Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution Must Happen, it is logical
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 31 of 60 (177020)
01-14-2005 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by RED WOLF
01-14-2005 11:35 AM


Accepted
Thank you for the apology.
Let's wipe that slate clean and start over shall we?
Take each of your issues and post then under appropriate topics or start new ones through the Proposed New Topics forum.
I suggest that you do this only one or two at at time. Those opposing what you have to say have the advantage of having seen it all before and will deluge you with corrections. If you press deep enough you will find that the various sites you get that so-called "information" from will let you down. Go slow, ask lots of questions and you have an opportunity to learn something.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by RED WOLF, posted 01-14-2005 11:35 AM RED WOLF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by RED WOLF, posted 01-14-2005 3:41 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
RED WOLF
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 60 (177038)
01-14-2005 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by AdminNosy
01-14-2005 1:58 PM


Re: Accepted
Again I thank you for your advice.
Nat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by AdminNosy, posted 01-14-2005 1:58 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
jt
Member (Idle past 5596 days)
Posts: 239
From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States
Joined: 04-26-2004


Message 33 of 60 (177134)
01-14-2005 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by NosyNed
01-11-2005 2:09 AM


"Micro-evolution/Macro-evolution" Barrier
This is, of course, what creationists (in the common use of the term) disagree with. But why? What do they have to show that there is an error in fact or reasoning.
I do agree that gene pools undergo change, and that speciation can occur. In the sense of "continuing process of change" (dictionary.com/evolution), I will even agree that evolution occurs. However, I tentatively hold that such change results in a decrease of fitness in a group. Said decrease in fitness would make large evolutionary changes impossible, because a population would have died out before such a change could be made.
Therein lies the error (that I see) in you logic: that populations can undergo large amounts of genetic change without going extinct.
The only other proposed barrier between "Macro-evolution" and "Micro-evolution" that I know of is "Irreducible Complexity," but I am not quite sure the idea behind that argument is valid (the scaffolding rebbutal appears solid).
TTFN,
JT
(By the way, that is a well done OP.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by NosyNed, posted 01-11-2005 2:09 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by NosyNed, posted 01-14-2005 8:48 PM jt has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 34 of 60 (177137)
01-14-2005 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by jt
01-14-2005 8:36 PM


Re: "Micro-evolution/Macro-evolution" Barrier
However, I tentatively hold that such change results in a decrease of fitness in a group.
In what way and why?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by jt, posted 01-14-2005 8:36 PM jt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by jt, posted 01-28-2005 6:37 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 35 of 60 (177260)
01-15-2005 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Loudmouth
01-14-2005 12:33 PM


Re: Genetic differences
Hi, Loudmouth. Thanks for the correction on Aron-Ra. I'll look it up.
My life's been a whirlwind. I don't regret it a bit. I've been having the best time of my life. I did read quite a number of your posts while I was on a trip to Sacramento last week, but I can't add much to those science threads.
Some of the stuff you scientists write is so interesting I want to go back to school and change careers. Other stuff makes me vow never to put myself through that sort of torturous study.
I pop in here and there to read even when I don't have time to write.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Loudmouth, posted 01-14-2005 12:33 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
daaaaaBEAR
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 60 (179443)
01-21-2005 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by NosyNed
01-11-2005 2:09 AM


Evolution HAS to happen for those that can't accept creation by God. It's that simple. A little science can keep a man from God, and a lot of science will bring him closer.
These are some of the questions i would ask that I hope will make any evolutionist question their beliefs:
Why have so many evolutionists turned creationists?
Evolution is given a large expanse of time to happen but is the earth really that old? (fossils do not tell us the age of the earth, fossils can be formed over 100 years and don't need a million to fossilized)
Where are all the transitional species?
There is a great amount of pride and fear in the hearts of evolutionists. If this earth was created, what does that mean? Am I wrong? Being wrong is what humans are best at especially in light of God's infinite wisdom and it seems me that this debate between creation and evolution is futile because it will forever be an argument until scientists learn to drop their theories and have some faith in an eternal, loving and redeeming God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by NosyNed, posted 01-11-2005 2:09 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by CK, posted 01-21-2005 7:17 PM daaaaaBEAR has not replied
 Message 38 by AdminJar, posted 01-21-2005 7:24 PM daaaaaBEAR has not replied
 Message 39 by crashfrog, posted 01-22-2005 1:27 AM daaaaaBEAR has replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 37 of 60 (179445)
01-21-2005 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by daaaaaBEAR
01-21-2005 7:15 PM


Wow - you've convinced me!
I have never heard any of those arguments before and they don't read like they are cribbed straight off some creationist site like AIG.
Let's shut the site now - it's all over.
Joking aside I think this evolutionist makes a good point that you should listen to:
quote:
Literalistic young earth creationism is an insult to God, suggesting that he would arbitrarily and capriciously break his own exquisite laws whenever it suited him. Worse, the evidence for the fact of evolution is so knockdown overwhelming that we can reconcile it with young earth creationism only by assuming that God deliberately planted false evidence, in the rocks and in the genetic molecules, to trick us. Could a cruder blasphemy be imagined?
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-21-2005 19:19 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by daaaaaBEAR, posted 01-21-2005 7:15 PM daaaaaBEAR has not replied

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 60 (179447)
01-21-2005 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by daaaaaBEAR
01-21-2005 7:15 PM


Welcome daaaaaBEAR
We'reglad you're here.
One thing we enjoy is enlightened debate and discussion. But when members make assertions we expect them to make some effort to support those assertions. For example:
Why have so many evolutionists turned creationists?
It would be nice to have some evidence that is true.
At the bottom of this message are some links to the forum guidelines and tips on how to create great posts here.
We hope you enjoy your stay.

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by daaaaaBEAR, posted 01-21-2005 7:15 PM daaaaaBEAR has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 39 of 60 (179531)
01-22-2005 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by daaaaaBEAR
01-21-2005 7:15 PM


Evolution HAS to happen for those that can't accept creation by God. It's that simple.
See, the funny thing is, evolution was developed by a lot of people who believed in creation by God. So something in your post doesn't add up. What I think it is is that you have this idea that atheism and evolution are the same; which is a funny thing to say when the majority of theists also believe in evolution.
Where are all the transitional species?
Exactly where we would expect to find them - fossilized in the ground, and living on the surface of the earth.
Being wrong is what humans are best at especially in light of God's infinite wisdom and it seems me that this debate between creation and evolution is futile because it will forever be an argument until scientists learn to drop their theories and have some faith in an eternal, loving and redeeming God.
They can't have both, according to you? Which is funny because a majority of American scientists do have both theory and faith in the God you describe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by daaaaaBEAR, posted 01-21-2005 7:15 PM daaaaaBEAR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by daaaaaBEAR, posted 01-22-2005 2:28 AM crashfrog has replied

  
daaaaaBEAR
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 60 (179542)
01-22-2005 2:28 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by crashfrog
01-22-2005 1:27 AM


"Exactly where we would expect to find them - fossilized in the ground, and living on the surface of the earth."
...good answer. i agree with what is said in this article. (http://www.cryingvoice.com/Evolution/fossils_missing.html)
"Considering that there are almost 2 million (!) species on earth today and the time it would take for a new species to evolve is many millions of years, there should be billions of transitional forms, had evolution happened.
Duane T. Gish, The Origin of Mammals :
If this view of evolution is true, the fossil record should produce an enormous number of transitional forms. Natural history museums should be overflowing with undoubted intermediate forms. About 250,000 fossil species have been collected and classifiedApplying evolution theory and the laws of probability, most of these 250,000 species should represent transitional forms."
In light of this, I don't see much backing for the notion of transitional species. Fossilized in the ground? What if none are ever found. Living on the surface of the earth? What living thing is a transitional species, an elephant maybe, or a mouse, or even human beings. If modern-day transitional species are present would imply that all things will evolve further, including humans.
This message has been edited by daaaaaBEAR, 01-22-2005 13:14 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by crashfrog, posted 01-22-2005 1:27 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Lithodid-Man, posted 01-22-2005 5:17 AM daaaaaBEAR has not replied
 Message 42 by crashfrog, posted 01-22-2005 10:54 AM daaaaaBEAR has replied

  
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 2930 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 41 of 60 (179562)
01-22-2005 5:17 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by daaaaaBEAR
01-22-2005 2:28 AM


I don't need evidence to back my questions because a question merely opens discussion but the reply is what must have the evidence and then I can further respond with evidence of my own.
Sorry to go off topic but I thought if EVCforum were to ever have a contest for the most stupid thing ever posted on this forum I would like to nominate this quote. My three year old articulates better than this.
edited for grammar.
This message has been edited by Lithodid-Man, 01-22-2005 05:27 AM

Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by daaaaaBEAR, posted 01-22-2005 2:28 AM daaaaaBEAR has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 42 of 60 (179627)
01-22-2005 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by daaaaaBEAR
01-22-2005 2:28 AM


If this view of evolution is true, the fossil record should produce an enormous number of transitional forms.
There are. In fact, every single organism that has both parents and offspring is a transitional form.
What if none are ever found.
But they have been found. Many have been found. For instance:
quote:
Palaechthon, Purgatorius
Cantius
Pelycodus & related species
Amphipithecus, Pondaungia
Propliopithecus, Aegyptopithecus
Proconsul africanus
Australopithecus afarensis
Cimolestes incisus & Cimolestes cerberoides
Paroodectes, Vulpavus
Hesperocyon
Ursavus elmensis
Potamotherium
Pachycynodon
Dinictis
I could go on and on but you wouldn't be familiar with the species I'm referring to, and all I'm going is cutting and pasting from
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
I don't know where you got this idea that there are no transitional fossils.
If modern-day transitional species are present would imply that all things will evolve further, including humans.
Which is certainly true. Everything continues to evolve. There are many living transitional species, like amphibians, or even the hippopotamus, clearly in a state of transition between land and water life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by daaaaaBEAR, posted 01-22-2005 2:28 AM daaaaaBEAR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by daaaaaBEAR, posted 01-22-2005 1:13 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 44 by MangyTiger, posted 01-22-2005 1:30 PM crashfrog has replied

  
daaaaaBEAR
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 60 (179661)
01-22-2005 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by crashfrog
01-22-2005 10:54 AM


couldn't a hippopotamus be specifically a land/water mammal instead of a transitional species.. I guess I don't see how claiming something that inhabits both land and water to be an in-between species, instead of being recognized for what it is and its own purpose. If your logic is true then amphibians will eventually become land-dwelling lizards and lose the abliity for life in the water. does this happen through mutation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by crashfrog, posted 01-22-2005 10:54 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by crashfrog, posted 01-22-2005 2:36 PM daaaaaBEAR has not replied

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6353 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 44 of 60 (179667)
01-22-2005 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by crashfrog
01-22-2005 10:54 AM


There are many living transitional species, like amphibians, or even the hippopotamus, clearly in a state of transition between land and water life.
Is this really true (I'm asking for information/opinions from the many people here who know more about this stuff than I do rather than actually challenging the statement) ?
Since evolution is undirected can we really say something is clearly in a state of transition - couldn't it just as well :
  1. stay the same as it currently is forever - or until extinction at least
  2. reverse "direction" and end up going back to being fully aquatic or terrestial
Aren't we limited to saying it is in a state where it could potentially transition from being aquatic to terrestial or vice versa ? If I'm wrong then why - what am I missing ?

Confused ? You will be...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by crashfrog, posted 01-22-2005 10:54 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by crashfrog, posted 01-22-2005 2:40 PM MangyTiger has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 45 of 60 (179679)
01-22-2005 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by daaaaaBEAR
01-22-2005 1:13 PM


couldn't a hippopotamus be specifically a land/water mammal instead of a transitional species..
The fossil history of the hippopotamus informs us that it used to be entirely landbound, like its close relative, the pig.
If your logic is true then amphibians will eventually become land-dwelling lizards and lose the abliity for life in the water.
Which is exactly what some of them did; hence, we have lizards.
does this happen through mutation?
It happens through evolution, which is mutation and selection put together.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by daaaaaBEAR, posted 01-22-2005 1:13 PM daaaaaBEAR has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024