Evolution is the process of changing from one thing to another.
Mutation is the forced changing of something via an outside factor, such as radioactive crap or sunlight, or so on and so forth.

Darwin's theory is that the strongest, the most fitting or the most deserving survives and propegates.

A lot of people look at that and claim that's how evolution occurs, that Darwin's theory is all you need to explain evolution and how we came to be.

However....

The changes that occur are brought about originally by a mutation, caused in the basic DNA strands of the being.
Example:
Rodent -> Mutation -> Larger sized Rodent -> Can kill more things

So we have that, right? However if you look at the basic structure of such a thing you would realize one primary problem..there's only one rodent being changed into a larger rodent.

Darwin's theory does not explain how this occurs, Darwin's theory does not explain how changes occur and Darwin's theory is merely a basic tool of evolution, one that is extremely simplistic and unsurprising.

Let's take it all the way back to when this all started..
We have our ooze.
We shall call it Bob.
Hi bob! Yes..bob..we love you..
okay..we won't call it Bob.

Well, there's the ooze..and then something occurs which causes the basic first form of life to be made.
YES! WOO! YAY!
It's asexual and all that, all germy and bacterial. It continues to breed and breed and go and go and go..and yet there's one problem. What factor made it even start to exist in the first place? Well, during that time one would anticipate that the sunlight combined with some chemicals in the air did it, and then as it sits in that pool of ooze breeding with itself the same factors cause it to evolve again?
So..
Ooze -> Bacteria -> multi-cellular thing that isn't anything like bacteria
We're missing links here..big bad links. Something had to exist as a bridge between the bacteria and the multi-cellular beings that we have nowadays. Why? Because you can't have a single celled organism suddenly become a multi-cellular thing that can handle the environment that exists as well as be able to propegate the species. Not only would you have to have 2 bacteria evolving at roughly the same exact time but then you'd have potential incest related issues from just having 2, which means you'd have to have a huge amount of bacteria or bacteria-type entities evolving at the same time.

And then you have to also realize that from that single thing generated you'd have to evolve many many MANY more types of organisms.
How many species would you say exist in the world today? Just in terms of insects there are millions, I do believe..and then if you get into fish, mammals and so on and so forth..well..
Plus plants which have a different cellular structure than animals..

Also, one interesting thing..when plants came to be they'd be poisoning themselves, making oxygen all the time would remove their food. This means that plants would need to exist when animals, or something that takes oxygen and makes COwhatnot(CO two? can't remember) for the plants to breathe. This, in turn means that without the plants the animals who need oxygen would run out.

So now we have multiple factors that must be met in order for a species to even exist.
1. Multiples of said species numbering at least 2.
2. Plants and animals, or beings akin to them existing at the same time.
3. An ability to survive the harsh wilderness.
4. An ability to evolve into millions upon millions of different species.


So somehow all of these things were met, and that in turn is what caused life to exist upon this planet.

Well..am I the only person who finds that highly unbelievable? The chances of such an event occuring has to be nearly impossible.

Then you must also realize that not only does it require the multi-cellular makeup but also such things as organs and the like which work together to keep the person alive. This, in turn is nothing akin to the basic bacterial beings, so this evolution is a HUGE difference.

John P look to the works of Edgar Cayce .....for some more ammo !! Was the HUMAN form Enginered by us in order to experince THIS world? makes sence to me !!
5 tribes of man... an Oh yea WERE a match for any ol animal !! NEVER Mind THEY ALL have a better fit in their enviroment than Mr human Who has NO claws , Offensive Teeth Hell at least everything esle thats not a preaditor has SPEED or SIZE Enviromental protection ...I can addapt to anything ! Oh shure 2 humans that some how POPed into existance ( With enough intelegence to not get poisned or EATEN! ) This is stupid by any means and as is most mutations cant reproduce ..However in lots of areas ( Mostly with Birds evolution has been tracked ..heh heh look what we've done to dogs!)

The easiest answer to this is the very fact of evolution. Yes..we don't have all the missing pieces. So? This world is 6 billion years old. Look how technologically far advanced we have came since..say oh 1900..one hundred years.
You're talking 4 billion years since life came..ok...some bacteria can reproduce..in hours..HOURS? How many generations do you think were there? Ok..then take say..rabbits? Pigs? It's an extreme amount...look at humans even..A person has a child at 16..that person has a child at 16..that person has a child at 16..over the course of 48 years..3 generations..so..over the course of a 100 years..7 generations..in just one person or couple..Mutations and speciation happens very slowly. There are millions of insects? Why? Because some insects have generations of days..that's 365 generations a year..that means every hundred years you have over 36,500 generations of insects.
Look at the quick evolution of viruses which are an even better example because they do so in early lifetimes.

Human Beings as well as other primates (which somehow do quite spectacularly with our same faults) survive on their intelligence. We also tend to group together (such as elephants and other non predatory animals)

Human beings can create all sorts of evolutions with their own technology which has been developed only over the course of 5 million years..Think about what Nature has had..just on Earth..with over 1,000 times that amount of time.

You didn't answer how the species that would originally evolve that would require non-asexual reproduction was capable of having not only an ability to survive but also an ability to reproduce when it would be on it's own.

Easily. The simple answer is that the evolved creature having come from the same family as a creature below him..can simply have sex with the creature below him. Of course..one could argue most mutations don't have the ability to reproduce..well that is "most" not all. So..not only does the evolved creature reproduce with the lower creature..it spreads its traits to the next generation. Now..if you're saying the very first creature to require sexual reproduction, it of course could not reproduce without a second partner...unless it also had a means of asexual reproduction which many things did and can still do, such as lower organisms that can not only reproduce asexually but also by ordinary means. Now..if this is the case then perhaps the very first organism to reproduce sexually didn't..maybe it did it asexually..and then reproduced with itself. Of course..this sounds ridiculous..but of course some frogs change sexes. And say..ok this whatever evolved from what..a split off of what? An asexual creature..it had to..which means it retains some characteristics of an asexual whatever.

Wait a second..you just said that one creature might have an ability to reproduce with a creature that is evolutionary beneath them.

That doesn't make much sense, in the sense that it'd only create half-breeds or something that is unable to handle surviving the environment, or even able to reproduce. Or you can say that it'd just create a massive amount of incest related things(which I'm really trying to stress here), and therefore would cause a genetic degeneration.


The fact is that at the same time 3+ creatures came forth each with the ability to reproduce and survive an environment not totally suited for them. Those 3+ creatures would then also reproduce, survive the pregnate cycle and then have their children survive and reproduce. After that they would have to continually repeat surving a harsh environment while also reproducing AND maintaining a total lack of genetic degeneration by inbreeding. Plus you must also realize that the environment would contain toxins, and perhaps even a total lacking in food.

The chances of this actually happening are close to zilch.


I really really think something is missing from the evolutionary theory.

By the way, sooner or later the asexual reproduction would cease and it'd be all "woo woo I like to shank me some multi-cellular women." That's what I'm trying to point out, in comparison to an asexual reproduction of a basic bacteria that's going steadily from a 1 cell to a 2 to a 3 to a 4 and so on, until it finally manages to somehow go from a 1 celled organism into a thousand(or million?) celled organism that has multiple parts to the body which are all working in unison correctly.

Trial and error...and error.......and error.

Why would it be unable to survive the environment when its ancestor obviously survived in the environment quite well..Yes..it is easy to have trial and error and error when you are talking a course of what..4 billion years. However, back to the original point, the ancestor obviously survived quite well as it passed on its genes, mutated or not. Now if those mutations were beneficial..then they would be even more capable of surviving and obviously reproducing with one's "evolutionary half-breed" doesn't matter when you're talking about non-conscious organisms whose likelihood of choosing their mate is slim to none. And if we go to the religious aspect of it, if only there were Adam and Eve..then this world was founded on incest and did quite well (in a more sickening example). In fact, widespread interaction is only better for evolution..it doesn't end it. It doesn't end anything's reproduction. In fact, if it was a one celled organism..that quickly evolved into something else...Who's to say it didn't happen twice..thinking now that one in a billion is very low odds for an organism that could have been there for say..one billion years reproducing at a rate of 24 times a day for one billion years. The time I think is your missing link at the lowest levels of evolution. It is hard to comprehend it. At least it is hard for me to comprehend. Humans have evolved over the course..of say 5 million years..and that's with a lot of "species" of humans hitting the gone list.

Bobby A has Bobby B, Bobby B is bigger and more complex requiring more nutrients. Bobby A survives while Bobby B dies due to a lack of sufficient nutrients to support itself.

That's a common problem.

Or..

Bobby A eats Bobby B since Bobby B is too small.

Or...

Bobby A has a more efficient way of reproducing and so Bobby B mostly dies off.

Or...

Bobby A is more suited for the environment than Bobby B


All in all you must realize that "natural selection" would murderize Bobby B anytime he popped in. The environment would have to be factored just right to allow for a new species to exist as well as continue to create brand spanking new types.

And isn't it interesting how wide spread such things as plants and animals have become? Why is it that trees are mostly the same the world over, as well as animals, when they've primarily come from different environments as well as ..uh..that thing, which..changes people..not factors..that..thing...words evil.

DIE WORDS DIE

But pretty much: Animals have almost no real difference genetically speaking to their buddies. Tigers and Lions and Jaguars are mostly the same in genetics, save for about a .01 percent change.
As has been stated before on these dark forums and by scientists 95-98% of the DNA is "buffer" DNA. The rest of the DNA is all about characteristics and crap. That means that 2-5% of your DNA is where lies everything that makes you different, and yet somehow it hasn't really changed in comparison to animals not even related to you. Such huge differences in such a minor amount. Ah..I started rambling and going way off topic didn't I?

Um NO !!
If B1 is the current form and then off shoots a B2, B2 IS not BOUND by any laws to destroy B1 and most likwly will merge with B1 to produce more B2's and even B3's later .
Come on JP ( self digs ya ! but dont get pig headed in defending your point ) ..
Vero 99 has given a good example of a possible situation ..
Or heres evolution for you that can be tracked !! reveiw the history of WINDOWS 3.1 to XP Pro ..shure its not animals but same concept .. Then look to just about anything still on the planet we just might not be able to track the changes at this time nature is slower than us mini Gods in changeing things ..

But once again slef agrees with the core of your thinking evolution alone will not explain the vast amouts of forms the DNA seems to have created ,hell it dont even explain plants square cells vs animals round cells and howcome there are no plantimals ?? harnesting the BEST of both traits ??or even crystal creatures ? Self knows there is a Mind behind the madness lol !!