J
johnnyjones
Guest
\Maybe you embrace theistic evolution which is contrary to scripture.
- Status
J
johnnyjones
Guest
Would you look at a penny for example and say no one designed it. Somebody had to make it. Yet you take a leaf for example, filled with living cells and much more complex than the quarter and say no one designed it. A design demands a designer. That applies everywhere, except of course with Gods creations it seems.
Z
ZoeyBdo
Guest
It doesn’t. Would you care to explain how you feel it does?
J
johnnyjones
Guest
Over billions of years things are supposed to have developed UPWARD, becoming more orderly and complex. Do you disagree with this fundamental view of naturalistic evolution?
T
Tigress
Guest
For a second you had me scared; I thought you were serious! xD
I agree with you.
J
johnnyjones
Guest
I guess we shouldn’t make much of the New Testament when it talks about Adam being formed or when Jesus uses the words “in the beginning” as to support the creation account in Genesis. Theres also John 1:1 to help things along modeling the words 'In the beginning" was the Word …" Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning”. God needed millions of years to do it.
E
Espero
Guest
There has already been fields of research done on the matter you just mentioned. Feel free to look them up.
rationalwiki.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics#Misapplication_by_anti-evolutionists
E
Espero
Guest
Adam, nor John 1:1 contradict any major scientific theory if put in a more likely context.
J
johnnyjones
Guest
Event the wiki supports the points I’m making if you properly understand the debate.There has already been fields of research done on the matter you just mentioned. Feel free to look them up.
rationalwiki.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics#Misapplication_by_anti-evolutionists
J
johnnyjones
Guest
Well if your “seeking”, you need to be more open minded and not quick to discount the passages of scripture related to creation.
L
LJH_80
Guest
Poe’s law states that there is no mockery of a religious stance so extreme that it isn’t plausible that someone actually believes it.
H
Hokomai
Guest
It would help in these debates on CAF if we kept to a common set of meanings for words. ‘Evolution’ means that species arise from descent, one from another. This is a fact. There is no other possible explanation for the fact that DNA, which is passed on by descent, is shared by different species. ‘Darwinism’ can mean either the theory of how evolution takes place originally put forward by Darwin, not as his ‘belief’, but as his conclusion from carefully stated facts; or, it can mean the modifications of his theory put forward by later scientists. Darwinism in either its original or later forms does not require non-belief in god(s) or any particular view of the origins of matter, or indeed of life itself. It is also true that there is little in Darwinism to encourage belief in god(s), although some who believe that they see the hand of god(s) at work i evolutionary processes. ‘Intelligent design’ asserts that the existence of designer(s) can be deduced from observation of species and their descent and behaviour. It explains nothing which is not also explained by evolution, and as a hugely complex theory, requiring us to postulate the existence of things for which there is no other evidence (god(s)/designer(s), should be rejected in favour of the theory which most simply explains the observable fact of evolution. I have seen nothing in ‘intelligent design’ to merit its inclusion in anything other than religion class. Darinism, as th leading scientific theory of how the fact of evolution occurs should obviously be taught in schools.
J
johnnyjones
Guest
Firstly why, if species have decended from other species by insensibly fine gradations do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?
L
LJH_80
Guest
Are they?
JohnnyJones, Before you post to anything else I say, I need you to answer one question:
Do you want to learn more than you currently do about science?
I love science, I love studying it and I love teaching it. I am more than happy to walk you through thermodynamics, evolutionary biology, and whatever else you want to know that’s within my ability to teach.
I will first say that you already believe in the theory of UNnatural selection, most likely. Before you get riled up, let me explain what I mean by this: If raise dogs, and I always take the smallest ones together, then taking their children, and breeding the smallest of those together (or the fastest, darkest colored, etc). Then after many generations, I will have a bunch of dogs that are smaller (faster/darker colored) than average. This is how we got so many different breeds of dogs, and new breeds of dogs are still being created (which means that every breed could be considered an intermediate breed to something else.
This is UNnatural selection. Now, if you agree with that, all we need to do is show that it can happen naturally.
Now, you ask about middle forms, and why they are not all around us. The answer is: they are.
Now, imagine you have a wide expanse of plains at the foot of some mountains. Sheep graise these plains, eating grass, and being eaten by lions. They exist this way for thousands of years.
Then a drought comes. There are some small streams of water in the mountains, which sustain the sheep close to them, and some streams miles away from the mountain that supply the flat plains, but there are many miles between the two groups, where there isn’t enough food.
Now, the ones by the mountains are having some trouble finding food. A few of the sheep are better climbers than the others, and can get a few feet higher on the rock faces, thereby getting a few more of the plants, and being a little bit healthier, making more babies. It keeps going on like this, where in every generation the ability to go up the mountain gets them more food, and further away from the big, hungry lions down at the base of the mountain. Soon, these sheep will have narrow, hard hooves good for gripping small crevices, and a very rigid, sturdy frame. They will also probably develop warmer coats for the cold at higher altitudes. This transition takes centuries to millenia, but it happens. At every stage, though, they appear to be just normal sheep.
While all this is going on, the plains sheep are out in the open grassland. The lions have gotten hungry, there are more of them, in a smaller space, and there is less food. This is what we would call “evolutionary pressure.” It means that there is more pressure, and a higher number of the population will die before mating. Soon, the lions are eating all but the fastest sheep, which pressures the sheep to become faster and more alert. These sheep need to see across the savannah for a great distance, and run away quickly. Likewise, the big, strong lions who used to pick on the smaller lions cannot find enough food to maintain their bulk, nor can they outrun prey like the smaller lions can. Thus, the lions tend, through selective breeding, become smaller and faster, as do the sheep.
Thus, after a few 10,000 years, the sheep look significantly different, with one being stockier and hardier and better on rocky terrain, while the other is faster and equipped for the plains (exactly like horses and donkeys). After this, the one could not survive in the environment of the other. Even when the drought ends, and the two populations could meet again, their breeding would not be beneficial: it wouldn’t climb as well as a mountain sheep, so it couldn’t get the food they could, and it couldn’t run like a plains sheep, so it would be the first to be eaten by the lions.
After a 100,000 years, these animals have been breeding amongst themselves so much that the genetic language is not necessarily transferable. They might be able to have children, but those children would not be able to have furhter children (like a horse and a donkey can produce a mule, but mules can’t have kids).
After a while, they wouldn’t even be able to have those sterile children, they would simply be completely different species. Again, exactly like horses and donkeys.
Is it too much to believe that both horses and donkeys came from some common ancestor? What about horses and cows?
If you can follow this logic, you too can understand evolution.
E
Espero
Guest
It’s not discounting, it’s just that, seeking.
J
johnnyjones
Guest
I read your entire post closely. I need to inform you first that the words I wrote, that you responded to were not mine. They were Darwin’s , word for word (The Origin Of Species…first edition reprint page 205, second paragraph, chapter 6 on “Difficulty on Theory.” It’s interesting how you responded to this, seemingly not knowing the words were Darwins. Very revealing. Yes I want to know science and there is always more I could learn. I think you could admit that to. Even Darwin couldn’t believe what he was putting forth, at least rhetorically.
First off, I have little problem with adaptation which is basically what your outlining Thats different than species becoming other species. You jumped right into fully formed mammals without addressing how matter originally organized itself. The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps; the fossils are missing in all the important places. I have studied the subject intensely. Evolution is a working theory, and a poor one at that. I like what C. Everett Koop said (former US surgeon) “When I make an incision with my scalpel, I see organs of such intricacy that there simply hasn’t been enough time for natural evolutionary processes to have developed them.”
J
johnnyjones
Guest
If you delve into only one side of things, thats all you’ll know. Study the other side.
E
Espero
Guest
I come from the other side, that’s why I delve into the other
J
johnnyjones
Guest
Not sure how your seeking Christendom then. So it’s theistic evolution then?I come from the other side, that’s why I delve into the other
L
LJH_80
Guest
Yes, that is adaptation. But you must concede that I did get from one species to another, if we take horses and donkeys. They cannot produce fertile children, so they are different species. Adaptation is what it’s all about.I read your entire post closely. I need to inform you first that the words I wrote, that you responded to were not mine. They were Darwin’s , word for word (The Origin Of Species…first edition reprint page 205, second paragraph, chapter 6 on “Difficulty on Theory.” It’s interesting how you responded to this, seemingly not knowing the words were Darwins. Very revealing. Yes I want to know science and there is always more I could learn. I think you could admit that to. Even Darwin couldn’t believe what he was putting forth, at least rhetorically.
First off, I have little problem with adaptation which is basically what your outlining Thats different than species becoming other species. You jumped right into fully formed mammals without addressing how matter originally organized itself. The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps; the fossils are missing in all the important places. I have studied the subject intensely. Evolution is a working theory, and a poor one at that. I like what C. Everett Koop said (former US surgeon) “When I make an incision with my scalpel, I see organs of such intricacy that there simply hasn’t been enough time for natural evolutionary processes to have developed them.”
Secondly, I think you are mistaking science for religion with your comments on Darwin.
In a religion like Christianity, you have somebody say something (in the Bible, for instance), and then people decide that that’s true, and spend centuries making arguments on why the first thing that was said was right.
In science, the concept develops (one might even say it evolves). Darwin could have been wrong about 95% of what he wrote, and it wouldn’t make much difference. Darwin gets credit for getting the idea rolling, but that doesn’t mean Origin of Species must be definitively true, and that all subsequent work must fit its parameters. Darwin got an idea rolling, which has been developed, enhanced, and refined through 150 years of other scientists.
The fact that Darwin included problems with his own theory for future work (by himself and others) shows a level of honesty. The process of including future work and unanswered questions is common in scientific papers. It’s not that Darwin couldn’t believe it, it’s that he didn’t understand everything when he wrote the book. Again, I think you’re conflating science and religion.
So now, about gaps in the fossil record, I alluded to it in the post above, but I didn’t point it out specifically, so allow me to do so now.
Do me a favor and pretend evolution is true just for a few sentences.
I think you’ll agree with all these statements, but if I’m wrong, please let me know where you feel I have gone wrong.
Evolution happens slowest when there is no impetus to change. That is: if there is no trait that increases an individual’s likelihood of breeding, there is nothing to cause natural selection to select.
By that token, evolution happens fastest when there is the most pressure on a system. As with my sheep example above, there was very little change, perhaps for a few hundred thousand years. Then a drought occurred and suddenly there is evolutionary pressure. Within the space of a few thousand years now, there is a significantly large phenotype change (change in physical characteristics). During these times, there are also, necessarily, fewer creatures, because the odds of survival are so reduced (by definition of the increased evolutionary pressure).
But once they have adapted to that new scenario, the differential survivability of phenotypic changes are decreasing relative to the population at large. There would then be hundreds of thousands of years where these species continue creating genetic diversity from their close cousins, but with minimal phenotypc changes.
What this means, regarding the probability distribution is that, if we find a random skeleton, the periods of rapid transition are just that:rapid. They represent only a few percent of the timeframe. They also had less individuals in them. Therefore, it makes sense that we see fewer transitional species fossils than fossils of creatures living on the plateaus.
Additionally, we HAVE found a large number of transitional fossils. But the idea that we will find transitional fossils for every branching everywhere is silly to expect.
You also said I only discussed how life alters, not how life began. That was intentional, since that is not in the scope of evolution. I’m not saying it’s not in the scope of science, just that it’s not what evolution deals with (much like applying etymology to the electrons on a tungsten atom is not applicable).
I’m sure you do like what C. Everett Coop said. I like a lot of things a lot of people have said, too, especially people who said things that support what I already believed. Those people rule.
And yes, I always admit that I can learn more.
I think I got everything.
Edit: certain things read in negative ways that I didn’t intend, I am trying to change the wording to reflect that.
- Status