A question about intelligent design... How does ID say that species diversification occured?
372893
all hail flying sapaghetti monster
209715
It's NOT!\n\nEvolution is a scientific theory that explains the origin of the diversity of species (note that it does not, and is not intended to explain the origin of life). The basic idea of evolution is that mutations result in genetic diversity in a population, and consequently different traits, and different selective pressures favor certain traits over others. In a diverse population, some individuals are better suited to the environment than others, and the individuals that are better suited are more likely to survive to reproduce and thus pass their genes on to the next generation. Consequently, the next generation will have more of the "good" genes and fewer of the "bad" genes than the generation before it. Because the environment is constantly changing, the definition of "good" and "bad" genes is also constantly changing. Something that used to be an advantage can become a disadvantage, and vice versa. More often, however, neutral traits will become either good or bad. Changes in environment can include not only changes in weather or resources, but also competition from other species.\n\nAs the environmental pressures change, the population of organisms changes with it. Over time, the little changes start to add up, and eventually the population will be so different from the ancestral state that it will be considered a different species. The diversity of species results from splitting of populations. If a population is separated by some geographical or reproductive barrier, the two subpopulations will likely evolve in different ways, to become two separate species. Eventually the two species may be reunited, but they will no longer be able to interbreed. Instead, they will compete with each other, and likely diverge even more.\n\nThe theory of evolution is supported by considerable scientific evidence, and is accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community. It is the ONLY scientific theory currently in existence that explains the diversity of species. Some people claim that "intelligent design" is an alternative theory for the origin of species. However, intelligent design is not a theory in the scientific sense. It is not supported by scientific evidence and can never be tested experimentally (not because we don't have the tools yet, but because it is theoretically impossible). Intelligent design provides an alternative to science, not an alternative scientific theory.\n\nScience is not about finding a single piece of evidence to conclusively prove a theory. It's about constructing theories to fit the existing evidence and gathering new evidence that supports or refutes existing theories. Evolution is supported by a preponderance of evidence. While no one point conclusively proves it, when all the evidence is considered in the context of existing scientific knowledge evolution is a well substantiated theory. Intelligent design is not.  What follows are brief explanations of some of the evidence that supports the theory of evolution.\n\n1. Vestigial structures\n\nOne example of a vestigial structure in humans is the appendix. It has no function. Removing it is harmful only in so far as any surgery is associated with certain risks (so I wouldn't have it removed just for fun, but it's because of the surgery not the absence of the appendix). An appendix is found in several mammals. In humans it is small and has no known function. In rabbits and many other herbivores it is large and is used in the digestion of cellulose.\n\nAnother example of a vestigial structure is the hipbones of snakes. Snakes evolved from quadrupeds, and some species still retain not on pelvises, but tiny protrusions of bone in a location that corresponds to the location of the legs in other quadrupeds.\n\n2. Microevolution can be observed in both a controlled laboratory setting and in nature.\n\nCreationists will tell you that microevolution does not prove macroevolutio
307239
I don't think you will get a satisfying answer becausae you worded your question in a rather confusing fashion.\n\nIf you don't want to discuss natural selection, don't use the word evolution at all.  Ask about Big Bang Cosmologies instead.
857320
Evolution is just a theory. Now scientists have come up with another theory of Intelignet being because they are unable to answer many questions with the help of Evolution alone.\nWho is this inteligent being ? This is surely God.\n\nThe earth as it is today has evolved over billions of years (as claimed by the theory of evolution) itself is just like saying that\nyou can build a 747 Boeing aircraft by placing all the componets in a building and all the parts get entangled due to a storm and viola a plane is born.
17522
I would have to disagree with David to some extent. To evolve into a different species we would have changed enough so that different subpopulations of humans could no longer interbreed. Humans display a range of social and technological aptitudes and capacities throughout earth, the majority of which haven't even heard a dialtone let alone participated in any form of advanced travel or communications processes. However, none of these people are incabable of doing so if provided with the appropriate education needed. This suggest that there hasn't been any change in our molecular (genetic) makeup that provides us with these advanced technologies -- which is where the changes are needed to happen for biological evolution to occur. Even if you wanted to argue that social evolution has distinguished industrialized man from our primitive brethern enough to warrant a new species distinction, I would argue that we still haven't met one of the key requirements for doing so, there are no subgroups of humans on earth that are incapable of interbreeding with one another. Until that happens, no we haven't evolved from Homo sapiens sapiens to Homo sapiens futura. \n\nHowever, we will evolve into someting different! This is a certainty -- as long as our species doesn't become extint before that can happen! But don't expect that Homo sapiens will evolve into just one different species. Depending on what our environment(s) dictates, humans could evolve into numerous other species. Through the process of evolution, it is inevitable, but at the same time it is not predictable.
84013
Whaddaya mean no one was here for either. The world evolves every second of every day. As for intelligent design, would you look at one of the pyramids of Egypt and say "wow..look what the wind did".  Isn't life, even in its simplest form, much more complex than the pyramids?
351989
you basically want to say which species evolved first.\n\nTry this website...it might give you some ideas\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_tree
305803
Several modes of speciation have been suggested/observed, but they break down into two types: sympatric, in which the new species is in the same geographic location as the original species, and allopatric, in which the new species is formed in a geographically separated location. Allopatric is generally considered to be more common, but sympatric is common in some groups, for example, plants.\n\nThe rest of my answer: A sympatric example that has been observed occurred in apple maggot flies (Rhagoletes). These are host specific insects that lay their eggs on one species, which become adults, which then mate on the host tree. A mutation causes one or more flies to choose a different species of host tree (which might be right next door) and the adults mate near that tree, not encountering the non-mutant forms. Thus you have the conditions of an isolated population which will allow divergence through selection or drift, leading ultimately to a new species (this latter part has not been observed, but all the preconditions are there). There are several other modes of sympatric speciation possible.\n\nIn allopatric, the classic case would be an isolated founding population that diverges due to selection and/or drift to a point where - were the two populations brought back together - there are no viable offspring produced from intermating (=reproductive isolation). \n\nThere are many more details to both these modes which any text on evolution will outline and provide examples for.
209928
i havent heard that example, but its possible. that would possibly fall into the category of microevolution...like when birds beaks get bigger or smaller to crack different nuts. its still a bird, with slightly different attributes. that would be an example of artificial rather than natural selection though, since it would be people choosing what they think is attractive, rather than nature killing off people who were less well equipped to deal with the environment.
221223
While I believe in an intelligent design, (for scientific purposes) the first cell was believed to come about through chemical evolution.  Supposedly, our world use to be a rather hostile environment, composed of very few elements.  Through some process, these elements reacted together and formed chemical compounds, specifically nucleic acids, or genetic material.  As the environment continued to change, more chemicals were formed (amino acids, etc.) and began interacting until eventually, they organized in such a fashion they formed a cellular organism, capable of reproducing itself.  From this cell, more cells were produced, leading to evolutionary changes between the cells, eventually leading to different types/kinds of cells, and ultimately different organisms.  So while cells do come from other cells, supposedly there was a "first cell".\n\nI'm not sure if this makes sense or even answers the question.........?
1037020
Evolutionary biologists have written extensively about how natural selection could produce new species. For instance, in the model called allopatry, developed by Ernst Mayr of Harvard University, if a population of organisms were isolated from the rest of its species by geographical boundaries, it might be subjected to different selective pressures. Changes would accumulate in the isolated population. If those changes became so significant that the splinter group could not or routinely would not breed with the original stock, then the splinter group would be reproductively isolated and on its way toward becoming a new species. Natural selection is the best studied of the evolutionary mechanisms, but biologists are open to other possibilities as well. Biologists are constantly assessing the potential of unusual genetic mechanisms for causing speciation or for producing complex features in organisms. Lynn Margulis of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and others have persuasively argued that some cellular organelles, such as the energy-generating mitochondria, evolved through the symbiotic merger of ancient organisms. Thus, science welcomes the possibility of evolution resulting from forces beyond natural selection. Yet those forces must be natural; they cannot be attributed to the actions of mysterious creative intelligences whose existence, in scientific terms, is unproved.\n\nSpeciation is probably fairly rare and in many cases might take centuries. Furthermore, recognizing a new species during a formative stage can be difficult, because biologists sometimes disagree about how best to define a species. The most widely used definition, Mayr’s Biological Species Concept, recognizes a species as a distinct community of reproductively isolated populations—sets of organisms that normally do not or cannot breed outside their community. In practice, this standard can be difficult to apply to organisms isolated by distance or terrain or to plants (and, of course, fossils do not breed). Biologists therefore usually use organisms’ physical and behavioral traits as clues to their species membership. Nevertheless, the scientific literature does contain reports of apparent speciation events in plants, insects and worms. In most of these experiments, researchers subjected organisms to various types of selection—for anatomical differences, mating behaviors, habitat preferences and other traits—and found that they had created populations of organisms that did not breed with outsiders. For example, William R. Rice of the University of New Mexico and George W. Salt of the University of California at Davis demonstrated that if they sorted a group of fruit flies by their preference for certain environments and bred those flies separately over 35 generations, the resulting flies would refuse to breed with those from a very different environment. \n\nSome Creationists say that evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils—creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance. Actually, paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. A flock’s worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found. A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus. Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition [see “The Mammals That Conquered the Seas,” by Kate Wong; Scientific American, May]. Fossil seashells trace the evolution of various mollusks through millions of years. Perhaps 20 or more hominids (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans. Creationists, though, dismiss these fossil studies. Th
136250
Intelligent design states that the species we view and their properties have to be caused by some outside agency, not the product of natural laws. They have to be the result of direct tampering. \n\nThe main argument that intelligent design uses is "irreducible complexity"; that is, the species we see are too complex to have been created by natural means. This argument is not at all new. For example, it is very similar to the arguments of William Paley. \n\nAlthough in intelligent design, the proponents claim to be open to panspermia (life from outer space) and other ideas, probably more than 99% of them are in favor of the designer being a deity, and the deity intervening in nature using supernatural means.\n\n\nIntelligent design was invented as an attempt to get around the US supreme court's injunction about teaching religion in science classes.
700698
The idea of evolution was not started by Darwin ... it actually goes back to the Greeks.  What Darwin's theory of natural selection did was provide the *mechanism* by which evolution occurred.\n\nIt consists of three basic observations:\n(1) Variation: All individuals within a species are NOT identical.  They vary in many different ways ... some are shorter, some taller.  Some are faster, some slower.  Some are hairier, some less hairy. etc.\n(2) Competition:  More offspring are born than can possibly survive to propagate.  If this were not true, then the world would be overwhelmed with overpopulation (of all species) within a few years.  This means that some will survive to pass on their genes, others will not.\n(3) Inheritance:  Every individual passes characteristics on to its offspring.  (Darwin did not know the mechanism for this inheritance ... what we now call "genetics", but it was clear that the offspring of a hairy individual, had a better chance of being hairy itself.)\n\nPutting these three things together, we realize that any characteristic, that is part of normal variation, that produces a slight advantage, will tend to get passed on through inheritance into offspring.  Therefore, advantageous characteristics will get passed on more within a species.\n\nOne important thing that a lot of people miss when you hear "survival of the fittest" ... it's not just survival ... it is SURVIVAL TO PROCREATE.  I.e. it doesn't matter if you survive if you don't have offspring.  E.g., a peacock's feathers don't help it survive, but it helps it to procreate (it attracts the ladies), and that is all that matters.\n\nAgain, the idea of *evolution* ... that organisms change over time ... is much bigger than the theory of natural selection.  Darwin's theory merely provides the missing piece of information of HOW that change occurs.
27731
well, there are two ways that I remember from bio. One is that they learn from other animals/ assimilate other organisms into their own cell structure (this is simple lifeforms)for example, many scientists theorized that the mitochondria comes were actually assimilated organisms.\n\nAnother way is the whole "survival of the fittest" basically, certain members of a species that are able to survive/thrive in an environment would oust the other members, while if the environment changes so that it favors another group, then this group would die out, so that only the species that work best in the environment are left. I think this is a theory that Darwin came up with.
581
Intelligent design embodies a theology that features a god who is malicious toward people.  \n\n1.  When you look below the surface, the world is filled with evidence that leads open minded people to conclude that evolution has occurred.  This evidence comes from the fields of paleontology, paleogeography, biogeography, molecular biology, genetics, embryology, and probably lots of others.  The god of intelligent design would have had to rig this evidence in favor of misleading us.\n\n2.  If the god of intelligent design violates the natural laws he created to create living organisms and to create false evidence, how often does he do this?  For example, maybe two seconds ago, he created the us and the entire universe, including this message up to this point, my memory of having written it, and your memory of having read it thus far.  If god violates natural law, anything is possible.\n\n3.  If the intelligent design god is going to create the world in any whimsical way, then he created all the suffering that we endure when he could have created a world without suffering.  Either he willfuly created our suffering, or he is an inept creator.\n\n4.  If the existence of complex organisms proves the existence of an intelligent designer, then the existence of the intelligent designer proves the existence of a more intelligent designer who created him.  ...and an even more intelligent designer who created the second one.   ...and an even more than more intelligent designer who created the thrid one.  ...and so on, ad infinitum.  Which one should be worshiped?  What will happen to our souls if we worship the wrong one?\n\n5.  I'm sure that people better versed in philosophy and theology could add many more reasons to believe that the god of intelligent design is malicious.
1043621
I think you might be referring to an ice age that occurred in the Proterozoic leading to the pre-Cambrian explosion?  There was also some theory's about volcanoes and the creation of the atmosphere as we know it.  When photosynthetic life evolved they respired O2 which not many of the other (anaerobic)organisms could breath, and over millions of years plants killed the animals.  (hows that for a mind loop?) an animals had to start all over again leading to the pre-Cambrian explosion.  It was an evolutionary explosion because there so many niches left vacant by the anaerobic organisms. so they diversified, only the strongest survived and eventually achieved a level of equilibrium (so to speak). Or another possibility is that i am indeed full of crap.
1180171
Hi, EyeLoveJesus!  I like your question!  :-)   Evolution is still a theory---it is not proven 100% yet.  Science is also not stoic and unchanging---it is always flexing and changing over time and by different discoveries.  I don't agree that scientists are "desperate to disprove "god"".   Science isn't focusing on "god".  It is focusing on studying the world and universe.  :-)  Anyway....\n\nScientists tend to form different theories (not facts) from the same discovery.   It is fascinating to learn about the different theories and to decide which one likes better.   Scientists don't think alike at all.  They tend to see different things in the same objects.  :-)   There are usually heated debates and discussions among them!  ;-)\n\nFor me, I know of two different theories of how evolution might have processed:  macro evolution ("giant leaps") or micro-evolution.   I tend to take more stock in micro-evolution.  That means each generation is born with very tiny mutations that will eventually create or de-create whatever trait or physical attribute of the organism.   Macro-evolution happens when one generation is born with a completely different physical attribute that none of the species has.\n\nI hope I clarified.  I will keep an eye on this Q as I find this fascinating!  Thanks for sharing the link.  :-)