Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What i can't understand about evolution....
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 55 of 493 (490320)
12-03-2008 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by johnfolton
12-03-2008 6:42 PM


Re: New genes do arise?
I guess you all see genetic mutations, parasites, viruses as evidence of evolution. I see it as evidence life has been devolving since Genesis, viruses, genetic mutations, genetic parasites?
So you do believe in evolution. Devolve by definition from Websters Dictionary means: to degenerate through a gradual change or evolution.
Devolve and evolve are part of the same process. Biological evolution incorporates both evolving and devolving genetic changes.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by johnfolton, posted 12-03-2008 6:42 PM johnfolton has not replied

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 68 of 493 (490504)
12-05-2008 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Percy
12-05-2008 7:26 AM


Re: New genes do arise?
Percy writes:
This lack of any consensus among creationists on a definition of kind is why the term is not useful, and it allows creationists to use it to mean whatever they need it to mean at the time. That's why evolutionists dismiss use of the term. You can define it, Wardog25 can define it, other creationists can define it, but never in the same way. Until there's some consistency you can't use the term.
You forgot one. Here is a one who states that "kind" translates to the biological category genus:
Stephen Caesar, a staff member of the Associates for Biblical Research, writes:
Genesis 1:11 and 1:21 state that God created animals and plants “according to [their] kind.” “Kind” is miyn in Hebrew; the Latin Vulgate translates miyn as genus. Charles Linnaeus, the scientist who formulated the genus/species system of nomenclature for animals and plants, used the Bible as the source of his formula. When he saw the word genus in his Latin Bible”the Hebrew miyn”he chose that as the designation not for an individual species, but for the wider genus to which it belonged.
So now we have kind=species=genus=family!

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Percy, posted 12-05-2008 7:26 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by wardog25, posted 12-11-2008 12:37 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 88 of 493 (492269)
12-29-2008 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by wardog25
12-29-2008 5:12 PM


Re: Macro-evolution sans fossils!
Not acknowledge. Affirm. Ever since people read the book of Genesis, Christians have been saying that variations in kinds came from one common ancestor that was on the ark. (i.e. all dogs came from one pair of dogs that was on the ark) Then in the last century or 2, evolutionists point out those same changes and say it is evidence for evolution. It may be a different way of looking at it. But it isn't evidence against creation, and so really doesn't have much place in a creation vs. evolution debate since it confirms both sides.
So you not only believe in the biological evolution (genetic change) of animal species a.k.a "kinds" in less than 6000 years (estimated date by creationists of Noah's flood) but you believe in a much more rapid i.e. super evolution of species a.k.a. "kinds" than what the scientific community has accepted. Creationists (i.e. Ken Ham and and the fellon Kent Hovind) in their attempt to try to "prove" the Bible, are so adamant that they have shot themselves in the foot in the process by advocating some form of rapid evolution of species after their ark landed on Mt. Ararat 6000 years ago.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by wardog25, posted 12-29-2008 5:12 PM wardog25 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Coyote, posted 12-30-2008 12:07 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 107 of 493 (492373)
12-30-2008 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by wardog25
12-30-2008 4:31 PM


Re: Macro-evolution sans fossils!
In my opinion, this is what evolutionists are doing. But the beginning that they have observable (microevolution) is extremely tiny compared to the evolution of all organisms from a single cell.
Yet you and other creationist assume a super rapid evolution, much more rapid (I have heard assertions of over 100 times as rapid as what the scientific community claims) of organisms from one of each "kind" of animal on Noah's ark to a wide diversification of many different variants of species in a span of less than 6000 years.
You can't have it both ways. If this type of rapid evolution occurred as you claim in such a short amount of time how much more likely is it that it occured at a slower rate over the billions of years of the Earth's history as supported by geological, astronomical, chemical and biological evidence.
And as pointed out so succinctly by Coyote what is preventing this "micro" modification of an organisms's genome that creationism claims causes the diversification of "kinds" of organisms from causing "macro" modifications as claimed by biological evolution. What is the mechanism that prevents microevolution from becoming macroevolution? And what is your definition of "micro" and "macro" evolution?
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by wardog25, posted 12-30-2008 4:31 PM wardog25 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by wardog25, posted 12-31-2008 2:11 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 195 of 493 (492831)
01-03-2009 5:32 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by seekingfirstthekingdom
01-03-2009 2:50 AM


Re: Start conducting an honest discussion, Seeking
Without any proof of this single celled ancestor being able to multiply forth into the multitude of animals we see today,im afraid my point still stands.Theres no proof in the natural world today or the fossil record that this most astonishing organism even existed.Why am i repeating myself?I fully understand for the theory of evolution to have this type of beginning there must of been this amazing creature.However you cant point to it,and cant seem to replicate in a science lab either.Is there a possibility this wondrous creature never did what you guys are claiming it did?
Here is a question for you SFTK that will show the logical fallacy (Appeal to Ignorance) you are falling into with the TOE.
Do you believe that gravity exists? Why is it weaker than the other nuclear forces (strong, weak, electromagnetic forces)? Why does it only attract and not repel like the other forces? Are there subatomic particles associated with the force of gravity (gravitons) like there is with electromagnetism (photons)? And how do these gravitons fit into the Standard Model of particle physics? Do you know that physicists have yet to answer these questions with any type of emperical evidence and only in the last 100 years have we humans come up with answers to how gravity acts at a distance and is related to spacetime (the fabric of the universe) i.e. Einstein's Theories of General & Special Relativity.
We can predict the nature of gravity and how it affects matter and space (Newton's Law of Gravity/Einsteins Theories of Relativity) but we do not understand the fundamental causes of this force. Does this mean gravity does not exist? Of course not, it just means we do not yet have all the pieces to the puzzle yet. How is this different than the TOE?
With the TOE we can detect mutations occuring in the genomes of organisms all the time as shown by numerous posters here on the EvC forum. It is documented over and over with no equivocation. Bacteria mutate all the time resulting in effectively neutering even our most powerful antibiotic drugs and wreaking havock with the medical industry. Furthermore we can anaylze current and past organisms and see the modifications made both morphologically (structural differences) and sometimes genetically i.e. analyzing the DNA of Neanderthal bones and see trace the line of decent from earlier common ancestors.
The evidence is there, you just chose to ignore it. Go to an open access science journal director like here and type in the phrase "biological evolution". The Stanford University's HighWire Press list of free online articles comes up with 2045 "biological evolution" and 407,791 "evolution" scientific articles related to the topic of evolution. Happy reading.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-03-2009 2:50 AM seekingfirstthekingdom has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-03-2009 6:06 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 196 of 493 (492832)
01-03-2009 6:06 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by DevilsAdvocate
01-03-2009 5:32 AM


Re: Start conducting an honest discussion, Seeking
BTW, if I go through my colleges restricted research portal and type the words "biological evolution" it comes up with 30,662 scientific articles. Of course you could also go to Google but it will be hard to weed out real peer-review scientific articles from the rest of the crap on the web.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-03-2009 5:32 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 308 of 493 (493436)
01-08-2009 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 304 by Peg
01-08-2009 6:58 PM


Re: how do we measure 'inferiority'?
what came first, the apes or the ape men?
Ape men are apes. In fact, humans are also apes. However the term "ape" is not an official biological taxonomical term. The official term is Hominoidea not ape. So we all (lesser and greater apes alike) belong to the superfamily hominoidea. So it makes no sense to ask which came first, apes or ape men since ape men are apes.
If you are asking when hominini (chimpanzees and humans) branched off the greater ape tree, it is estimated around 15-30 million years ago. The anscestors to modern chimpanzees and humans split again about 5.6-6.3 million years ago. And the homo genus have a number of different dead ends i.e. neanderthal and heidelbergensis. We homo sapiens are the existing survivors of the homo genus. This is all confirmed through analysis of humanoid skelatal remains. Dawkin's an Anscestor's Tale explains this in more detail than I can provide here.
if the ape men were supposed to have evolved into a more advanced form of previous ape, then how is it that those lower apes, survived and the more advanced apes did not?
Modolous and Parasomnium already explained this. You are just choosing not to read there posts. Modern great apes have been wittled down to very narrow and specific ecological niches i.e. orangutangs in the forest trees of only two islands in Indonesia (Sumatra and Borneo), gorillas in the mountainous regions of western Africa, etc that are remotely located from the rest of the human population. Therefore their existence in these very remote locations of the planet and their inability to breed with other more human hominins (due to their diverging genome) are the only reasons they have been able to survive thus far as seperate species. However, they are all know threatened by modern human encroachment on their remote locations and all are nearly extinct compared to their population even a few hundred years ago. As far as the more advanced forms of hominin aka ape-men the following three things have occurred over time:
a. become extinct through direct/indirect competition with other types of hominins.
b. become extinct because of other ecological/environmental reasons.
c. breeding between different hominums resulting in a more diverse human genome.
Hope this answers your questions.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by Peg, posted 01-08-2009 6:58 PM Peg has not replied

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 337 of 493 (493676)
01-10-2009 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 327 by Peg
01-10-2009 6:04 AM


Re: how do we measure 'inferiority'?
granted, 'lower' is a bad use of wording ....all life is complicated and amazing.
I should have asked why gorillas and orangutans and monkeys are still around today....why didn't they all evolve?
They did evolve. You have a bad habit of not reading previous posts. If you earnestly are asking questions to seek answers you are doing a poor job at showing this. Otherwise it seems that you are just using the "post and hide" technique that many creationists and ID'ers on this board utilize in attempt to distract people from the evidence and logic the scientistific community provides that evolution has and continues to occur.
I am not trying to be mean here but in essense you are disrespecting everyone here trying to provide answers to your questions. Here is a list of previous posts on this very forum that have answered this question:
Message 329
Message 323
Message 322
Message 321
Message 320
Message 313
Message 308
BTW, many of these also answer your questions as why these ape species still exist alongside humans. Go back and read than you can ask more questions to clarify. Also, go to the library and pick up a couple of books on the evolution of humans. Analyze the data and evidence and see if it makes sense. If not ask to your hearts content, that of course is our scientific duty.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 327 by Peg, posted 01-10-2009 6:04 AM Peg has not replied

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 338 of 493 (493679)
01-10-2009 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 331 by Peg
01-10-2009 6:24 AM


Re: how do we measure 'inferiority'?
why dont you boys n girls get your heads together and come up with an evolutionary tree...that would be awesome and i would love to see it.
Here are some human/ape evolutionary trees I could find off the bat. I am not sure if it is the latest one agreed upon by human/primate paleontologists but it is the best one I could find:
Hope this helps. Any experts in the field let me know if this is inaccurate.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by Admin, : Reduce image width.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 331 by Peg, posted 01-10-2009 6:24 AM Peg has not replied

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 340 of 493 (493682)
01-10-2009 8:23 AM


Here is a more extensive illustration of the order of primates including humans:
The Phylogeny of Hominidae based on sequences of mitochondrial COII genes (breakdown of seperate species/genus/tribe of apes through mitochondrial DNA analysis of these different species/genus):
Timeline of hominins (human and human-like ancestorial species):
If you want to see more evidence for human-ape evolution here is a good link: Evolution textbook.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

Replies to this message:
 Message 365 by Peg, posted 01-11-2009 4:56 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 342 of 493 (493686)
01-10-2009 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 330 by Peg
01-10-2009 6:16 AM


Re: The theory of evolution contains no magic. That's the "other side's" theory.
imagine the a 50 story building. Where do they start the work of building it...at the top? No, it all begins with the foundations.
it seems that evolution is working its way down, then it gets stuck in the mud when it comes to how the life that they are examining, actually came into existence in the first place.
I'll tell you why they cant explain it... because they refuse to accept that an intelligent designer may have actually been its source.
There is no one place, that scientists start studying evolution. Biologists study the effects of evolution all the way from bacteria and slime mold to homo sapiens and everything in between. Biochemists and molecular biologists study the molecular components of cellular life and the effects of evolution on that small scale. Paleontologists study the fossils of ancient animals, plants, and huminoids and trace the lineage of evolutionary decent through natural history.
The study of evolution doesn't start at the top or the bottom but at all scales both micro and macro and on every continent of our planet from Australia to Antartica as well as deep in the ocean. They study organisms living in some of the most remote places on Earth and subject to some of the most strange conditions like along the deep ocean rifts where bacterial life can exist in over 140 degree water or in deep lakes underneath the ice of antartica bacterial matts exist. Whereever there is life, scientists are observing evolution occur.
As we find more and more evidence we start plugging in the holes where a lack of knowledge exists. That is why "missing links" are such an idiotic misnomer. Of course there are missing links. There are litteraly millions of missing links since trillions of organisms have existed and evolved on this planet for billions of years. If there were no missing links than I would probably have to agree that instantaneous creation would be the most probably hypothesis.
As to what was the first organism that existed? We may never find out. Does that mean we throw out the tons of evidence that evolution occurs because we are missing one piece of the puzzle?
Who knows, maybe God put the first organism on the planet and God set the mechanism of evolution to create the diversity of life on this planet. This does not negate that evolution hasn't occurred in the past or is not occurring now. However this proposal is religious/philosophical and is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested with science since the intervention of God is a supernatural miraculous event that science by definition cannot explain. It doesn't mean it isn't true it just means that we cannot "prove" it with science. However, the burden of proof lies with Creationists/IDers/etc in justifying the existence of this supreme supernatural being to exist in the first place, not with science.
BTW, there are many scientists that believe in God that conduct science in the evolutionary fields (i.e. Dr. Kenneth Miller) and they have no problem marrying these two ideas. It is only when Creationists try to prove a pseudoscientific proposition using pseudoscientific means that problems arise.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by Peg, posted 01-10-2009 6:16 AM Peg has not replied

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 344 of 493 (493692)
01-10-2009 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 343 by Percy
01-10-2009 8:41 AM


Re: how do we measure 'inferiority'?
Scientists have come up with tons of these evolutionary trees over the years, continually refining and improving them as evidence accumulates, and I see that DevilsAdvocate has provided a few. The problem with them, and the reason I didn't provide one, is that the evidence is not yet sufficient to create a final version for the human portion of ape evolution. We only know enough to create plausible evolutionary trees, which means that different evolutionary trees can be composed to fit the available evidence.
I agree with you Percy, this is still a very young field of science (it has only been seriously studied in just the past 50 years) and thus there are many things we have yet to learn about our own evolution. I think it is helpful to show where our current understanding is, but to caveat that this understanding is subject to change. The precise relationship between many of these hominin species is still speculative, as well as the exact path of our evolution. So take these illustrations as you would of creating and developing your own family tree from scratch. In other words, it is a work in progress.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 343 by Percy, posted 01-10-2009 8:41 AM Percy has not replied

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 372 of 493 (493862)
01-11-2009 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 365 by Peg
01-11-2009 4:56 AM


hi DevilsAdvocate,
i really want to see a 'tree' that shows the roots ...ie, where it all began
two were posted from wiki, but i dont want one that doubts its own accuracy... i want one that is accurate and precise and one that can provide evidence for where the roots began
perhaps i'm asking for something that does not exist?
Nice one Peg,
You pulled a fast one on me. The old bait and switch or moving the goal posts argument. I actually thought you were being sincere. But now I know you are just another Creationist who could care less about the evidence and just want to randomly throw stones at an natural phenomena accepted by 99.9% of the scientific community, because you think it undermines your religious beliefs. I take time out of my day to peruse the internet to look for some ape/human evolutionary trees and you pull this crap about wanting seeing the 'roots of the tree' on me. Thanks for wasting my time.
#1 Like I said previously the study of human/ape paleontology is a relatively new scientific endeavor that has only 60 or so years of serious scientific inquiry behind it (Louis and Mary Leakey being some of the early founders of this scientific field) as compared to other fields such as physics with literally hundred if not thousands of years of scientific discoveries. Therefore there is still much we are still speculating, filling the holes in, and modifying our understanding of as I spoke about here: Message 342.
#2 How far back do you want to see? We were talking about human/ape evolution not the origination of all life. So how far back are you asking?
As pointed out by others a theory of abiogenesis is not a prerequisite for to acknowledge the reality that biological evolution occurs. Some people think that some supernatural deity may have planted the blueprints of life on Earth and then kicked started the mechanism of evolution to create the diversity of life we see around us, others believe in panspermia (though this just delays the origination of life to some other location in our universe), and some (like myself) believe that abiogenesis as well as biological evolution are natural processes that don't need an initial supernatural designer. All three agree that the preponderance of evidence shows that biological evolution has and continues to occur; and all three are "unproven" hypothesis. We don't have to know exactly how life originated on this planet to know that life diversifies and biologically evolves driven by the processes of natural selective and genetic drift.
Here is a great dynamic site that Kapyong originally gave and which is overseen by professional biologists, that lets you visualize the evolutionary tree/branches/roots/whatever of just about every type of organism on the planet: Tree of Life web project.
If you have specific problems with a specific i.e. line of descent (branch) I would bring it up with them or we can discuss it here. If you want to discuss the evidence behind abiogenesis we probably will have to open up a new thread to discuss this, as this is a whole new and complex ball of wax.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 365 by Peg, posted 01-11-2009 4:56 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 389 by Peg, posted 01-15-2009 6:27 AM DevilsAdvocate 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