Evolution

[Akrid]

Most people laugh when they think of monky's being related to us despite the fact that there is siginficant scientific facts to support it, and don't think the idea of religion is strange although with the help of some fellow modders we proved it's unlikey (see topic "God") Well I think all life came from one orginism, and believe evolution is what followed. What your ideas?

[Emry]

In college I was a Biology and Religion double major (go figure). I would have this arguement with myself all the time..... :P

 

Anyway, here's an interesting fact: If you look at the first creation story in the book of Genesis in the Bible (there are two), and read it carefully, you'll see that the story follows an evolutionary path. God created the world in six "days" and rested on the seventh.

 

Now, if you broaden you understanding of time (where one day here does not necessarily equal 24 hours, but rather an eon? a millenia?) then it is quite conceivable (and arguable) that God used evolution as the method for creating the world as we understand it. Don't forget that time is a human construct and "day" was the best word the translators of these traditions could come up with at the time. We don't really know how long the process took.....

 

To put it in a nutshell, both (evolution and creationism) work together.

[Peregrine]

First, it is impossible to completely deny evolution. Like it or not, the evidence is clear. Things evolve to be better adapted to their environment. The bible is not literally true on this subject. I don't think any reasonably well educated person can deny it based on anything more than personal belief.

 

Now, my opinion is that evolution is true as stated. Sure, its not very good odds for the initial formation of life, but the age of the earth leaves plenty of room for probablility to do its job. And once things got to the point where you can call it "life", survival of the fittest works quite nicely.

 

And now for the necessary counter agrument. I don't believe the following, but in my opinion, its the best way of including the basic idea of divine creation without completely contradicting the facts.

 

Some form of god created that initial life. That first cell was placed there to start things, and then left to evolve into whatever may happen. So all the evidence we have still works (anything this far back would be lost), and once that initial creation was done, both ideas merge into the same one. Of course this means that the various religious views of creation are just a symbolic idea. Not suprising, considering the context of their creation: the knowledge of life we have now didn't exist, so telling a story of single celled organisms and stuff wouldn't happen. So they wrote a story of creation in terms that made sense to them at the time.

[Mojlnir]

Many people whom I have spoken to concerning this issue feel that while God probably had a hand in the initial creation of life, you really get to see him when you break things down. The general argument is that "God is in the details" meaning that it is impossible for biological systems (just an example) to have evolved the way they have simply through evolution.

I tend to think this argument is a bunch of malarky, and while I beleive that some sort of higher power exists within the universe, it has little or no control over what occurs on this plane of existence. Evolution is strong and scientifically verifiable, which is good enough for me. At the same time, it doesn't explain where I go when I die, and therefore my belief in a center, from whence I came and whence I shall return.

[Faust870]

Ok, lets date back when Neandertuls walked the earth... They were hunched back (much like the monkies).. They were also covered with a layer of hair... and that was to keep themselves warm...we came from these Neandertuls, and over time..the climates changed, and it started getting warmer...they also wore clothes (Now im talking over millions/thousands of years) so eventually, we lost all use for the hair on our bodies...making us what we are now...the places that are to be kept most warm have hair (i.e the tops of our heads, genitalia..etc)... So evolution is true :P well i cant say that, but carbon dating proves where we came from..

[Incanus]

I've heard a couple of posters making statements like "evolution is scientifically verifiable", but they haven't quoted any evidence of that scientific "verification". Actually, all sciences have proven that evolution as the origin of life is bogus. Darwin was not a scientist of any sort; he made his trip to the Galapagos with a government grant as an "observer" and journalist.

 

 

 

Regarding the idea of gradual mutation of species, if such animals had really existed, there would have been millions,even billions, of them. More importantly, the remains of these creatures should be present in the fossil record. The number of these transitional forms should have been even greater than that of present animal species, and their remains should be found all over the world. In The Origin of Species, Darwin accepted this fact and explained:

If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely

all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed...

Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only

amongst fossil remains.

 

Even Darwin himself was aware of the absence of such transitional

forms. He hoped that they would be found in the future. Despite his optimism,

he realised that these missing intermediate forms were the biggest

stumbling-block for his theory. That is why he wrote the following in the

chapter of the The Origin of Species entitled "Difficulties of the Theory":

…Why, if species have descended from other species by 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?…

But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed,

why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust

of the earth?… But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions

of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties?

This difficulty for a long time quite confounded me."

 

The only explanation Darwin could come up with to counter this objection

was the argument that the fossil record uncovered so far was inadequate.

He asserted that when the fossil record had been studied in detail, the missing

links would be found.

Believing in Darwin's prophecy, evolutionist paleontologists have

been digging up fossils and searching for missing links all over the world

since the middle of the 19th century. Despite their best efforts, no transitional

forms have yet been uncovered. All the fossils unearthed in excavations

have shown that, contrary to the beliefs of evolutionists, life

appeared on earth all of a sudden and fully-formed. Trying to prove their

theory, evolutionists have instead unwittingly caused it to collapse.

A famous British paleontologist, Derek V. Ager, admits this fact even

though he is an evolutionist:

"The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at

the level of orders or of species, we find-over and over again-not gradual

evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another."

 

Another evolutionist paleontologist Mark Czarnecki comments as

follows:

"A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints

of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations.

This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate

variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly

has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God."

 

Darwin's imagined "theory" included strong racist verbage, and has given rise to the ideas of racism, fascism, and communism, all of which have been not only faulty as ideals, but have had violent repurcussions throughout the world. Darwin stated;

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the

civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage

races throughout the world." He included mostly the natives of Africa, Asia, and Australia in his list of "savage races", and actually believed they had inferior brains. Modern science has shown that the only differences between races is cosmetic; all of our organs are identical, including the brain.

 

Regarding the "origin" of life, modern neo-Darwinists have tried to argue based on the concept of "primordial soup". However, the laws of thermodynamics deny this, as they conclude that "all systems tend toward chaos, not order". As such, order as is found in the universe, and particularly in biological systems could never have developed from the chaos of "primordial soup". To bolster the fact that this concept is bogus propaganda, you should study the probabilities. In short, the probability of a single protein "falling together" in a "primordial soup" of already developed amino acids is 1 in 10 to the 950 power. Statisticians will tell you that anything greater than 1 in 10 to the 50th power is practically an impossibility. To give you an idea of how large 10 to the 950 power is, the entire universe contains only 10 to the 70 power of electrons, according to leading astrophysicists.

 

So,,, does science support evolution and its sister atheism, or are these just newer forms of age-old DISBELIEF?

 

:)

 

http://www.harunyahya.com/evolution_specialpreface.php

[Akrid]

Funny how "somthing or somone" kept killing everything and planting new life forms similar to how the older ones would have been if they evolved to their enviroment. Reseachers look for way's to prove a connection, however there are simple fossils that date back before any other life, then more advanced and addapted life if found dated more recently and so on untill we're the making the fossil's six feet under. Well maybe Darwin never found his monkyman but consider this, a race may spread rapidly like bangos in Austrailia, Now what if the evolution process for men was small and the fossils of pre-man where too few or remote to find in our vast world, but somtime later the early human tribes moved out and expanded, therfore multiplyed, the more they evoved the more they survived the more fossils and the more non-monkey man fossil's. keep in mind that if man came from monkey groups of man that have always baned together would move together. As soon as man evolved enuff to think to explore or expand they did creating a sharp curve up in man's population. :bleh:

 

Darwin's imagined "theory" included strong racist verbage, and has given rise to the ideas of racism, fascism, and communism, all of which have been not only faulty as ideals, but have had violent repurcussions throughout the world. Darwin stated;

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the

civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage

races throughout the world." He included mostly the natives of Africa, Asia, and Australia in his list of "savage races", and actually believed they had inferior brains. Modern science has shown that the only differences between races is cosmetic; all of our organs are identical, including the brain.

 

I wont argue with that, Darwin was wrong but was almost right in that one race will effect another, but I see merging between every nation in the world of race, I'm sure that on the southern border of Russia there are Russian-Mongolians and Russian-Chinese etc. I see human races the same as diffrences between dog's , Think about how much man has effected Human and Dog breeds. We are all breeds of our parents, you can't argue that unless your parent's didn't breed. As our genomes mix and we addapt we create cross breeds. The insides of our bodies are not idenical, in size porportion, structure (bones) and even ways of thinking, But every race has intellegent people, because they use their mind's. Think about it if you don't ever have to think about life as we know it you would not learn and become stupid. Monkeys have been seen using sticks as weapons (I'll try to find that reffrance) That seems like a simple human response, to pick up a stick and whack another monkey up side his head. Well I still believe evolution is probable through common-sense. I know there was no man like me around back in the times man was supposed to created :bleh:

[Incanus]

Acrid:

 

I enjoyed reading your response, and I appreciate it. However, I was trying to get someone to post some actual "scientific evidence" to support evolution AS AN EXPLANATION OF MAN'S ORIGINS. From what I've read, there is no such evidence. I really believe that had Darwin known what we now know about cell structure, DNA, thermodynamics, fossil records, etc. he would have trashed his own book.

 

I really believe that "evolutionists" believe what they do BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT TO BELIEVE. I've read too many admissions of self-proclaimed evolutionists that the evidence does not support even modern evolution theory, much less Darwin's initial ideas.

 

I think one important point you may have missed is that the fossil record DOES NOT SUPPORT the idea of gradual evolvement, which is the entire premise behind neo-Darwinism.

 

If you wouldn't mind, we could discuss more. I would also like to start a discussion on the origin of the universe. I have a pretty solid argument that our universe must have been created by a willful entity. Let me know.

 

:bleh: ;) :)

 

Warm Regards...

[Peregrine]

Incanus, either you are amazingly ignorant or you are a troll. I'm going to assume the first and reply to your claims for now:

 

Actually, all sciences have proven that evolution as the origin of life is bogus. Darwin was not a scientist of any sort; he made his trip to the Galapagos with a government grant as an "observer" and journalist.

Wrong. I don't know which imaginary world you are living in, but evolution is the accepted theory. Unless of course, you mean the origin of all life, in which case evolution can not (and does not claim to) explain. Evolution requres something to evolve from. It merely states what happened after the first form of life appeared.

As for Darwin's status: irrelevant. The theory has been analyzed and accepted by people who do have those qualifications you demand.

 

 

Regarding the idea of gradual mutation of species, if such animals had really existed, there would have been millions,even billions, of them. More importantly, the remains of these creatures should be present in the fossil record. The number of these transitional forms should have been even greater than that of present animal species, and their remains should be found all over the world. In The Origin of Species, Darwin accepted this fact and explained:

If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely

all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed...

Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only

amongst fossil remains.

 

Even Darwin himself was aware of the absence of such transitional

forms. He hoped that they would be found in the future. Despite his optimism,

he realised that these missing intermediate forms were the biggest

stumbling-block for his theory. That is why he wrote the following in the

chapter of the The Origin of Species entitled "Difficulties of the Theory":

…Why, if species have descended from other species by 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?…

But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed,

why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust

of the earth?… But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions

of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties?

This difficulty for a long time quite confounded me."

 

The only explanation Darwin could come up with to counter this objection

was the argument that the fossil record uncovered so far was inadequate.

He asserted that when the fossil record had been studied in detail, the missing

links would be found.

Believing in Darwin's prophecy, evolutionist paleontologists have

been digging up fossils and searching for missing links all over the world

since the middle of the 19th century. Despite their best efforts, no transitional

forms have yet been uncovered. All the fossils unearthed in excavations

have shown that, contrary to the beliefs of evolutionists, life

appeared on earth all of a sudden and fully-formed. Trying to prove their

theory, evolutionists have instead unwittingly caused it to collapse.

A famous British paleontologist, Derek V. Ager, admits this fact even

though he is an evolutionist:

"The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at

the level of orders or of species, we find-over and over again-not gradual

evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another."

 

Ok, summary of your points:

1) Evolution must have left traces of the evolving forms behind.

2) A complete record has not yet been found.

 

Now, how exactly does this prove evolution wrong? Do you really believe that after millions of years every single animal would still exist? Fossils do not automatically form 100% of the time, and even if they do, preservation and discovery are far from certain.

And you also ignore the fact that partially evolved forms have been found. Not a complete A -> B chain, but enough to show that species change over time.

 

Another evolutionist paleontologist Mark Czarnecki comments as

follows:

"A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints

of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations.

This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate

variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly

has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God."

 

Did you ever think that those records could be destroyed, or simply not found yet? We haven't dug up every single bit of the earth looking, you know.

 

Darwin's imagined "theory" included strong racist verbage, and has given rise to the ideas of racism, fascism, and communism, all of which have been not only faulty as ideals, but have had violent repurcussions throughout the world.

 

Irrelevant. Whether you like his political views does not change whether his theory is true or not. If Darwin told you the earth is round, would you say "He's an evil communist, therefore he's wrong and its flat"? Nice Ad Hominem attack, come back when you learn to debate.

 

Regarding the "origin" of life, modern neo-Darwinists have tried to argue based on the concept of "primordial soup". However, the laws of thermodynamics deny this, as they conclude that "all systems tend toward chaos, not order". As such, order as is found in the universe, and particularly in biological systems could never have developed from the chaos of "primordial soup". To bolster the fact that this concept is bogus propaganda, you should study the probabilities. In short, the probability of a single protein "falling together" in a "primordial soup" of already developed amino acids is 1 in 10 to the 950 power. Statisticians will tell you that anything greater than 1 in 10 to the 50th power is practically an impossibility. To give you an idea of how large 10 to the 950 power is, the entire universe contains only 10 to the 70 power of electrons, according to leading astrophysicists.

 

So,,, does science support evolution and its sister atheism, or are these just newer forms of age-old DISBELIEF?

 

And they also had plenty of time to do so. The earth isn't 100 years old, you know. And why don't you quote a source for this 1E950 number? What was this based on?

 

 

I really believe that "evolutionists" believe what they do BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT TO BELIEVE. I've read too many admissions of self-proclaimed evolutionists that the evidence does not support even modern evolution theory, much less Darwin's initial ideas.

 

Provide evidence to support your claims. Show me these hordes of scientists abandoning evolution. As far as I've seen, evolution is the accepted scientific theory.

 

I think one important point you may have missed is that the fossil record DOES NOT SUPPORT the idea of gradual evolvement, which is the entire premise behind neo-Darwinism.

 

Again, provide evidence for this claim.

 

If you wouldn't mind, we could discuss more. I would also like to start a discussion on the origin of the universe. I have a pretty solid argument that our universe must have been created by a willful entity. Let me know.

 

Oh really, please post it. And your demands for evidence apply to you as well, you will be held to the same standards.

[Pikeman85]

You want scientific evidence, you'll get scientific evidence, as well as an explanation of what evolution is, which seems to be sorely lacking among people here.

 

First off, evolution is NOT simply one species turning into another. While included within the definition, the theory of evolution, expressed tersely is only that the frequency of alleles in a population changes over time.

 

This has no impact upon religion, or creation, nor anything of the sort. While some religions may say it goes against their religious dogma (and this is not an argument about religion, so I'm not getting into it... science and religion SHOULD be seperate) the theory of evolution doesn't have anything to say about the creation of life, let alone the creation of the universe.

 

Then how was the universe created, or was it created at all? I will answer this question, provided someone starts a thread on it, but it has no purpose in an evolution thread (I dislike people mixing up sciences) seeing as evolution deals with biology and chemistry (except for population genetics, which is a mathematical field) and the Big Bang, Super String, and other related theories are in the field of physics, the Big Bang being largely in the realm of astrophysics.

 

As for the origin of life, it is somewhat related to the biological sciences, so I will answer it. The prevailing theory (Read: The theory that has withstood countless testing) is the sea of RNA one, where in the early oceans of Earth, RNA (and some other organic chemicals) were floating around. I'm not sure precisely how they formed together, I haven't studied it enough, so no, I can't claim anything in this area, however if you would like, I'll make it my personal project after finals are over to heavily research it and post my search here. However, abiogenesis again, has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, as the theory only starts once there is the first complete cell.

 

Now on to the evidence of evolution. I am not going to try to convince any of you that it happened in the past. I am not going to try to convince any of you that your religion is incorrect and the scientific interpretation of the world is correct. I am going to demonstrate to you that evolution occurs NOW. Not yesterday, not three hundred years ago (although I accept the evidence that it did in both occurances). I will however, for the sake of our friend Icarus, post some information on modern knowledge of transitional fossils. Oh, and don't argue against Darwin. Although he was indeed educated and a naturalist (Basically a biologist of the day), his theories are old and many parts of them have been discarded, and his knowledge of transitional pales in comparison to what we now have. Remember, it's been a century and a half since he published "On the Origin of Species" and you'd expect scientific knowledge to increase in this time (Unless you think cars, spacecraft, and computers just randomly popped out of nature... oh and don't use that to try and use the designed clock argument. I know a quite excellent counter to it, and will use it if someone is stubborn enough to use that old disproven not correct mathematically argument), but anyway, I digress.

 

The first and most thorough evidence of evolution is that it is observed. Now many of you will start saying "But that's only micro-evolution!", well, to that I have to say, micro and macro evolution are terms made up by biologists to simply things for themselves, and to differentiate between two different types of change in populations. Both occur. Macro-evolution simply refers to two populations of organisms seperated, which cannot then breed after a certain amount of time and different factors, due to normal genetic changes due to sexual reproduction, mutations, and other factors. Macro-evolution has also been observed several times in the labratory, as well as out in nature. I will be posting links of this soon afterwards where you may view them to your heart's content. This easily can occur in nature, and there is no fundamental difference between macro and micro evolution, save that macro evolution has enough changes between individuals that they cannot have offspring together. Now, I am about to introduce a bone of contention between biologists, and that is in the case of what exactly constitutes a species. The most widely known and used standard is the Biological Species Concept or the BSC. Although not used in some circles (such as micro-biology, where organisms generally do not sexually reproduce in a conventional sense) in all other circles it predominates.

 

What is the BSC? The BSC basically defines what a species is. According to the BSC, a species is any group of organisms that cannot interbreed and produce viable offspring in a /natural environment/. This is why wolves and dogs for example (many varieties of which can interbreed) are considered different species. I should mention that there are several types of dogs that cannot interbreed with each other, generally the largest and smallest cannot produce viable offspring due to fertilization issues. Were the middle dogs (the only way the genes of the larger dogs can get to the smaller dogs, and vice versa) all eliminated, it is likely that the two different types of dogs would be considered two seperate species.

 

Now, I don't think I've really done a good job explaining the actual mechanics of micro-evolution, which is absolutely fundamental as it's the process by which the whole thing occurs, so here it goes. You have certain genes and traits. These genes are within your cells and are comprised of DNA. Due to mutations, recombination, and other forms of DNA alteration (No, not the Morrowind college :P) specific traits are changed. Some of these are beneficial, some are harmful. The vast majority are neutral and do nothing. However we tend to notice the harmful ones as they are fatal or give medical complications to organisms, whereas most beneficial and neutral ones are not noticed because they can be very small and almost unnoticable, but will aid survival in a small way for the creature. Remember, beneficial, neutral, and harmful are largely subjective and due to the organisms circumstances. I myself have a particular neutral mutation that looks somewhat odd at times. One could argue that it could prevent me from reproducing, and thus it is a harmful mutation, but again one could argue that it could help me reproduce and thus be beneficial. I simply think of it as neutral, as nobody really cares.

 

As for various resources on evolution, transitionals, and science....

 

 

Talk Origins has some good information on Speciation...

 

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

 

And transitional fossils...

 

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

 

This has something on transitionals, but also Creation Science, which displeases me. (It does however have several other links, so you don't have to keep going down)

 

http://www.tim-thompson.com/trans-fossils.html

 

It's late and I've been writing this for a bit, so I'm not going to include anything else for right now (It's been a while since I've written about this topic) if however you would like more references/something clarified, or you don't agree with or don't understand something, please don't blatantly say "You are WRONG!" Instead, bring your concern to me on this forum and I will address it. If I made any mistakes WHATSOEVER in my essay that goes against science or I didn't understand something, and you understand something better, PLEASE correct me, so that I can learn from my mistakes. I am fairly certain I didn't include any incorrect information, but if I did, please correct it!

 

 

Oh and as for the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, it does indeed state that a closed system goes further and further towards entrophy. Of course, the Earth is not a closed system, seeing as heat and light can enter it. Thus, the energy and order needed for any sort of evolution is perfectly able to occur. And seeing as this is dealing with physics, I should mention that when Alabama I think it was, was considering switching to Creation Science, over 1000 physicists, Nobel prize winners, and others, many famous, signed a petition stating that evolution did not in anyway conflict with the laws of physics.

 

As for the 6 days represent ages, I believe the Hebrew word is yon, stating 6 literal days. However, on the other hand, the word used for Noah's flood, which can mean Earth, can also mean land or plain.

 

One last thing.. for the probability.. it is indeed high for something like that to form randomly, however said forming is not random but based upon chemical interactions. This brings the results far closer to being able to happen in a large enough time span. Remember, there is a very low probability that if a brick factory explodes, all the bricks will land precisely where they do, yet it happens. The same with the pattern on a snowflake.

 

That's all I've got in me for now. Happy hunting for the truth!