|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: If Evolution was proved beyond doubt... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Namesdan Inactive Member |
lol, sorry, i just needed to prove a point...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
What's the difference?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Namesdan Inactive Member |
evolution: a process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage (especially a more advanced or mature stage).
the theory of evolution: how all life evolved from a natural series of events through a long period of time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
I don't see what you're getting at unless you're referring to the micro- vs. macro- idea.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4925 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
"In such a situation, how would faith stand up to it?"
Faith stands up to it quite easily. In fact, if look at science overall, particularly the discoveries in quantum physics such as entanglement, links between consciousness and matter, fundamentals of all things being information (In the beginning was the Word), the Big Bang, etc,....you actually find science confirms the basic biblical view of reality, and incidentally the view of reality found in many spiritual traditions. The old Newtonian paradigm is falling. It's probably incorrect, for example, to claim that the energy of thoughts are different than the energy that forms the core of physical things. It's all more or less energy, and it all interacts. "You reap what you sow" is an old saying that science is beginning to develop a factual basis for demonstrating. So what about evolution and the creation story? Well, first off, to think the theory of common descent which is what people are thinking of disproves the Bible is to assume that the past is static. Personally, I think that is a huge and erroneous assumption, especially in light of modern physics. Vedral and Bukner, for example, have shown that particles can be entangled over segments of time. I "caught it" at first, but maybe one of the more scientifically trained person here can explain how they show that better. But regardless of what science has begun to show, it is an assumption that time flows linearly only, and not "spatially" as well. In other words, common descent is based on the idea that causal events only affect things forward in time. Is that correct though? The principle of entanglement demonstrates information being transferred superluminally, and thus at a different time-flow than the surrounding world. Wave/particle duality demonstrates in double-split experiments that consciousness mysteriously is necessary for matter to take on a definite form, that consciousness somehow is connected to and has a determinative role in the formation of matter. Where am I going? Well, we know when man fell that the Bible says God cursed the earth, and later the Bible suggests perhaps the whole universe, or at least parts of "the heavens themselves" were changed. Hmmm..... So death enters, and all sorts of changes occur, even perhaps changes in physical laws. That's what the Bible suggests or states happened. So God changed the universe as a result of the consciousness of man falling? Did he do that from time forward, or did He do that from the beginning forward? In other words, look at the creation and development of the universe or multi-verse, as a movie with God as the Director and Producer. Maybe instead of changing things as if by magic, poof, from that time forward, maybe the fall of man's consiouscess affected the entire universe backwards and forwards in time, and incidentally the reserruction of man's consciousness might one day do the same. I think if you read the Bible closely and think about God's ways, that it makes sense that God changed the universe by changing it from the foundation forward. God is not limited by time. In that context, it is possible for both special creation and common descent to have occured, and it is possible, imo, for any combination of the 2. Heck, it's completely possible, and I believe we will discover this, that the past is changing and not static even today. That may be a revolutionary concept, but I think because the changes are slow, we are slow to detect it, but will one day see that both the past, present, and future are affected by actions and changes. Certainly, the linear changes are more easily seen, and dominant, but that does not mean that non-linear action is not occuring and changing the time-line gradually and those changes add up over time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Namesdan Inactive Member |
What i am getting at is that we proved evolution beyond a reasonable doubt, but i find it impossible to prove the theory of evolution beyond a reasonable doubt
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Since I am unable to get you tell me what specifically you are talking about, I'll assume until otherwise notified that you are referring to the "micro" versus "macro" issue, and I will add that this never made any sense at all to me. Ever since I first heard the distinction, it seemed obvious to me that if one accepted microevolution it would logically follow that one would accept macroevolution. One would naturally lead to the other. If a species can change a little bit then there's no reason it can't change more.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Namesdan Inactive Member |
Unfortunately there has never been any proof for it and at the way it is going, it find it hard to consider someone being able prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Then there is cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, chemical evolution and so on. To prove the theory of evolution, with all these factors, beyond a reasonable doubt, is improbable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 503 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
He is referring to the change in allele frequency and speciation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4925 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
"If a species can change a little bit then there's no reason it can't change more."
But is there a range within that ability to change, and that's the issue? My understanding is that natural selection alone and genetic variation is not sufficient for the changes required for macro-evolution. What is required are mutations? The question then is are observed mutations of the type, character and frequency sufficient to explain all of life developing from a single, original organism?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
"But is there a range within that ability to change, and that's the issue?"
Why would there be a limit? What's to stop it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4925 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
What's to stop it seems like a crazy question on the face of it since the real question is what causes something?
First, things are limited by the forces affecting it and the substance of what something is, right? Are there forces affecting a biological system that create an infinite degree of change? By what method? I think conventional thinking on this issue is that breeding and variation alone are not sufficient. Do you agree with that assessment?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
"What's to stop it seems like a crazy question on the face of it since the real question is what causes something?"
It's not a crazy question if we have agreed beforehand that there is such a thing as microevolution. So we already know the process is ongoing. If its ongoing, it will continue to go. Organisms are constantly changing, if nothing else through imperfect replication. There are environmental changes which affect what procreates and what doesn't. The change is constant and so it is inevitable that the differences between an organism and its ancestors will increase over time. The more generations that separate one organism from another, the more differences there will be between them. What's to stop this process? This message has been edited by robinrohan, 05-27-2005 02:47 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4925 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
You are not answering the question. Most conventional evolutionists, if you will, believe mutations are necessary to produce macro-evolution.
Why do they think that, if what you are saying is true, that the process has no limits to it without mutations? Look at it this way, and admittedly this is over-simplified, but I can shuffle a deck of cards, and that process can continue forever and there will be a change every single time, but does that mean the ability for new combinations (variation) is unlimited? No, I can do it forever and without some added new cards, mutations of the old ones, the cards have a finite range of possibilities even though they exist in a process of infinite change. Make sense?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 503 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
randman writes:
Yes, it is unlimited.
Look at it this way, and admittedly this is over-simplified, but I can shuffle a deck of cards, and that process can continue forever and there will be a change every single time, but does that mean the ability for new combinations (variation) is unlimited? No, I can do it forever and without some added new cards, mutations of the old ones, the cards have a finite range of possibilities even though they exist in a process of infinite change.
You have a grossly simplified (mis)conception of genetics.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024