Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,762 Year: 4,019/9,624 Month: 890/974 Week: 217/286 Day: 24/109 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   If Evolution was proved beyond doubt...
Namesdan
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 114 (211585)
05-26-2005 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by coffee_addict
05-26-2005 6:12 PM


lol, sorry, i just needed to prove a point...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by coffee_addict, posted 05-26-2005 6:12 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 114 (211586)
05-26-2005 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Namesdan
05-26-2005 5:28 PM


What's the difference?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Namesdan, posted 05-26-2005 5:28 PM Namesdan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Namesdan, posted 05-26-2005 6:47 PM robinrohan has replied

  
Namesdan
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 114 (211587)
05-26-2005 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by robinrohan
05-26-2005 6:38 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by robinrohan, posted 05-26-2005 6:38 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by robinrohan, posted 05-26-2005 7:17 PM Namesdan has replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 114 (211592)
05-26-2005 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Namesdan
05-26-2005 6:47 PM


I don't see what you're getting at unless you're referring to the micro- vs. macro- idea.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Namesdan, posted 05-26-2005 6:47 PM Namesdan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Namesdan, posted 05-27-2005 1:35 PM robinrohan has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4925 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 20 of 114 (211595)
05-26-2005 7:53 PM


easy to answer
"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


Message 21 of 114 (211824)
05-27-2005 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by robinrohan
05-26-2005 7:17 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by robinrohan, posted 05-26-2005 7:17 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by robinrohan, posted 05-27-2005 1:43 PM Namesdan has replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 114 (211826)
05-27-2005 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Namesdan
05-27-2005 1:35 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Namesdan, posted 05-27-2005 1:35 PM Namesdan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Namesdan, posted 05-27-2005 1:47 PM robinrohan has not replied
 Message 24 by coffee_addict, posted 05-27-2005 2:13 PM robinrohan has not replied
 Message 25 by randman, posted 05-27-2005 2:24 PM robinrohan has replied

  
Namesdan
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 114 (211827)
05-27-2005 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by robinrohan
05-27-2005 1:43 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by robinrohan, posted 05-27-2005 1:43 PM robinrohan has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 503 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 24 of 114 (211833)
05-27-2005 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by robinrohan
05-27-2005 1:43 PM


He is referring to the change in allele frequency and speciation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by robinrohan, posted 05-27-2005 1:43 PM robinrohan has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4925 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 25 of 114 (211840)
05-27-2005 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by robinrohan
05-27-2005 1:43 PM


"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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by robinrohan, posted 05-27-2005 1:43 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by robinrohan, posted 05-27-2005 3:20 PM randman has replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 114 (211863)
05-27-2005 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by randman
05-27-2005 2:24 PM


"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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by randman, posted 05-27-2005 2:24 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by randman, posted 05-27-2005 3:33 PM robinrohan has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4925 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 27 of 114 (211870)
05-27-2005 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by robinrohan
05-27-2005 3:20 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by robinrohan, posted 05-27-2005 3:20 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by robinrohan, posted 05-27-2005 3:46 PM randman has replied
 Message 32 by JonF, posted 05-27-2005 4:12 PM randman has replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 114 (211878)
05-27-2005 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by randman
05-27-2005 3:33 PM


"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by randman, posted 05-27-2005 3:33 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by randman, posted 05-27-2005 4:05 PM robinrohan has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4925 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 29 of 114 (211891)
05-27-2005 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by robinrohan
05-27-2005 3:46 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by robinrohan, posted 05-27-2005 3:46 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by coffee_addict, posted 05-27-2005 4:11 PM randman has replied
 Message 31 by robinrohan, posted 05-27-2005 4:11 PM randman has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 503 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 30 of 114 (211893)
05-27-2005 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by randman
05-27-2005 4:05 PM


randman writes:
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?
Yes, it 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by randman, posted 05-27-2005 4:05 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by randman, posted 05-27-2005 4:40 PM coffee_addict has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024