Evolution

Yeah well one could say the Earth being round is just a "theory".

 

There's visual proof of that.

 

My opinion is that God may very well have used the evolutionary process in His creation of humans. It really isn't too much of an issue for me as my theological focus isn't necessarily on where we came from, but where we should go.

 

KnightRider... it's a hoax...

Well, for all you know

 

Sure thing - there was a statement from the pope a couple of years ago. You can find an article about it here. The language is pretty thick, but his view is clear enough. First, there's no contradiction between our physical evolution from non-human animals and the faith. Second, this is "more than a hypothesis." The pope is a bit fuzzy on an important distinction, though, which makes the statement less clear than the reports I recall from the time. He remarks on the existence of various theories about evolution without noticing that they all agree on the key point: descent (from a common ancestor with the great apes) with modification (Darwin's definition of evolution). The differences are in the details of how and why we evolved as we did (what selective pressures did, what drift did or may have done, the details of migrations, interbreeding, replacement, etc.) On the main question, i.e. where did humans come from, there is no alternative theory (unless you just want to say "it's magic"-- but then that's not science; taking alternatives like that seriously is just idle skepticism).

 

<<There's visual proof of that. >>

Sorry, but there's no proof from first evidence that will make anyone say uncle about anything. What if light doesn't travel in straight lines? Read Descarte's first meditation.

 

Sorry, but hard science is still based on measurable data.

 

One thing thats always confused me about evolution.

Animals are continuely evolving right? Not that I mean your shildren will have wings, but in a slow kinda process we keep changing, that is what it means right?

So how do some animals not adapt for millions of years? The horseshoe crab comes to mind.
How is it that something becomes so perfect it doesn't change?

 

Because:

A.) Either it becomes perfectly suited to it's environment, which doesn't really happen, because if you recall the 'Red Queen' analogy - organisms have to evolve as fast as they can simply to stay where they are.

or, more likely:

B.) Evolution occurs by small graduations and mutations. If a mutation occurs in which the animal is given an advantage to survive, and thus not die, then those genes are passed on. However, even with that in mind, it may be impossible for an animal to evolve into a 'better' animal, because the graduating steps requried to reach this stage put the organism at a temporary disavantage - making it easier for that animal to die, and thus not pass on the genes.

 

Nobody ever measured the future orbit of Jupiter but physics predicts it, and our physical theories wouldn't be right if it didn't follow that path. Furthermore there are all kinds of real hard measurements made in biology - measures of anatomy, protein structure, genetics, population biology and shifts in population characteristics based on environmental changes. All of these are measured and shown in laboratories and in the field. All you're doing is raising silly skeptical questions about evolution when the same questions can be raised in any other science - physics, chemistry, any of them. Biology is as hard and real a science as any other, and evolution is part of it.

 

[rant]

Something keeps occuring to me. Evolution as we know it, or as it once was, has ceased to exist. There is no more natural selection. Humans select for different species now...thus, not necessarily the most suited DNA is passed on. Let me explain myself. You have a spotted owl that is going extinct. Everyone cries out that this is such a shame (indeed in a way it is) and then they inact laws to keep it alive. In fact, biologists will come out of the woodwork, because they need jobs and make sure that this species survives (California Condor for example). If Evolution is to truly take place, we must let these species die out on their own. Adapt or die. It's that simple.

So I say evolution is dead. It has been replaced with a "Naoh's Ark" type approach wherein everything must be saved and or protected. This is un-natural selection and it appears to be on the rise all over the world. In fact, with the advent of gene therapy, un-natural selection will be taken to new vistas. Clearly, man is tinkering with the very foundations of life. I fear that the consequences for such actions could have unforseen effects later on.

[/rant]

 

Two reasons why the horeshoe crab has fit a particular niche:

A very tough outer shell. Not much can penetrate it. Second, the crab's immune system. It has the strongest immune system of any animal I believe. When bacteria invade the crab's blood cells it releases enzymes which form clots around the invading bacteria. Then the crab's body releases a natural antibiotic to kill the bacteria. Scientists have been fascinated with their immune system for a long time.

Sea scorpions are their closest relatives but they are extinct. They are closer related to scorpions and spiders, not crabs as their name would indicate.

There are four different species of horseshoe crabs by the way with slight differences. Only one can be found in N. America. There are hundreds of different species of horseshoe crabs found in the fossil record.


This post has been brought to you by: Mutual of Omaha

 

Aha, I knew Ender would know the answer.

This is what I'm talking about. Something about this just strikes me as wrong, wrong, WRONG!

It's a little old, but it illustrates perfectly my little theory for un-natural selection.

 

There is no scientific proof for Creationsim. You cannot do an experiment that will prove that God exists. If that were true, the idea of faith would be contradicted. All there is is proof that evolution probably didn't happen.

 

"All there is is proof that evolution probably didn't happen."

Well, regardless of what Jack T. Chick may have to say, there's ample evidence for evolution outside of the few isolated fossils you mention. Tree rings, geological strata, the distance of the stars--all these things and more point to a universe far older than the Bible suggests.

 

Ender, I appreciate it is very well adapted to it's niche, but it strikes me as a rather amazing implausibility that it hasn't had to adapt to a new change for millions of years.

Unless it hasn't been able to adapt which might explain why there are only four species left.

 

Newbie here, but not in Evo vs Creation debates. Excuse my English but Finnish is my first language. Ahem.
For example, sharks have stayed relatively same for aprox 80 million years. Maybe because of they have evolved to the perfect eating&mating fish. The ability to cure cancer(?) in sharks cells helps alot.
Sharks environment has stayed the same for atleast over 65 million years. No need to adapt.
Why some creationists see this as a reason to reject evolution is beyond me.

 

Greetings Vagrant I am a Finnish resident myself. My main language is the same as yours; yet English does not create big problems for me. And after reading your reply, I see it is not a tough language for you either.



Evolution is visible in our skin-colour alone. When a really dark-skinned human being suddenly moves to the cold paleness of the North, it will take a long time for him / her to get used to the cold weathers; and vise versa. Their skin is adjusted to heavy sun-light - and for that reason alone, the most dark-skinned people are found near the Equator. If I, a pale-face, would suddenly be transported to the Equator - without any sun-protective gear - my skin would be burned in a matter of minutes.

All relates to the environment. In order to survive, a being has to evolve. Even as the theory of Evolution can not be taken as a fact, the evidence supports it - for we have skeletons of Dinosaurs, Mammoths and creatures that lived millions of years ago; when there were no traces of human species. But I do agree that both Creationism and Evolutionism can be mixed; for perhaps God began the Life - but created Nature to take care of the evolutionary course of it?

 

It seems that the less people understand about science and religion, the more certain they are of their opinions on this issue, and the louder they argue them.

 

Let's not forget the vitamins human skin has to produce. Dark skin has difficulties in producing vitamin-d(?) up north, due to less sun light. White skins allows more sun light to "interact" with cells so they can "produce" more vitamin-D. Not sure if I used the right terms on that one.

 

Um, ArtificialStupidity, that is called adaptation. Not evolution, as in a totally new species forming from a former one.


Evolution within kinds, as in skin pigmentation, is most definitely a fact. But the forming of a completely new species into another one is not fact, and, in reality, has absolutely no evidence to support it.


And if someone does have any evidence to support evolution from one kind ("kind" = canine, not "kind" = Wolf, or coyote, or domesticated dog) into a new one, then I'd like to see it. Because I have yet to see one piece of evidence to support it. A lot of good theories, and some fancy talking that sounds plausible, but nothing to back it up.

 

LOL Hahahaha, I totally agree with AJA.

 

I don't. I fact, that statement really pissed me off. Absurd generalisations like that aren't welcome here.

 

Specification has happened and has been observed. I know there a people who disagree with this, but then I have to ask, what kind of evidence would convince them?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

 

Greesha:

And if you don't think the Bible is fact, look at how much evolutionists have controdicted themselves.

I was going to pass by this thread, but I couldn't resist dropping in when I saw this. Let's examine the total, unrelenting, and infallible consistency of the Genesis creation story.

Chapter 1

The earth is a chaos covered with water.

Plants are created from the earth generally.

Fowls, fish and sea creatures form one stage of creation, land animals and reptiles another.

Fowls created out of the water.

Trees created before man.

Fowls created before man.

Man created after beasts.

Man and woman created simultaneously.

Man subsists upon fruit and herbs.

Man given dominion over the whole world.

The earth and heavens created in six days.

God calls elements into being from his heavenly throne.

Chapter 2

The earth is a dry, barren plain.

Plants are confined to the Garden of Eden.

Fowls and land animals are created at the same time.

Fowls created out of the ground.

Trees created after man.

Fowls created after man.

Man created before beasts.

Man and woman created separately.

Man is given fruit alone; he is forced to eat herbs only after the original sin.

Man is confined to a garden.

The earth and heavens made in one day.

God comes down to earth and
- plants a garden
- molds man out of clay and breathes into his nostrils
- fashions woman out of a rib
- makes birds and animals and brings them to Adam to be named.

With Genesis chapters 1 and 2 so completely in agreement, it is hard to believe how such a contradictory theory as Darwinism could ever have attained credence.

How can you still believe evolution after all these mistakes that are being made? If there was a missing link, wouldn't they have found it by now?

1. You learn from your mistakes. Science is a process of continual improvement. Unlike religion, it does not subscribe to a fixed, unchanging dogma with pretenses of infallibility.

2. Regarding the "missing link" argument...

This argument...carried weight in Darwin's day because Darwin had based his theory on the distribution and physical nature of living species, not fossils. A century later, we have found fossils of intermediate forms of man. The australopithecus fossils is but one example, and there are many others. There are also examples of transitional forms between other species, such as Archæopteryx (between dinosaur and bird, discovered in 1862) or Amphioxus (between invertebrate and vertebrate). Since Darwin's time we have increased our knowledge of the Tertiary period more than tenfold, and the unbroken chain of life is so clear now that no one in the entire paleontological community has seriously doubted evolution theory for the past century...

--Quoted from the Stardestroyer.net Creationism site (if you get bored with creation/evolution, you might want to have a look at the site anyway, it has some cool SW vs ST stuff on there as well)

Now, JediMaster201:

Evolution within kinds, as in skin pigmentation, is most definitely a fact. But the forming of a completely new species into another one is not fact, and, in reality, has absolutely no evidence to support it.

A "species" simply means a group of organisms capable of breeding to produce fertile offspring. The formation of a new species between points A and B simply means that the organism has, by the time you reach B, changed by such an extent that it has become infertile with its ancestors at A.

Speciation is not a sudden, miraculous transformation from one species to another. The way creationists envision evolution theory, a pregnant female ape went into labour one day and a human being popped out! It is a gross understatement to say that this is a misrepresentation of the truth. In reality, evolution the