you grasp your own thoughts?



"According to this theory, the lungs would have to have been fully functional from the first day"



Wrong again. See "irreducible complexity" and the myriad debunkings thereof.



"in rder for it to aid in natural selection, other wise what ever had 'evolved' in it's place would drop off as a vestigial organ!"



Wrong, again. You're average is slipping.



"On a related note, how did the big bang create life?"



It didn't.



"To my understanding,it only created dust and gases which clumped to make stars and planets. Since even the least of the life forms are amazingly complicated, how did they come from simply dust?"



Natural processes involving chemistry, physics, et al.



"No, I'm not a troll."



If it walks like a duck and squawks like a duck...



Sorry, dude, but your willful ignorance does not change reality to fit your infantile faerie tale beliefs.

Answer 3

not caused. allowed. chance still comes into play. Having a longer arm doesn't make you reach higher, it lets you reach higher, which could be important, or maybe not. Evolution is a passive process, not a directed and active choice.



As to lungs, lungs are nothing but gills that bring their own water, when you get down to the fundamentals. So, something that can breath water, and can keep that water film over the cells that transfer oxygen from water to the circulatory system will already possess the ability to live for a while outside of water. Isn't a lot of huge changes to have protection, benefit from longer water retention, and on and on to go from water breathing to air breathing. Doesn't happen in one sharp step though. Takes a very long time, for most evolution.



As to how life originated, it would be nice to be able to actually define how life is different from inorganic chemistry apart from the self-replication aspect. Chemically, it isn't difficult to imagine the generation of simple life, but the mechanism of life replication, which isn't all that bizarre from a chemical standpoint, does not define all of what life is.



Since no one has been able to actually make life from non-life, any explanation is really just a guess. An educated guess, but a guess just the same.



But I don't think you truly get the whole evolution thing. It is more a case of stuff that works tends to survive. There is a lot more things that are bad than are good, and many things that don't matter one way or the other for the longest time, until the situation changes, and THEN it serves as a good thing, sort of like carrying an emergency kit when driving somewhere. May never need it, may never have any value, but if it ever is needed, it likely will make the difference between life and death.

Answer 4

Mistake # 1. Evolution does not deal with the origin of life, only how it evolved after it has already came into being.



Mistake #2. Mutation do not make the bearer live longer. It gives the bearer a better chance of survival.



As to your question, lungs do not have to be fully formed. The original life form is simply a cell. It does not require any lungs as oxygen pass through the membrane directly into the cell. Then cells evolve and start to get together, forming more complex structure. Eventually some of the cells mutated such that they are better at getting oxygen, which leaves other cells to specialize in other areas. The cells that are better and getting oxygen keeps mutating and keep getting more efficient and eventually the organ of lung is born.

Answer 5

According to this theory, the lungs would have to have been fully functional from the first day on,



- No, that is the fundie interpretation of that theory. A lung fish is a transition from aquatic to land and exists today. It is a fish until it needs to walk to another pond when it walks out across the land using a form of lung, to another pond where it became a fish again. The evolution of the eye and every other organ is the same.



On a related note, how did the big bang create life?



- It didn't, it created energy which created atomic particles which created atoms and on and on.



Since even the least of the life forms are amazingly complicated, how did they come from simply dust?



- I have no idea, ask a fundie, they think we came from dust.

Answer 6

The Big Bang Theory is not directly related to the Theory (Law) of Evolution. They are related in that they are both scientific ideas. The Big Band Theory merely refers to the formation of time and space as the universe began as an infinitesimally small hunk of stuff and expanded outward. At this point, time started. The Big Bang Theory is not an attempt to explain the formation of biological organisms but rather a way to explain the beginning of the universe.



Originally, the star formations result in the creation of different type of elements (fusion at a star's core). That's why hydrogen is the most common element (only one proton/electron). With the formation of these elements comes the building blocks of life- molecules form from elements, and some molecules are amino acids. Amino acids naturally form in certain environments fairly easily. Many have been reproduced in lab settings meant to replicate early-earth conditions. There is also another theory that suggests that amino acids formed on comets that hit the earth.



Abiogensis describes the process by which inorganic materials first become living organisms. We still don't know a ton about this, but google it to find out several theories of how life began. This is different from the Theory of Evolution by way of natural selection as you describe above in which living things evolve from other living things.



A couple of false assumptions: Vestigial organs don't automatically fall away when an organism does not find them useful. Notice we still have appendixes. Vestigial organs that do not hurt an organisms reproductive fitness might never be selected against. That is, it is possible for an organism to keep something not obviously useful and still reproduce and pass on the genes for that body part. So a lung in progress wold not shrivel away merely because it is in progress.



Another false assumption you seem to be making is that lungs formed all at once like how a McDonald's Golden arch always arrives at the restaurants already constructed. There are things called "transitional forms." For example, there are microorganisms that photosynthesize like plants but also have animal characteristics (mobile for example). There are microorganisms that can sexually and asexually reproduce. There are singlec-celled-organisms that form colonies that resemble multicellular organisms. So we see transitional forms all the time.



You'll notice that same transition pattern in the animal kingdom concerning lungs/respiration. Frogs have lungs but they also do a lot of their "breathing" through the skin. Birds have lungs but no diaphragms. Do some googling and you will notice transitional forms.

Answer 7

"Evolution is the theory that life evolved from a lower life form to a higher life form."



Wrong from the get-go. There is no such thing as 'lower' or 'higher' life forms. Drop a human being--supposedly the 'highest' life form, according to people like you--into the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, and see how long he lasts.



Try again.



And, in the meantime, get a copy of "The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution" and read it. The answer to your ridiculous question is found therein.



Besides, a few lines scribbled on Yahoo! Answers wouldn't really answer your question, would they? But, then, you're really not looking for an answer, are you?

Answer 8

Not an evolutionist but hear goes:

The genetic mutations were about adapting to environment not living longer.

Your questions about lungs is a little over-simplified. Right now there is a breed of fish called a Japanese Mudskipper (not an aquatic mammal, a FISH) that crawls on land and breathes air. Even though they are air breathers they don't have lungs.

And the Big Bang is not a theory about the creation of life...you're thinking of abiogenesis (but an astrophysicist will tell you were are all made of star dust).

Answer 9

Those with developed enough lungs to survive from air on the surface, lived and evolved to the next stage over time.



The big bang did not create life, if you will notice it happened 14,000,000,000 years ago and this planet is around 4,500,000,000 years old, just about two thirds the amount of time after the big bang itself.

This planet had sufficient enough conditions for life, that it happened.



Life is the ultimate proof for evolution.

Answer 10

Asking someone familiar with evolution a question about astrophysics is all the evidence required to determine that any effort to explain anything to you is simply an exercise in recital of my own knowledge. Primarily you suggested that evolution is hierarchical (lower to higher) when nothing of the kind has ever been implied. Survival and reproductive benefit are the primary features of evolution and if being more stupid is a survival benefit, that is what evolution will do. Are you smart enough to guess what I might say about you next?

Answer 11

Science is the use of empirical evidence to construct testable explanations and predictions of natural phenomena, as well as the knowledge generated through this process. You should try studying it, so you won't be so ignorant of what is known. My guess is that you prefer ignorance, because studying and thinking are hard work. Saying, "God did it" is easy.



Your lack of understanding of the Theory of Evolution is astounding. Instead of trying to teach you here, I will direct you to the 1st three links below.



The Theory of Evolution makes no claim on how life started. It is just our best explanations of how life changes over time. The study of how life started is called abiogenesis, and it shows how life started with normal chemical processes. See the 4th link for the video, "The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis" by Dr. Jack Szostak, winner of the 2009 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. See also the 5th link: Website of Dr. Jack Szostak.

Answer 12

around 400 million years ago water lobed fish like the fin and lungfish evolved lungs and started evolving the capabilities to come out onto land , from thier they gave rise to amphibians and from then reptiles.



as gas clusters and star clusters merged together due to the forces of gravity the necessary ingridients for life were cooked up in the stars. also the big bang formed plenty more then just gas and dust. atoms the building blocks of life were formed starting with hydrogen atoms

Answer 13

To answer your question about the "stars and dust" etc., only a few elements are needed to create simple and basic living creatures which can then evolve further.



If evolution isn't real then why do people have different skin colours?

Answer 14

You need to check that Latin - it doesn't mean what you think it means. (Inasmuch as that Latin means anything at all, it says: 'This used to be the countryside, but now it's a ghost. He made me a nice clean Jesus').



Amphibians could have colonised land, breathing through their skin (oxygen levels were much higher during the early earth). Amphibians with proto-lungs would have been efficient at using the oxygen in air - so they would have had an evolutionary advantage.



But basically: if you can't even manage a simple Latin sentence, evolutionary theory is going to be way out of your league.



Go back to to church.



They are missing you.

Answer 15

Who said the big bang created life? No scientist ever did. Sounds like something a Christian would claim to muddy the waters.

Answer 16

Actually, it is the other way around. Simplicity being the highest form of design is overwhelming evidence that the amoeba descended from man.

Answer 17

If you were at all honest, you would ask this in a science section. I'll bet $1000 you haven't read one sentence from a book about evolution.

Answer 18

There is no question, evolution is fact all anyone needs is basic education of a 12 year old

to know it.

Answer 19

I think aliens created man,



but aliens had to have been created by someone or something?

Answer 20

We all should question evolution. There are missing details, things concerning evolution not yet explained. Drawings and carvings of dinosaurs for one.

Answer 21

And one more time for the morons..... There's no such thing as an "evolutionist".

Answer 22

Your definition (especially the 'live longer' stuff) is wishful thinking., and wrong.

Answer 23

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/24301512.jpg

Answer 24

Man, are you stupid. No offense.

Answer 25

Please see swim bladder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swim_bladder