I only told that story to try and explain why some people are not flexible, open, when it comes to hearing proven facts. It’s very deeply ingrained and has major guilt response when you try and shake it lose.
I think we all find out what we need to know when it’s time. Uck, that sounds too much like “it’s a mystery”. I came here saying that I know God exists, but changed to I believe, after being beat up and buried under requests for “cites”, one too many times. (But I do know, I do, I do).
Okay, I’m getting a good chuckle out of this one. No, I’m not switching to another God. God isn’t Christian. Man came up with that one. I just got tired of saying I was a Christian, but not believing one of their main doctrinal concepts. That one puts Christians in heaven and the majority of the worlds population are out of luck. I don’t know if I’ll ever be a religion again, but I do attend the Catholic Church, quietly.
If you’re not christian, do you belive in the same god they worship? Are you saying that each (monotheistic) religion represents one and the same god in different ways?
(BTW, my question wasn’t entirely serious, so the chuckle was well received ;))
This doesn’t stand up to closer examination; The Bible gives the order as (ignoring the astronomical stuff, some of which it also gets badly wrong):
Plants on the land (Day 3)
Animals in the water (Day 5)
Flying animals (Also day 5)
Animals on the land (Day 6)
Whereas, there were already animals on the land before the first flying animals arose and there were already animals in the water before the first plants colonised the land.
I’ve seen some painfully contorted attempts to maintain the fit (by asserting that when the Bible talks about ‘trees of the field, bearing fruit after their kind’, it actually means ‘single celled algae with waxy cell walls’ and that when it says ‘birds’, it might mean flying insects, but each of these rationalisations causes further problems/inconsistencies of their own and the whole argument spirals so tightly as to dissapear up its own backside.
Well he doesn’t appear to be the same one, but yes. There’s only one God and all religions, even the one’s not based on a deity are are actually seeking the same higher power. The good, decent person who loves and cares about other people, is doing so in response to a higher power(even if he thinks the concept of a God is hooey). It’s totally how you live, not who you know. Not a very popular concept with the Christian church. But how could it be right any other way? If I’m wrong, there’ll be hell to pay.:eek:
Okay. It just amazes me that they can do that. I’ve been trying to read up on evolution, but a lot of it doesn’t make sense and it very much depends on where you’re reading. I know everyone is tired of evolution threads, but someday I’m going to start a new one called Evolution for Toddler’s or something. I’m still trying to decide if a whole bunch of “little guys” crawled out of the ocean and turned into different things or it all started from a few or…I need to start “at the beginning” and worry about the transitional stuff later. I’ve been reading old threads too, but I think I need to ask my own naive questions and take the heat for it.:o
IWLN- First, I salute you and commend you for being a thinking and spiritual person. You are a brave individual demonstrating much integrity.
As far as evolution, It all seems rather believable and logical when you simply notice our similarities and likeness to other species rather than assuming our differences. It really is not a great leap to believe that I have many of the same genetic and physical qualities of all other life and that I am part of Evolutionary processes. I simply need to look at my dog or go to the Zoo and visit my relatives (lol). Christianity has done a great disservice in putting humanity in dominion over all other life. Its doctrine seperates us from all other life and has set us up psychologically to believe that we are the Gifted and seperate from animals, when really we just have a highly developed brain and self consciousness. I would say that this too is not entirely unique, if we look at our evolutionary cousins, the Great Apes.
What I meant was that I don’t engage, in general , in discussions with people who opinions or ideas are (in my own humble point of view) impossibly silly (like denying the humanity of blacks and jews) and who can’t even grasp the basics of the points I’m trying to make. I said this because many of these Evolution/Creation debates have the evolution guys (and gals) saying the anyone who disagrees in stupid or deluded and has a closed mind. I in no way tried to imply the any evolutionist thought that blacks or jews aren’t people.
So if I know science it doesn’t matter, but if I don’t I should shut up…OK. Trying to escape with “appeal to authority” is really desperate. Most people live their live only on “appeal to authority”, or how many people can describe fossilisation properly? (as a percentage), most people appeal to an authority to tell them and tey are not commiting a fallacy, which , by the way, you seem to have misunderstood. Appeal to authority fallacy is: a) Michael Jordan endorsing coffee (he’s good at one thing but it doesn’t mean he’s good at everything) or b) Procaliming definitely that FDR was the best American president (in an area where there is disagreement amongst experts)
“Finches are finches” means that they haven’t (and won’t) became some other completely different type of animal. They are still feathers , a beak, two legs, two wings, a 4 part heart, etc. Call me when they get an extra pair of eyes or shed their feathers or start nursing.
your rant about fossilisation is exactly where we agree and that is the main weakneess for me, in Darwinian evolution; and which got me in the “agnostic” camp towards evolution (I do believe in evolution AND creation). You guys claim that the fossils prove your point and when we tell you that, well, fossils only show neat species pretty much static throughout time and then another fully-fledged species down the road, you tell me that, well, fossilisation is very difficult and you can’t see the process; it sounds pretty much like you’re reading evolution into the fossils. of course I may be afool, buy S.J. Gould had to come up with Puntuated Equilibrium to justify fossil silence ( oops, authority fallacy). If you’re based on fossils, SHOW ME THE MONEY!
The so-called “Darwin’s Finches” of the Galapagos (technically, Galapagos Finches are a subset of Darwin’s Finches, as the latter also includes one species found on Cocos Island) are of the family Fringilidae. They are composed of between 4 and 6 genera, depending on who you ask. So “finch” may be somewhat vague, perhaps, but these specific birds all belong to a single family.
That’s quite a twisted reading. “Appeal to authority” is a fallacy if you are trying to argue your point simply because of your “5 years of college-level biology” - which is exactly what you were doing. Your years of education alone do not make your arguments valid (nor mine).
That finches are finches says absolutely nothing about where finches came from in the first place, or what may occur in the future. Finches are derived from other birds, birds are derived from dinosaurs, dinosaurs are derived from other reptiles, etc. Pointing to the short-term and saying, “SEE??? They’re still finches!” is just plain silly. Get back to me in a few million years, then we can see.
Again, you make it all too clear that you know next to nothing of the process of fossilization (and you provide further evidence that you don’t understand what an "appeal to authority is, but that’s another story).
A simple question for you: do you honestly expect that every generation of every species, no matter its habitat, should have been fossilized? You know, if evolution were true and all.
> I’ve been trying to read up on evolution, but a lot of it doesn’t
> make sense and it very much depends on where you’re reading.
Evolution is often explained rather poorly. Heck, I’ll take a stab at it and probably do a poor job.
First, notice and accept that the offspring of an organism will always be slightly different than the organism. This is true of humans (hair color, eye color, intelligence, etc.) as well as plants (look through the produce section to see the varying hues and sizes of one kind of fruit) and animals. Most of the time the differences between parent and offspring are minor, but sometimes they are huge.
Now suppose that someday, an offspring is born with a difference that makes the creature able to survive and procreate easier. This will give that creature a greater chance of procreating and passing the new differences on to their own offspring.
It doesn’t always work out, however. That creature may die anyway in an accident or bear attack. His improvement is lost forever. Or, he may procreate and his offspring doesn’t get the gene that carries the improvement. His improvement is also lost forever.
But, sometimes, the improvement does get passed on through many generations and improves the overall lot of that race.
After a few generations, the percent of the population that does not have this improvement will die out and disappear. This is evolution.
You can prove to yourself that this works by buying a whole bunch of random flower seeds of one breed. Plant them all and let them bloom. Pick out the ones you like and breed them together. Throw the rest away. Plants the seeds from the new flowers that you just bred together. Repeat a few times. Now, your garden has evolved to just those plants that will succeed.
That’s artificial selection, not natural selection. Now, if you planted that pack of seeds, then manipulated it so your garden got very little rain, and let the plants that survive that drought to flower and breed, then it’s natural selection.
I thought that having studied Biology in college was an improvement against the guy who is a YEC guy and can’t tell a pentose from a penthouse. I never stated that my having studied made me right BY THAT FACT ALONE, only that it improved my chances of knowing what I was talking about. If we were talking about 17th century French poetry and I told you i had studied that subject, wouldn’t you pay more attention to what I said than to an mechanic who know squat about it?
I’ll call you in a million years.
Maybe I should start writing in Spanish. OF COURSE I do not expect every single fossil to appear, that’s what I said. My point is that given the fact that, even if Darwinian evolution is true, ** not every gradation between species would be shown in the fossil record**, then it is difficult to say that fossils prove Darwinism.
I’ll re-state:
Creation guy: How does evolution work?
Evolution Guy: Minor mutations add up so those who favour better adaptation and procreation will pass on to the next generation. In time these mutation may make a new species. For example a mutation would make the heart pump more efficiently makeing the getting of food better and thus enhancing procreation chances,.
CG: How can you prove it?
EG: Fossils show that species evolved.
CG: So fossils show that species evolved gradually, little by little?
EG: No, they show stable species for long periods of time.
CG: Didn’t you say fossils showed evolution?
EG: Yes, but you can’t expect all species in every stage to be fossilised, only some do, because fossilisation is against the odds.
CG: So, how do you know evolution is true if fossils which should give you the proof are missing?
EG: Well…still evolution is true because of Darwin’s finches and their beaks. Besides, you’re a Fundie who only thinks he knows science.
CG: But didn’t S.J. Gould invent Punctuated Equilibrium because he knew that fossils didn’t show smooth transitions?
EG: We’re not talking about Gould. We have for example Dromaeosaurus, Archaeopteryx, Confuciusornis, Icthyornis showing transitions from lizard to bird.
CG: But aren’t those stable species on their own?
EG: Yeah, but can’t expect all fossils…you know the drill.
CG: So, if fossilisation were a much simpler and probable process we’d see gradation.
EG: Sure, that’s my point.
CG: So you’re aguing from your position that fossils WOULD show gradations, only that they don’t. Your arguing from non-existent fossils…and you call my faith blind, your theory is based on fossil that could have been formed. Oyu know, I’ll stick with my search of OEC, Intelligent Design , Theistic Evolution, Darwinian (why not), I’m still not convinced.
Well the best idea I have heard is the “gap theory”. This theory argues there is a gap in time between the events of Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. In the beginning God did create the heavens and the earth. Then after Lucifer’s rebellion he was sent to earth. Lucifer then corrupted the planet earth and God flooded it. This is why the earth was covered with water in Genesis 1:2. There are passages in Ezekiel, Isaiah, and a few others indicating Lucifer was a high ranking Cherubim who was cast out of heaven. Jesus confesses to have witnessed Satan fall from the sky like lightning and it is supposed he fell to earth before Adam was ever created. He then corrupted the earth and God flooded it and it was this period in which the Dinosaurs existed. God then re-establishes the earth in Genesis 1:2 and orders Adam to “replenish” the earth, providing further evidence there was life on earth before Adam.
I don’t see any reason to argue against evolution taking place in some form. Even though we have a tiny frame of reference, you can look at man and see that evolution is still and always will be in motion. It isn’t only how we got here, the process, as much as it is the definition of life itself. It just isn’t that big of stretch for me to believe that God donated some raw material and set a continuous life process into motion. Where it seems to become a conflict between religion and science is our concept of receiving a spirit or soul. Harder to make it fit well, if my uncle is a chimp. That throws the need for a new set of religious answers into the mix. Emotionally, that’s probably part of the explanation for resistance to the concept of evolution. I wonder how someone who believes in evolution and God explains that? Two stages of creation, apeman didn’t get a soul, but Adam lucked out, a tweak later on, two floods! and Noah missed the first one? or…? It might be easier to believe God did pull that rabbit right out of his hat.
Well, then, I expect that you’ll grant that my having studied biology, specifically in the fields of evolution and paleontology, are an even further improvement, and greatly improve the chances that I know what I am talking about.
No, you’ll argue a straw-man. Please point out where in this thread it is stated that fossils prove evolution. Natural selection can be readily observed, in real time (see the Grants’ work on Galapagos finches, as described in Weiner’s The Beak of the Finch for example), and, indeed, cannot be studied through the fossil record. It works whether the fossil record exists or not.
What the fossil record does show is A) that there were creatures which are no longer around. That these fossils do, in fact, belong to formerly-living creatures is evidence of extinction without the influence of humans (this being, more or less, the issue for this thread). B) That the morphology of these creatures is consistant with Darwin’s “descent with modification”. If it is true that all living things are related (as opposed to having been created in situ), then we should be able to find examples within this group of extinct organisms which are intermediate in morphology between existing groups. We should also expect that the sequencing of these fossil groups correspond to a temporal arrangement which places those specimens with more generic traits (that is, more common to existing groups) more distant than those with more specialized, or unique, traits. And, that is what we do, in fact see.
Once more, with feeling: fossils do not demonstrate natural selection, they demonstrate common descent. They provide evidence for one aspect of evolution, but they do not prove it (nothing in science can prove anything).
Now, because the fossil record is biased, we only see a portion of the complete story. It is, of course, biased towards marine or other aquatic environments. Thus, we cannot expect to find a nice, clear, unambiguous sequence which define clearly each branch on the Tree of Life. Further, as you must realize from your years of biology, in which you surely learned something about population ecology, large populations are more stable than small ones. Stabilizing selection results in the extremes of a population being selected against, resulting in a largely, well, stable population in which few indiviudals vary significantly from the mean. Because of the nature of the fossil record, of course, this would appear as “stasis”. Looked at from afar, the smoke from a large fire appears to simply hang there. Looked at up close, the smoke is tumultuous. Again, because of the nature of the fossil record, we do not see the seasonal shifts and variations which natural selection imparts to most populations. We just see the “big picture”. When speciation does occur, it is often the result of a drastic shift in those variations, and the effect is quite sudden - in geological terms. Thus, it is quite unlikely that we would catch speciation “in the act” in the fossil record. The result is, as you observe, lineages which appear to be in stasis, with periodic, and often sudden, turnover. Eldredge and Gould, in formulating their theory of Punctuated Equilibrium, simply theorized that what we see is what we get because that is how the process works. Nothing conspiratorial or subversive or even evasive about it.
You don’t agree with any of the above? Spiffy. But you should at least understand what the theories are about before you try to refute, or dismiss, them. And it appears that you do not fully understand.
> That’s artificial selection, not natural selection.
Actually, I don’t see much of a difference. I’m a human being, making choices as to which flowers I like and which I don’t. As I am a part of nature, that makes my arbitrary selection process “natural”. This would be the same as if bumble bees prefered the colors of one kind of flower over another. That type of flower would be pollinated more often and eventually dominate the area at the expense of dull flowers.
> Now, if you planted that pack of seeds, then manipulated it
> so your garden got very little rain … it’s natural selection.
By your reasoning, this is artificial as well, since you are manipulating the plants by limiting the water supply.
I came here saying that I know God exists, but changed to I believe, after being beat up and buried under requests for “cites”, one too many times. (But I do know, I do, I do).
That throws the need for a new set of religious answers into the mix. Emotionally, that’s probably part of the explanation for resistance to the concept of evolution. I wonder how someone who believes in evolution and God explains that? Two stages of creation, apeman didn’t get a soul, but Adam lucked out, a tweak later on, two floods! and Noah missed the first one? or…? It might be easier to believe God did pull that rabbit right out of his hat.