O
Oolon_Colluphid
Guest
Personally, I’ve no idea what you mean by “genetically superior”. Could you elaborate?
Cheers, Oolon
- Status
Cheers, Oolon
B
buffalo
Guest
Do we have better genes or worse genes?
O
Oolon_Colluphid
Guest
There’s no such thing as better or worse genes, other than in relation to the environment. A gene that thickens hair coverage in a mammal, for instance, might be beneficial in an arctic creature but detrimental in a tropical one, and neutral in an aquatic one (perhaps). A gene is ‘better’ if it confers a survival or reproduction advantage. Does a chimpanzee have ‘worse’ genes than us? No, when it comes to living in a forest; yes, if it tried to get a job in local government (or maybe not…
).I suppose we might be slightly ‘better’ than ‘Adam and Eve’, in that most of us can now digest lactose, and so drink milk on into adulthood. Apart from that, I’m afraid the idea of better or worse genes is meaningless. Sorry!
Just out of interest, what species do you think Adam and Eve were?
B
buffalo
Guest
Aren’t defective genes considered worse than non-defective genes?
O
Oolon_Colluphid
Guest
So are you asking whether we have more genetic defects than Adam and Eve?
Tell you what: find some of their DNA and we’ll investigate…So what species were they?
B
buffalo
Guest
What does evolutionary theory suggest?
C
Chris_W
Guest
The most recent posts by both sides have been the most enjoyable of this thread, in my opinion.
I suppose that I am one of those creationists who are so frustrating to evolutionists because I do indeed question many theories supporting evolution. However, I do so not to portray myself as some kind of scientist, nor to disprove evolutionary processes. I pose what I consider to be flaws in theories in response to evolutionists who claim that thier way (evolution) is the only possibility. I merely contend that the science is not conclusive, as Oolon seems to be able to recognize. So long as the evolutionist states his case as merely possible, I (and I believe many creationists) have no objection.
I still maintain that the issue of non-living matter becoming living matter is indeed part of the athiestic evolution debate. Evolutionary ideas that allow at least the possibility of theistic belief does not need to address the issue, but atheistic evolution does, because athiestic evolution reaches into the area of non-living matter. For example, the theory of abiogenesis, as was recommended to me earlier in this thread, is evolution. If I udnerstand it correctly(from the link provided earlier), it describes spontaneous generation in an elaborate way, posing a theory of how a mere molecule could somehow learn to take from its surroundings what it needs to sustain life, with the notion that over time this gradually evolved into the metobolic motor that living cells must have to be considered alive. How is this not evolution? How is evolution not therefore seeking to answer the question of the beginning of life?
If evolutionists want to avoid what is obviously a frustrating debate (about the beginning of life), I recommend avoiding the use of the theory of evolution as evidence there is no God. So long as you don’t reach into that realm, people like me will keep quiet on the matter.
In principle, though, I think it is unreasonable to ask creationists to adopt the theory of evolution when there are indeed unresolved gaps in the theory. Even the most fundamental assertion (that the earth is billions of years old) has not been conclusively deomonstrated. I spent a month of evenings reading both sides of the arguments for and against radiometric dating. And on just this issue, there is no end in sight to the debate. I should think scientists would commend people questioning theories…that’s how science works.
I suppose that I am one of those creationists who are so frustrating to evolutionists because I do indeed question many theories supporting evolution. However, I do so not to portray myself as some kind of scientist, nor to disprove evolutionary processes. I pose what I consider to be flaws in theories in response to evolutionists who claim that thier way (evolution) is the only possibility. I merely contend that the science is not conclusive, as Oolon seems to be able to recognize. So long as the evolutionist states his case as merely possible, I (and I believe many creationists) have no objection.
I still maintain that the issue of non-living matter becoming living matter is indeed part of the athiestic evolution debate. Evolutionary ideas that allow at least the possibility of theistic belief does not need to address the issue, but atheistic evolution does, because athiestic evolution reaches into the area of non-living matter. For example, the theory of abiogenesis, as was recommended to me earlier in this thread, is evolution. If I udnerstand it correctly(from the link provided earlier), it describes spontaneous generation in an elaborate way, posing a theory of how a mere molecule could somehow learn to take from its surroundings what it needs to sustain life, with the notion that over time this gradually evolved into the metobolic motor that living cells must have to be considered alive. How is this not evolution? How is evolution not therefore seeking to answer the question of the beginning of life?
If evolutionists want to avoid what is obviously a frustrating debate (about the beginning of life), I recommend avoiding the use of the theory of evolution as evidence there is no God. So long as you don’t reach into that realm, people like me will keep quiet on the matter.
In principle, though, I think it is unreasonable to ask creationists to adopt the theory of evolution when there are indeed unresolved gaps in the theory. Even the most fundamental assertion (that the earth is billions of years old) has not been conclusively deomonstrated. I spent a month of evenings reading both sides of the arguments for and against radiometric dating. And on just this issue, there is no end in sight to the debate. I should think scientists would commend people questioning theories…that’s how science works.
O
Oolon_Colluphid
Guest
That humans have arrived at their present form by a long series of subtle modifications from something more ape-like, over the course of about five million years. Furthermore, these changes happened in interbreeding populations all the way along. So there wasn’t an Adam and Eve, as in only two people. And though we might label any pair ‘Adam and Eve’ in the lineage, they were the same species as their parents, and if different at all, only imperceptibly so.
The best current candidate for their species, that is, the first on the purely human line, is probably Ardipithecus ramidus, but the fossils from around the chimp-human divergence are too patchy at the moment to be exactly conclusive. But that’s the great thing with science: we can always change in light of new evidence.
I suspect you’re not going to like that answer…
B
buffalo
Guest
Oolon Colluphid:
I was actually asking what evolutionary theory suggests about the above question.So are you asking whether we have more genetic defects than Adam and Eve?
O
Oolon_Colluphid
Guest
Ah, sorry, I see. Well it suggests that there wasn’t an Adam and Eve.
As I said above, genes are only ‘good’ or ‘bad’ in relation to the environment. So Ardipithecus ramidus had ‘good’ genes for its environment, we have ‘good’ genes for ours.
The caveat to that is that we are, generally and in Western societies, no longer as subject to natural selection as we once and till very recently (in evolutionary terms) were. We have medical care, and can keep haemophiliacs, diabetics, sickle-cell anaemics etc etc alive when once they would not have survived. So I suppose one could make a case for our species having more defective genes now than it used to – but ‘now’ only means the last thousand years or so, certainly not for most of the time sinceH sapiens sapiens emerged from Africa c. 200,000bp.
B
buffalo
Guest
Would these be adaptations or would you consider them to be evolutionary movements?
O
Oolon_Colluphid
Guest
Sorry, you’ve lost me again. What does “these” refer to?
Evolution ‘on the ground’ is defined as a change in allele frequency – basically, genetic change – in a population over time. So I’m not sure what an “evolutionary movement” is. But if I’m guessing correctly what it means, adaptations are evolutionary movements. The change from smaller brain to larger brain, between Homo habilis and Homo erectus say, is an adaptation – a bigger brain conferring survival and reproductive advantages. But it perhaps is also an evolutionary movement, in that the cumulative effect of the small adaptations resulted in significant morphological change.
B
buffalo
Guest
Adaptations have been shown, but evolution into another species has not. It remains a theory.
Adam and Eve were created by God and we know them and ourselves as humans. (the same species) What if God decided that the apes were fashioned as a subset of himself and humans were fashioned as a more perfect image of himself?
Adam and Eve were created by God and we know them and ourselves as humans. (the same species) What if God decided that the apes were fashioned as a subset of himself and humans were fashioned as a more perfect image of himself?
V
Vindex_Urvogel
Guest
Despite requests from both myself and Oolon Colluphid for those individuals on this thread arguing against evolutionary biology to present data suggesting that evolutionary biology is not a satisfactory explanation for the diversity of life and origin of major clades and structural innovations, creationists and anti-evolutionists here continue to persist in long-winded tirades with great voracity and little veracity on some abstruse hopeful monster called “faith-evolutionism.” This strange creature our friends here would like us to fear is apparently an amalgam of faith and belief that biodiversity has an explanation other than that offered by literal scriptual interpretations. Fortunately for the meek-hearted among us who do not like strange monstrous things, this particular beast is more so a paper tiger with little substance in the real world. As evolutionary biology is based on empirical data, it is by definition not possible to have faith in it. Though creationists here have consistently stated that evolutionists, in a grand intellectual conspiracy, have ignored data which contravene evolutionary biology, they have conspicuously failed to present such data or respond to the refutations of what limited assertions they have made, about the data. One must question, unfortunately, if opposition to evolutionary biology, at least here on this thread, is based more on a rhetorical sham, with great hyperbole and flourish but little substance while genuine scientific inquiry languishes in the shadows. Until the creationists here provide data to support their argument that evolutionary biology cannot account for the diversity of life, the origin of major clades and innovations, they are in effect not presenting any argument at all; least of all a scientific one. In the failure to provide such data, ironically, they have automatically admitted that they cannot oppose evolution on anything but rhetorical grounds.
Vindex Urvogel
Vindex Urvogel
V
Vindex_Urvogel
Guest
Terribly sorry, chap, but it has. Why, there was just recently a speciation even in Icterus. And besides our avian friends, there is always the good old Drosophila. Plants are pretty speciose creatures too, and speciation has often been demonstrated there too.
Vindex Urvogel
J
JimO
Guest
This is addressed primarily to Oolon and Vindex:
I know that Vindex read my post yesterday, but I’m not sure that you, Oolon did. Vindex challenged me to provide specific citations describing the data gaps that I suggested are present in the fossil record. If I were arguing against evolution, I would take the time to do that, but I’m afraid that he missed the same point that you seem to miss. First, not all Christians or other theists reject evolution. The Catholic Church does not deny that physical evolution occurs. It is the common atheistic association with evolution that the Church rejects. From a faith perspective, it doesn’t matter how modern man came to be, from a physical perspective. What matters to Catholics is that we are not just a body, but a spirit and a soul (mind & will) as well. This triune nature of our existence parallels the Trinity, thus we truly are created in the image and likeness of God. God may have created two people called Adam and Eve as body, soul and spirit or He may have allowed the human body to evolve to a point where the soul and spirit could be infused into it. Both are equally “creationist” positions from the Catholic perspective.
Both of you insist that the discussion stay on the validity of biological evolution. An atheist has no problem discussing only what science and math have to say about the universe. the problem is that for the Christian there is a foundational connection between the physical and the spiritual and to discuss either apart from the other is pointless. One of you pointed out that there is no point in saying that I have faith in gravity, for example. It is a physical law and if I deny it, I am stunned and perplexed when I have a bloody nose from stumbling over a rock. The same applies to spiritual truths. You can deny God all you want. You can talk down to us like we are ignorant children. You can point to “empirical” data and say that God has nothing to do with it. You can deny the “empircal” spiritual data and say that God does not exist. Sadly, you will one day wake up perplexed, with a “bloody nose” and no explanations.
If you want a purely scientific discussion devoid of philosophy or faith issues, then this isn’t the forum for you.
I know that Vindex read my post yesterday, but I’m not sure that you, Oolon did. Vindex challenged me to provide specific citations describing the data gaps that I suggested are present in the fossil record. If I were arguing against evolution, I would take the time to do that, but I’m afraid that he missed the same point that you seem to miss. First, not all Christians or other theists reject evolution. The Catholic Church does not deny that physical evolution occurs. It is the common atheistic association with evolution that the Church rejects. From a faith perspective, it doesn’t matter how modern man came to be, from a physical perspective. What matters to Catholics is that we are not just a body, but a spirit and a soul (mind & will) as well. This triune nature of our existence parallels the Trinity, thus we truly are created in the image and likeness of God. God may have created two people called Adam and Eve as body, soul and spirit or He may have allowed the human body to evolve to a point where the soul and spirit could be infused into it. Both are equally “creationist” positions from the Catholic perspective.
Both of you insist that the discussion stay on the validity of biological evolution. An atheist has no problem discussing only what science and math have to say about the universe. the problem is that for the Christian there is a foundational connection between the physical and the spiritual and to discuss either apart from the other is pointless. One of you pointed out that there is no point in saying that I have faith in gravity, for example. It is a physical law and if I deny it, I am stunned and perplexed when I have a bloody nose from stumbling over a rock. The same applies to spiritual truths. You can deny God all you want. You can talk down to us like we are ignorant children. You can point to “empirical” data and say that God has nothing to do with it. You can deny the “empircal” spiritual data and say that God does not exist. Sadly, you will one day wake up perplexed, with a “bloody nose” and no explanations.
If you want a purely scientific discussion devoid of philosophy or faith issues, then this isn’t the forum for you.
M
Melchior
Guest
Vindex Urvogel:
Back to lurking on this topic.
Mel
No it has not. There is not one transitional form that has been proven to be a direct ancestor of man. Some have been speculated but none proven in a conclusive manner. If you think different please provide the conclusive evidence here and now. And I mean conclusive evidence - not theoretic or speculative but actual, uncontested, verifiable, universally accepted, no room for error proof. That is all we want to see. Grandstanding and semi-related proof is not proof at all. It is akin to saying “Trees are alive. Humans are alive. Therefore trees must be human”. Non-logical comparisons do not apply.
Back to lurking on this topic.
Mel
B
buffalo
Guest
Bravo Jim O
For Oolon and Vindex
How do radio halos and the new studies on sedimentation rates affect your theories…
For Oolon and Vindex
How do radio halos and the new studies on sedimentation rates affect your theories…
C
Chris_W
Guest
I am curious to see the response to Melchior.
I have another question, especially since we now have a geologist among us. I heard an argument posed by a creationist, and I have long wondered if it is a credible argument. Perhaps both sides of the evolution debate could give their response.
This man questioned the credibility of the geological column. I remember seeing it posted in the cover of my school science book, where it shows the 12 layers of the earth, one on top of the other, listing hypothetical dates to the layers, with the lower ones being older than the upper layers. This guy said that there has never been a single real world site where one can view all 12 layers in the order in which they appear on the geological column. In fact, he said, the Grand Canyon only shows 9 layers and they are not always in the same order, (presumably from movements in the earth’s crust), etc.
Now, since fossils are claimed to provide the best evidence supporting evolution, and since archaeology depends heavily on this column, even for radiometric dating to be useful, it seems rather important to me that there be proof the column is correct.
Is this actually a debated topic, or has the geological column been accepted by both evolutionary and creationist scientists?
I have another question, especially since we now have a geologist among us. I heard an argument posed by a creationist, and I have long wondered if it is a credible argument. Perhaps both sides of the evolution debate could give their response.
This man questioned the credibility of the geological column. I remember seeing it posted in the cover of my school science book, where it shows the 12 layers of the earth, one on top of the other, listing hypothetical dates to the layers, with the lower ones being older than the upper layers. This guy said that there has never been a single real world site where one can view all 12 layers in the order in which they appear on the geological column. In fact, he said, the Grand Canyon only shows 9 layers and they are not always in the same order, (presumably from movements in the earth’s crust), etc.
Now, since fossils are claimed to provide the best evidence supporting evolution, and since archaeology depends heavily on this column, even for radiometric dating to be useful, it seems rather important to me that there be proof the column is correct.
Is this actually a debated topic, or has the geological column been accepted by both evolutionary and creationist scientists?
B
buffalo
Guest
- Status