Full Version: The "sense" of evolution
QUOTE
Evolution has many holes in it. Although the "evolution" of favorable traits within a species is identifiable, transition from one type of lifeform to another is not. As a matter of fact, I do not know of ANY evidence of a transitory lifeform between, say humans and monkeys, or birds and fish, etc.
Top 9 Problems with Evolution
That source is pretty well documented.
I am a scientist (engineer, actually) I like to think I have an analytical mind (because I do
). I agree that natural selection makes sense. However, evolution between one species and another does NOT make sense. Nor does the spontaneous formation of life from some primordial ooze.
I do not believe that the Old Testament was literal. I believe much of it was allegorical. People were very simple back then, with VERY limited knowledge. They needed a simple to understand solution (hell, most people still do). But, as a theory of life and ecology, evolution does not make a lot of sense. At its core, even evolution relies on an event which we cannot prove and certainly cannot duplicate (the spontaneous creation of a "simple" life form from basic elements and compounds). I can't see how that is any different, really, than creationism.
EDIT: to add another link, an excellent one:
Life from non-life: Spontaneous Biogenesis?
Top 9 Problems with Evolution
That source is pretty well documented.
I am a scientist (engineer, actually) I like to think I have an analytical mind (because I do
). I agree that natural selection makes sense. However, evolution between one species and another does NOT make sense. Nor does the spontaneous formation of life from some primordial ooze.I do not believe that the Old Testament was literal. I believe much of it was allegorical. People were very simple back then, with VERY limited knowledge. They needed a simple to understand solution (hell, most people still do). But, as a theory of life and ecology, evolution does not make a lot of sense. At its core, even evolution relies on an event which we cannot prove and certainly cannot duplicate (the spontaneous creation of a "simple" life form from basic elements and compounds). I can't see how that is any different, really, than creationism.
EDIT: to add another link, an excellent one:
Life from non-life: Spontaneous Biogenesis?
That quote is courtesy Amlord in another discussion. I'm curious WHY it doesn't make sense? It seems perfectly sensible to me. If certain traits become exaggerated in a single species then it is only logical that over 2 million years those traits could eventually be dominant enough for a new species to emerge. I fail to see how this doesn't make sense. If you believe that something happens once, then why wouldn't it make sense that the same thing would not continue to happen over time?
On edit:
I'm looking at that link you have provided, and I can honestly say that despite it's thoroughness it completely abandons all scientific credibility with statements such as:
QUOTE
Natural selection also contradicts the second law of thermodynamics which states that, left to themselves, all things tend to deteriorate rather than develop, while evolution wants to go in the opposite direction.
That makes no sense whatsoever and is an obvious attempt to persuade readers through the use of common phrases that are not deeply understood. The Laws of Thermodynamics apply to energy, hence the "thermodynamics" element in the name. It has about as much relevance to a study of evolution as the Laws of Gravity have to political theory.
The system of reference is a joke, providing only short scraps of quotes that are given no contextualization, and the title of the webpage is misleading as most of the "evidences" they provide are merely broad references to suggest that evolution MAY NOT have happened, or critiques of the evidence used for evolutionary theory. This does NOT disprove evolution in any way. In fact, there is not a single piece of evidence on that page that makes evolution impossible.
On the 2nd law of Thermodynamics:
misconceptions about evolution
QUOTE
This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.
However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?
The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws.
However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?
The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws.
misconceptions about evolution
Glad to see I'm not the only person who found the connection between the two utterly ridiculous.
Those 9 problems are terrible. C.S. Lewis isn't a scientist.
That's just an opinion.
What is a dog? Chihuahuas can't mate with Great Danes; they are my anatomically separated with each other. So either one isn't a dog or whoever wrote this doesn't understand evolution.
Natural selection doesn't mean the turtle will try to kill other turtles just it won't starve as easily. Again that is based on opinion not fact.
QUOTE
Finally, we find that morality in humanity as well as our mental capacity and utter dominance of the physical world make humanity set apart by any reasonable means from the rest of the living world.
That's just an opinion.
QUOTE
For example, genetically, a wide variety of dogs can come to exist, but a dog can never become anything other than a dog.
What is a dog? Chihuahuas can't mate with Great Danes; they are my anatomically separated with each other. So either one isn't a dog or whoever wrote this doesn't understand evolution.
QUOTE
It demands total annihilation of anything weaker than necessary and the ruling of anyone more powerful than others. People exhibit mercy, pity, and morality, all of which inhibit natural selection.
Natural selection doesn't mean the turtle will try to kill other turtles just it won't starve as easily. Again that is based on opinion not fact.
I remember (this story is a little long, sorry) leaving the movie ‘Total Recall’ in disgust. It was (still is) an incredibly stupid movie on every level. The ice at the center of Mars was the part I couldn’t get over, for some reason. I don’t know why, because the entire film required more than your average suspension of disbelief. However, I couldn’t stand the bad science (solid state of water is less dense than the liquid, and the pressure at the core would not permit ice to develop yadda yadda)
I explained why the movie was bad to my roommate at the time, and he responded with, ’It’s different on other planets’.
‘The universe acts on exactly the same principles throughout! Physical chemistry does not change depending on which planet you’re on’. I insisted.
He would simply repeat, ’Our planet is different. Water might be different on Mars’. He was so unbelievably stupid I couldn’t stand it! Why did I have to live with such a fool?
Fast forward several years, and I was speaking to a brilliant engineer with a Phd in physical chemistry. I thought he’d enjoy the story of my stupid roommate. After finishing my tale, with embellishments to enhance the complete and obvious nature of that guy’s stupidity. He gave me a little smirk and said, ’You know, I kind of agree with him’.
‘Huh? What the f%$#% are you talking about? You think that the laws of physics don’t pertain to Mars?’ I queried.
‘We don’t know everything. We barely know anything, and anytime someone thinks they do, their theory is usually eventually disproven.’ (a bit more eloquent, but something like that)
His point was well taken. We don’t know much. We definitely don’t know why we’re here, or how we arrived. We can only observe the diversity (and fossil record) and speculate using this empirical data.
Evolution, to a degree, is indisputable. Things evolve. I don’t think that this is has to be a complete contradiction to the Creationist theory at all. If there is a supreme, higher power, it stands to reason (he/she/it) would create a world and organisms therein which were dynamic and capable of changing and adapting to their respective environments.
Mutation and the subsequent creation of new species is fairly easy to demonstrate with the simplest of organisms. Many months (perhaps years) of tinkering with fruit flies in a laboratory might yield a ‘new species’. However, as the organism gains complexity, this is not the case.
The definition of species itself is imprecise. It used to be something like ‘a reproductively isolated group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing viable, fertile offspring.’ Now, it is more like ‘sexual and cross-fertilizing organisms which share the same gene pool.’ Even the definition of Kingdom has changed, and their respective phylums. I remember when protozoa were considered to be animals, and now they have their own category of kingdom. In the 60s, there were only two accepted kingdoms (animal and plant) now, there are five….I’m not even sure about viruses….Anyway, since the definition of species is ever changing, it stands to reason that cross-speciation might be a fairly subjective term.
Even if we accept the demonstrably imprecise definition of species and accept that the examples of cross-speciation are true, diffinative examples this doesn’t explain how cross-speciation of more complex species could occur. Arguably, if I use the example of a new species of fruitfly to explain how humans have evolved it is similar to using asexual reproduction as an explanation of how humans might reproduce.
In a nutshell, if we take that humongous leap and explain the origin of all life using the ‘big bang’ principle and a common ancestry of all animals and plants (accepting the concept that we all came from single celled organisms) it isn’t that much more (arguably less) implausible to believe that a higher power made it all.
I explained why the movie was bad to my roommate at the time, and he responded with, ’It’s different on other planets’.
‘The universe acts on exactly the same principles throughout! Physical chemistry does not change depending on which planet you’re on’. I insisted.
He would simply repeat, ’Our planet is different. Water might be different on Mars’. He was so unbelievably stupid I couldn’t stand it! Why did I have to live with such a fool?
Fast forward several years, and I was speaking to a brilliant engineer with a Phd in physical chemistry. I thought he’d enjoy the story of my stupid roommate. After finishing my tale, with embellishments to enhance the complete and obvious nature of that guy’s stupidity. He gave me a little smirk and said, ’You know, I kind of agree with him’.
‘Huh? What the f%$#% are you talking about? You think that the laws of physics don’t pertain to Mars?’ I queried.
‘We don’t know everything. We barely know anything, and anytime someone thinks they do, their theory is usually eventually disproven.’ (a bit more eloquent, but something like that)
His point was well taken. We don’t know much. We definitely don’t know why we’re here, or how we arrived. We can only observe the diversity (and fossil record) and speculate using this empirical data.
Evolution, to a degree, is indisputable. Things evolve. I don’t think that this is has to be a complete contradiction to the Creationist theory at all. If there is a supreme, higher power, it stands to reason (he/she/it) would create a world and organisms therein which were dynamic and capable of changing and adapting to their respective environments.
Mutation and the subsequent creation of new species is fairly easy to demonstrate with the simplest of organisms. Many months (perhaps years) of tinkering with fruit flies in a laboratory might yield a ‘new species’. However, as the organism gains complexity, this is not the case.
The definition of species itself is imprecise. It used to be something like ‘a reproductively isolated group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing viable, fertile offspring.’ Now, it is more like ‘sexual and cross-fertilizing organisms which share the same gene pool.’ Even the definition of Kingdom has changed, and their respective phylums. I remember when protozoa were considered to be animals, and now they have their own category of kingdom. In the 60s, there were only two accepted kingdoms (animal and plant) now, there are five….I’m not even sure about viruses….Anyway, since the definition of species is ever changing, it stands to reason that cross-speciation might be a fairly subjective term.
Even if we accept the demonstrably imprecise definition of species and accept that the examples of cross-speciation are true, diffinative examples this doesn’t explain how cross-speciation of more complex species could occur. Arguably, if I use the example of a new species of fruitfly to explain how humans have evolved it is similar to using asexual reproduction as an explanation of how humans might reproduce.
In a nutshell, if we take that humongous leap and explain the origin of all life using the ‘big bang’ principle and a common ancestry of all animals and plants (accepting the concept that we all came from single celled organisms) it isn’t that much more (arguably less) implausible to believe that a higher power made it all.
I think that evolution is only partially responsible for the current creatures known as homo-sapiens. most every thing I have read on evolution tends to indicate there is "missing link" between what is generally considered are closest ancestor (homo-erectus) and cro-magnon (who were only different from us culturely and still exist in very isolated parts of the world) there are also something like 25 sections of our dna that can't be found in ANY other species.
my theory is that there is NO missing link. and an outside influence affected our evolution, but it was not god. I believe that we were created through genetic manipulation by ET's. we would have naturally viewed these beings as gods and this is where the creation story came from (with some things embellished to make it a little more interesting) this is my opinion, I could be wrong.
my theory is that there is NO missing link. and an outside influence affected our evolution, but it was not god. I believe that we were created through genetic manipulation by ET's. we would have naturally viewed these beings as gods and this is where the creation story came from (with some things embellished to make it a little more interesting) this is my opinion, I could be wrong.
Your "genetic manipulation by ETs" serves as a valuable point, unabomber, because as theories go, it's exactly as plausible as creationism.
Over the long haul, materialism supplants superstition. The fact that our observations of the universe are incomplete does not give credence to superstitions which attempt to explain the unknown. The history of Christianity, for example, is replete with condemnations of scientific knowledge. Eventually, as evidence grows, the religion adapts to include said science into its fold. As an engineer, amlord surely accepts as a given many scientific ideas which were at one point considered heretical.
Our religions are remarkably adaptable. I would guess that a strong majority of Christians today have accepted at least in part the theory of Evolution. What we should remember is that this theory has only been around for a little over a century. Humans have a tendency to perceive the universe through a paradigm which posits that we are currently at our zenith, and so that which is left unexplained must therefor be the realm of "god," or what have you. It may be that 400 years from now, the religions of the world will accept as irrefutable the idea of bio or chemo genesis.
It may be that we will never know what sparked the universe, or what came before it, or what the true nature of reality is. I personally think those questions will be answered (if we don't kill ourselves first!), but they might not be. Regardless, there will probably be room for religion no matter what we find out.
Over the long haul, materialism supplants superstition. The fact that our observations of the universe are incomplete does not give credence to superstitions which attempt to explain the unknown. The history of Christianity, for example, is replete with condemnations of scientific knowledge. Eventually, as evidence grows, the religion adapts to include said science into its fold. As an engineer, amlord surely accepts as a given many scientific ideas which were at one point considered heretical.
Our religions are remarkably adaptable. I would guess that a strong majority of Christians today have accepted at least in part the theory of Evolution. What we should remember is that this theory has only been around for a little over a century. Humans have a tendency to perceive the universe through a paradigm which posits that we are currently at our zenith, and so that which is left unexplained must therefor be the realm of "god," or what have you. It may be that 400 years from now, the religions of the world will accept as irrefutable the idea of bio or chemo genesis.
It may be that we will never know what sparked the universe, or what came before it, or what the true nature of reality is. I personally think those questions will be answered (if we don't kill ourselves first!), but they might not be. Regardless, there will probably be room for religion no matter what we find out.
I am currently researching the evidence presented. It is a big topic.
I must say that I am not skeptical of macro-evolution on religious grounds, but on scientific ones. So far, it seems that evolutionists make several rather large "leaps of faith" in using known phoenomena and observations and using them to prove their argument. But I will read up on it some more.
I must say that I am not skeptical of macro-evolution on religious grounds, but on scientific ones. So far, it seems that evolutionists make several rather large "leaps of faith" in using known phoenomena and observations and using them to prove their argument. But I will read up on it some more.
I find it curious when people say they can accept micro-evolution, but somehow don't feel they can accept macro-evolution. Are not series of micro-evolution snowballing into the perceived macro-evolution?
As the environment continues to constantly change species continue to adapt, often on a small scale (micro-e). Now, give these changes and adaptations several million years and do you think those species will resemble the species of today? Humans could have absolutely no hair by that time, their vision may be markedly different, their methods of reproduction altered or any number of other changes, depending on the alterations in their environment.
Micro-evolution seems to be but a pebble in paving the road to macro-evolution.
As the environment continues to constantly change species continue to adapt, often on a small scale (micro-e). Now, give these changes and adaptations several million years and do you think those species will resemble the species of today? Humans could have absolutely no hair by that time, their vision may be markedly different, their methods of reproduction altered or any number of other changes, depending on the alterations in their environment.
Micro-evolution seems to be but a pebble in paving the road to macro-evolution.
QUOTE(Abs like Jesus @ May 16 2003, 03:12 PM)
I find it curious when people say they can accept micro-evolution, but somehow don't feel they can accept macro-evolution. Are not series of micro-evolution snowballing into the perceived macro-evolution?
As the environment continues to constantly change species continue to adapt, often on a small scale (micro-e). Now, give these changes and adaptations several million years and do you think those species will resemble the species of today? Humans could have absolutely no hair by that time, their vision may be markedly different, their methods of reproduction altered or any number of other changes, depending on the alterations in their environment.
Micro-evolution seems to be but a pebble in paving the road to macro-evolution.
As the environment continues to constantly change species continue to adapt, often on a small scale (micro-e). Now, give these changes and adaptations several million years and do you think those species will resemble the species of today? Humans could have absolutely no hair by that time, their vision may be markedly different, their methods of reproduction altered or any number of other changes, depending on the alterations in their environment.
Micro-evolution seems to be but a pebble in paving the road to macro-evolution.
Macro evolution (not that I'm an expert, this is just my rudimentary understanding) pertains to the giant leaps, during a very short time frame, in the process of evolution. There aren't many (if any) fossil evidence that links the gap between the point of a fish becoming an amphibian, for example. This gap is referred to as macroevolution. It is significant because the whole concept of cross speciation depends on developmental, incremental steps (in order to produce offspring with reproductive capacity). Otherwise, there could be no cross speciation to begin with.
The stereotype these days is to divide the creationists and evolutionists into distinct categories of 'ignorant' and 'educated'. That really isn't the case. I agree that there is a preponderance of evidence that (micro) evolution exists through natural selection and adaptation (often, fortuitous mutation and genetic drift). Skeptics of macro evolution include scientists (I am a biochemist) and engineers (like amlord). There are some truly large holes in macroevolutionary theory. Perhaps time will eliminate them.
QUOTE(Abs like Jesus @ May 16 2003, 11:12 AM)
I find it curious when people say they can accept micro-evolution, but somehow don't feel they can accept macro-evolution. Are not series of micro-evolution snowballing into the perceived macro-evolution?
As the environment continues to constantly change species continue to adapt, often on a small scale (micro-e). Now, give these changes and adaptations several million years and do you think those species will resemble the species of today? Humans could have absolutely no hair by that time, their vision may be markedly different, their methods of reproduction altered or any number of other changes, depending on the alterations in their environment.
Micro-evolution seems to be but a pebble in paving the road to macro-evolution.
As the environment continues to constantly change species continue to adapt, often on a small scale (micro-e). Now, give these changes and adaptations several million years and do you think those species will resemble the species of today? Humans could have absolutely no hair by that time, their vision may be markedly different, their methods of reproduction altered or any number of other changes, depending on the alterations in their environment.
Micro-evolution seems to be but a pebble in paving the road to macro-evolution.
I can see, logically, the evolution of a species. What I cannot see, is the evolution of a species into a completely different species, especially on such a grand scale.
Just because an individual species adapts, does not (necessarily) that it will ever form into a completely new form of life.
It is fallacious to conclude that a "snow balling" of micro evolution makes macro-evolution a foregone conclusion.
I am still researching this and won't say much more, but that is my basic skepticism.
If you want to see how these "giant leaps" occur, it helps to study things like exponential distributions and chaos theory. One decent explanation of this, though the book has other flaws, is Beyond Natural Selection. A Google search for "punctuated equilibrium" will turn up some other interesting stuff.
QUOTE(amlord @ May 16 2003, 03:49 PM)
QUOTE(Abs like Jesus @ May 16 2003, 11:12 AM)
I find it curious when people say they can accept micro-evolution, but somehow don't feel they can accept macro-evolution. Are not series of micro-evolution snowballing into the perceived macro-evolution?
As the environment continues to constantly change species continue to adapt, often on a small scale (micro-e). Now, give these changes and adaptations several million years and do you think those species will resemble the species of today? Humans could have absolutely no hair by that time, their vision may be markedly different, their methods of reproduction altered or any number of other changes, depending on the alterations in their environment.
Micro-evolution seems to be but a pebble in paving the road to macro-evolution.
As the environment continues to constantly change species continue to adapt, often on a small scale (micro-e). Now, give these changes and adaptations several million years and do you think those species will resemble the species of today? Humans could have absolutely no hair by that time, their vision may be markedly different, their methods of reproduction altered or any number of other changes, depending on the alterations in their environment.
Micro-evolution seems to be but a pebble in paving the road to macro-evolution.
I can see, logically, the evolution of a species. What I cannot see, is the evolution of a species into a completely different species, especially on such a grand scale.
Just because an individual species adapts, does not (necessarily) that it will ever form into a completely new form of life.
It is fallacious to conclude that a "snow balling" of micro evolution makes macro-evolution a foregone conclusion.
I am still researching this and won't say much more, but that is my basic skepticism.
While the gaps in knowledge may certainly be large enough to allow for skepticism; they do not add up to tantamount proof that evolution does not exist; and this is a position that is taken by people who reject evolution, which would include you if you buy the "evidences" of that site you linked to.
So I'm curious... you say it promotes skepticism. You haven't explained why it doesn't make sense.
QUOTE(Platypus @ May 16 2003, 04:37 PM)
If you want to see how these "giant leaps" occur, it helps to study things like exponential distributions and chaos theory. One decent explanation of this, though the book has other flaws, is Beyond Natural Selection. A Google search for "punctuated equilibrium" will turn up some other interesting stuff.
Thankyou. I will check it out
I found an interesting discourse from the site Quarkhead posted, between an anti-macroevolutionist scientist (Dr Spetner), and a macroevolutionary proponent. It is found here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/spetner.html
I didn't have time to read it all yet. I think I will print it out as tonight's bedside thriller
The generation of new species has been observed in a few cases. In fact some creationists now *require* that the generation of new species happens to account for the wide variety of species post noahs ark. They even require a kind of hyper-rapid evolution to account for this in just a few thousand years post noah. If you go to the Answers in Genesis website youll see some indications of this type of creationist "logic". Youll even find them hawking evidence for the speciation of mosquitos and salmon.
If you look deeper into your "no new species" claim youll see that many (if not most creationists) disagree with you. Its a semantics game really as they will claim that new species are created but that its through the "loss" and not "gain" of new attributes that these species are created.
If you look deeper into your "no new species" claim youll see that many (if not most creationists) disagree with you. Its a semantics game really as they will claim that new species are created but that its through the "loss" and not "gain" of new attributes that these species are created.
I love the Answers in Genesis website. It's about as credible (and entertaining) as the Onion. 
Oh, and what did those carnivores eat when they came off the ark again? They must have eaten the dinosaurs!
Oh, and what did those carnivores eat when they came off the ark again? They must have eaten the dinosaurs!
QUOTE(quarkhead @ May 17 2003, 10:13 PM)
I love the Answers in Genesis website. It's about as credible (and entertaining) as the Onion.
Oh, and what did those carnivores eat when they came off the ark again? They must have eaten the dinosaurs!
Oh, and what did those carnivores eat when they came off the ark again? They must have eaten the dinosaurs!
I might look at that site. It sounds entertaining.
If you take all of the stories in Genesis literally, it is impossible to believe. Why, for instance, did God make males and females of every single animal, accept man? He just made one man, but Adam got lonely so God made him a mate out of his rib.
I've heard truly closed minded religious types claim that God created a bunch of fake dinosaur bones to test our faith. Those aren't among the posters here (I hope!). I think we can discuss, intelligently, the 'creationist' concept, as far as a refutation of the theory of universally common ancestry. I would never claim that evolution doesn't exist, and I certainly wouldn't go to an exclusively creationist website expecting the well informed answers.
QUOTE( santasdad)
The generation of new species has been observed in a few cases. In fact some creationists now *require* that the generation of new species happens to account for the wide variety of species post noahs ark. They even require a kind of hyper-rapid evolution to account for this in just a few thousand years post noah. If you go to the Answers in Genesis website youll see some indications of this type of creationist "logic". Youll even find them hawking evidence for the speciation of mosquitos and salmon.
If you look deeper into your "no new species" claim youll see that many (if not most creationists) disagree with you. Its a semantics game really as they will claim that new species are created but that its through the "loss" and not "gain" of new attributes that these species are created.
If you look deeper into your "no new species" claim youll see that many (if not most creationists) disagree with you. Its a semantics game really as they will claim that new species are created but that its through the "loss" and not "gain" of new attributes that these species are created.
I am curious what you are referring to here, or whom you are addressing. I do believe in the creation of new species, through evolutionary change. I DON'T believe in cross-speciation for complex organisms.
evolution is why all people are still not of a black skin, why some virus can become numb to current treatments. unlike most things in the realm of science evolution takes a beating because it goes against common religious beliefs pure and simple. the arguements of today will be solved by the next day type of thing. unless someone can prove all of the ancestors of our half naked monkey men to be neat rock formations and not skeletons, then maybe i would lend more faith to a non evolution point of mans origin. and this is why people study evolution. because more questions lead to more questions. but i can see why some people would have doubt due to conceptualized ideas that are open to change via new "empirical" evidence.
if you think that a dog gave birth to a cat that shows how much you really know about evolution. a species of ant from south america on its conquest up north adapted to the cold, it did this by a physical change. its dna is different now and the ant itself looks different, is this not what you are looking for, a recent change or EVOLUTION, most people have evolution as humans being dirrectly birthed from monkeys, i must say it did not happen that way. to sum up my perspective on how evolution works is simple, after you play with fire you get burnt, after that, you know to be more careful, your intelligence evloved. as for religious people who cant get over this they should blame it on themselves if you knwo what i mean, i dont plan to turn the other cheek some time in the future to make them cofortable either. and on a final note look up ants, you may find that they are wasps witihout wings, or was it bees,. have you ever watched a bug clean itself, its funny, but a wasp cleans itslef in almost the same motions as a fly, they must talk to each other or something. 
I believe in evolution. The reasons are quite simple:
1. we have the evidence to back it up
2. I am an atheist
1. we have the evidence to back it up
2. I am an atheist
QUOTE(nileriver @ May 23 2003, 06:25 AM)
evolution is why all people are still not of a black skin,
Do I detect a hint of unspoken Victorian racism "whites evolved from blacks, and are therefore superior", or maybe N-o-I "whites were bred from from blacks, and are therefore inferior" assumption in your assertion?
The fossil record does not give any indications as to skin colour, so we don't know what skin colour our ancestors had in pre-history.
Our closest primate relatives, chimpanzees, have both white and black skin pigmentation, though not based on distinct races so much as individual variation and increasing pigmentation with age. Also, under their fur, even black-skinned adult chimps have white skin - probably just to save the resources required in manufacturing melanin in skin that never normally is exposed to damaging UV radiation. Gorillas have black skin, but then we aren't as closely related to them, any more than we are to the (pink- or orange-skinned) orang-utans.
Infantilist traits in adult humans (i.e. phenotypes expressed in adults that are more typical of infants in our closest relatives) are fairly common - softer, sparser body hair; smaller noses around the nostrils (as opposed to the nasal bridge); paler adult skins or hair, even in 'black' races; blue, grey, or green eyes (blue is especially infantile - most baby mammals have blue eyes); no really pronounced eyebrow ridges etc.
This logic, incidentally, has been used by the likes of Desmond Morris (a white Briton) to theorise that blacks are more 'evolved', i.e. more distant from our immediate ancestors, than whites (darker skin, more turned-out i.e. thicker lips, and so on), although with no attached value judgements.
We even selectively breed for such traits in our pets (adult cats and dogs that are as friendly and enjoy playing as much as the kittens of their wild relatives; breeds that have flatter, more puppy- or kitten-ish faces, etc.).
But, anyway, on the wider point at hand, I really despair of those creationists who think that, because the theory of evolution by natural selection has some gaps, and doesn't explain absolutely every empirical observation, that that must mean that creationism is true!! In the West, this seems to be the commonest assumption - some simple-minded manichean idea that creationism is the ONLY other possible explanation if evolution is flawed.
Firstly, of course it's flawed - they are scientific theories, not dogma (like creationism). Newton's Laws (note, LAWS, not theories) of motion are flawed under certain conditions, but that does not invalidate their general soundness, any more than the flaws in evolution make the whole concept bunk. We're still learning, and the longer we think about it, and the more research we do, the more we fill in the gaps, and discard the weaker elements. That is science, folks. It changes over time.
More importantly, creationism is not really science, since its foundation is not empirical observation, hypothesis and challenge, but religious faith. There are no atheist creationists! Hell, there aren't even any prominent Jewish ones, let alone Australian aboriginals - who might seriously argue(from their faith) that everything was created during the Dreamtime.
Even if there were any scientific validity to creationism, what (apart from their faith) makes Christian creationists think that THEIR particular Bronze Age creation aetiology has more such validity than that of Buddhists or Moslems or Shintoists or even Scientologists (scratch the last one, we haven't forgotten who made up all the stories for Scientology, as we mostly have for the Old Testament).
Funny how, in this mindset, flaws in evolution demonstrate its redundancy, yet flaws in creationism demonstrate our lack of understanding of the divine, isn't it? Creationist theory cannot be proven wrong to its supporters, since they do not support it because it is a sound theory, but because their faith tells them they must - another reason why creationism is just not science.
So the claim that creationism should be given "equal weight" to evolution in science classes is not only scientifically unsound, it is an attempt to bypass the separation of church and state in schools by getting a version of fundamentalist Christianity (the Catholic church does not officially believe in creationism any more, does it? Certainly Anglicanism/Episcopalianism does not) in through the back door.
no its not racist and i am not fond of the victorian era or its paintings julian but thanks for the reply. The dna(forgot types name) dates back to a female. this old dna is most prevalent in the country of africa. and its decendents here in america, the african americans. i think it is safe to say with the wide variation in skin tone you find today that all people are not blcak. i also think that something like this would not happen overnight. not that the black people or any group of the world is inferior due to skin color. i will go and find some links to go into further detail on what i am talking about.
First of all, Julian, that wasn't a racist comment, it was a comment based on scientific assumptions. People have black skin due to weather conditions and exposition to these weather conditions for a considerable amount of time. The primitive forms of man, not having any great advancements in shelter, or clothing for that matter, would be exposed to weather conditions for a great deal of time, and would thus, most likely have darker skin. This proves then, that in order for people to have whiter and/or paler skin, they would have to have advancements in intelligence, which I believe is caused by a little thing called, "evolution."
i think that languge has made some crossed wires for us on the concept of evolution. some of the oldest life recorded on the planet is a foam substance, i think you have probally seen it somewhere on a beach. you know that nasty foam stuff. thats life believe it or not, or a simple chemical reaction. i dont know why it is called life, but it is. how that equates with current trends and or theology is beyond me. but that stuff is a chemical reation. i dont know why it is even called life.
alot of study has gone into oxygen. it by itself is deadly to alot of lower life forms. we have a mechinism in us for the process of it. it also ages us by throwing off free radicals(not the ones for black hole detection either). that lead to the anti oxident pills you can now buy in a grocery store. some theory goes on about simple reactions(life) captureing/joining other ones and so on for a little bit of time. i dont know how much of it has been proven as do to most any scientific theory it itself evolves as it makes more questions.
i imagine though as time passes the theory itself will gather more solid evidence as it has already done.
remeber, not to long ago the earth was flat and the center of the universe.
alot of study has gone into oxygen. it by itself is deadly to alot of lower life forms. we have a mechinism in us for the process of it. it also ages us by throwing off free radicals(not the ones for black hole detection either). that lead to the anti oxident pills you can now buy in a grocery store. some theory goes on about simple reactions(life) captureing/joining other ones and so on for a little bit of time. i dont know how much of it has been proven as do to most any scientific theory it itself evolves as it makes more questions.
i imagine though as time passes the theory itself will gather more solid evidence as it has already done.
remeber, not to long ago the earth was flat and the center of the universe.
Okay, firstly let me apologise for the implied accusation of racism. This is porbably less because of anything that nileriver said or didn't say, and is a hangover of another board I frequented where a N-o-I poster and I used to butt heads quite a lot. So - sorry for the implication.
But, even though the genetic studies point to the oldest modern Home sapiens sapiens populations being a particular tribe of black Africans, that does not necessarily indicate that early humans were all black - even the Khosi's ancestors.
As AGiantBean points out, black skin is an evolved adaptation to strong sunlight. However, there is more than one way to look at the evolution of race. If the earliest humans (looking back at Australopithecines now) were black, later species from which all modern human races were descended would have most likely stayed black, because the strong African sun would have still made it an advantage.
But if we started out white, and hairy (like chimps - an equally "scientific" assumption - like yours, "assumption" is the operative word) then we need not have evolved the skin pigmentation because the hair would have acted in the same way. Neanderthalers must have come from an earlier branching out of Africa, and from the frozen specimens we've found, we know that they were both white and hairy.
So maybe the early migration that gave rise to Europeans (i.e. whites) didn't start out black and evolve into whites - maybe all humans at that time were white and the people that stayed in Africa evolved black skin. We would expect that to population that have been in Africa for longest would be most likely to have evolved black skin. Populations that left Africa earilest would be the ones least likely to have evolved
Since we know from the human genome project that only 8 genes control skin, eye and hair colour in humans, it possible that either scenario was true. The Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA studies (for the pure male and pure female bloodlines) are not directly useful for studies of race, since none of the 8 pigmentation genes are on the Y-chromosome (otherwise skin colour would only be inherited from your father - it isn't - it's a random mix of both parents' genes.).
All I was trying to point out is that, until we get direct evidence of the skin colour of our ancient ancestors, we will never know what it was. It's just conjecture (but interesting all the same).
But, even though the genetic studies point to the oldest modern Home sapiens sapiens populations being a particular tribe of black Africans, that does not necessarily indicate that early humans were all black - even the Khosi's ancestors.
As AGiantBean points out, black skin is an evolved adaptation to strong sunlight. However, there is more than one way to look at the evolution of race. If the earliest humans (looking back at Australopithecines now) were black, later species from which all modern human races were descended would have most likely stayed black, because the strong African sun would have still made it an advantage.
But if we started out white, and hairy (like chimps - an equally "scientific" assumption - like yours, "assumption" is the operative word) then we need not have evolved the skin pigmentation because the hair would have acted in the same way. Neanderthalers must have come from an earlier branching out of Africa, and from the frozen specimens we've found, we know that they were both white and hairy.
So maybe the early migration that gave rise to Europeans (i.e. whites) didn't start out black and evolve into whites - maybe all humans at that time were white and the people that stayed in Africa evolved black skin. We would expect that to population that have been in Africa for longest would be most likely to have evolved black skin. Populations that left Africa earilest would be the ones least likely to have evolved
Since we know from the human genome project that only 8 genes control skin, eye and hair colour in humans, it possible that either scenario was true. The Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA studies (for the pure male and pure female bloodlines) are not directly useful for studies of race, since none of the 8 pigmentation genes are on the Y-chromosome (otherwise skin colour would only be inherited from your father - it isn't - it's a random mix of both parents' genes.).
All I was trying to point out is that, until we get direct evidence of the skin colour of our ancient ancestors, we will never know what it was. It's just conjecture (but interesting all the same).
What's wrong with believing that the Creator has been using genetic manipulation for millenia? If we can do it, why couldn't/wouldn't the Creator?
I do not see a contradiction in believing that God used evolution in a continuing creation of life as we know it. Why does everything seem to have to be either/or?
I would say that most of the problems encountered have to do with the Bible not being a science book. Even if God showed Moses a vision of genetic mapping, Moses would not have been able to write it down and have people understand it as we are beginning to understand it now.
I do not see a contradiction in believing that God used evolution in a continuing creation of life as we know it. Why does everything seem to have to be either/or?
I would say that most of the problems encountered have to do with the Bible not being a science book. Even if God showed Moses a vision of genetic mapping, Moses would not have been able to write it down and have people understand it as we are beginning to understand it now.
QUOTE
I do not see a contradiction in believing that God used evolution in a continuing creation of life as we know it. Why does everything seem to have to be either/or?
Neither do I. It doesn't happen to be a notion I subscribe to, but Darwinian evolution on it's own has never pretended to be a "why", only a "how". Religion should never try to explain "how" - it invariably gets it wrong; but it can put some convincing arguments as to "why".
There are plenty of believers in both evolution and Christianity. Some Darwinians are atheists, and use it as an argument against religion - for me, that just muddies the waters.
But creationism isn't just wrong, it's bad science, and I don't think that public money should be used to teach kids anything that we know is bad science, because it gives a few misled bible-thumpers an extra chance to indoctrinate children.
Also, macroevolution is large scale changes over time, not neccessarily a short time. Short time changes or localized small area- little evidence changes are from the theory of punctuated equalibrium.
plenty of evidence of changes between major forms like amphibians and fish for example. look up Acanthastega Gunnari. Spelled close to that at least.
plenty of evidence of changes between major forms like amphibians and fish for example. look up Acanthastega Gunnari. Spelled close to that at least.
The problem with Creationism -- as in 6 day Creation -- is a lack of understanding about WHAT the Bible actually states:
* Most Creationist do not even remotely address the problem about the SECOND creation story in the bible (Genesis 2.4->) Where God Creates man first, then the plants, then the animals, then the first woman.
* Most Christian Creationist do not correlate the Story of Creation (Genesis 1.1 -> 2.3) with the New Testament statements by Jesus and the Apostles, were they ascertain that such stories were "mysteries", "shadow of the things to come" -- prophesy, not history -- and "not to be understood by the man in the flesh" -- not to be taken as material but spiritual.
I present this simple questions to the persons that insist in taking the 6 day Creation as a literal event:
Do you believe you can achieve eternal life without believing in Jesus?
The Creation story says that God placed to Angels to take care of "the tree of life less any man could eat its fruit ..."
Any child with one year of Bible school would say: but _that_ is symbolic...
Was the serpent an animal that could walk and talk? I know your answer: Symbolic, that's Satan...
We could go on an on...Whom did Cain Marry? Whom did he feared would kill him? etc. etc... The point is the 6 day Creationist are going to have to keep on answering "symbolic", or "other things happened in between..."
As for Evolution versus Creation, the main problem with the scientist, specially those that are not biologist is that they fail to distinguish:
* Evolution is an observed FACT -- W a y too many fossils, species, mutations are EVIDENT, to anyone willing to OBSERVE. That is what shocked Darwin. He was a believer of Genesis when he went of a trip where he saw _evidence_ which contradicted a literal interpretation.
* the theory proposed by Darwin: Natural Selection of the Species, is a theory. As any scientific theory it's imperfect, and is expected to evolve, mutate, and one day be proven insufficient, as more knowledge of the facts are accumulated.
-- my two cents --
* Most Creationist do not even remotely address the problem about the SECOND creation story in the bible (Genesis 2.4->) Where God Creates man first, then the plants, then the animals, then the first woman.
* Most Christian Creationist do not correlate the Story of Creation (Genesis 1.1 -> 2.3) with the New Testament statements by Jesus and the Apostles, were they ascertain that such stories were "mysteries", "shadow of the things to come" -- prophesy, not history -- and "not to be understood by the man in the flesh" -- not to be taken as material but spiritual.
I present this simple questions to the persons that insist in taking the 6 day Creation as a literal event:
Do you believe you can achieve eternal life without believing in Jesus?
The Creation story says that God placed to Angels to take care of "the tree of life less any man could eat its fruit ..."
Any child with one year of Bible school would say: but _that_ is symbolic...
Was the serpent an animal that could walk and talk? I know your answer: Symbolic, that's Satan...
We could go on an on...Whom did Cain Marry? Whom did he feared would kill him? etc. etc... The point is the 6 day Creationist are going to have to keep on answering "symbolic", or "other things happened in between..."
As for Evolution versus Creation, the main problem with the scientist, specially those that are not biologist is that they fail to distinguish:
* Evolution is an observed FACT -- W a y too many fossils, species, mutations are EVIDENT, to anyone willing to OBSERVE. That is what shocked Darwin. He was a believer of Genesis when he went of a trip where he saw _evidence_ which contradicted a literal interpretation.
* the theory proposed by Darwin: Natural Selection of the Species, is a theory. As any scientific theory it's imperfect, and is expected to evolve, mutate, and one day be proven insufficient, as more knowledge of the facts are accumulated.
-- my two cents --
QUOTE(quarkhead @ May 17 2003, 04:13 PM)
Oh, and what did those carnivores eat when they came off the ark again? They must have eaten the dinosaurs!
Fish
I thought we had closed all of these evolution/creationism threads. 
Well, closed now; we are no longer hosting religious debates.
Well, closed now; we are no longer hosting religious debates.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.