Do you believe in evolution?

[deltablack22]

Originally Posted by reefreak29
you wouldnt have a reef tank in 1 billion years . you would have apes with gills

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by rbaldino
You missed the point. Everything in your tank is the product of evolution. All the similarly sized and shaped damsel fish evolved from a common ancestor, same for clowns. Look at the variations of torch/frogspawn/hammer corals, which also probably evolved from a common ancestor. This hobby is full of variety because of evolution.
That's an opinion, and I disagree. You said our tanks teach us evolution. I pointed out that actually they prove the Law of Entropy. Our tanks must be maintained.... who maintained life as it began from nothing in the closed system of the universe?
How did anemones and clams symbiotically evolve with algaes? Who was the first Clownfish that evolved the ability to avoid being stung by anemones, AND taught itself how to do so?
How did the male seahorse evolve to hold it's young? How did fish develop eyesight? What gave the Lionfish it's venom?
What algae first synthesized sunlight and breathed out the first O2 molecule? What coral first began secreting calcium carbonate? What came before the nematocyst?

You may look into your tank and see evolution. I don't. I see the trillions upon trillions of minute variances that randomness could never hope to replicate.

 

[sepulatian]

John, A point we both very much agree with!!!! It is nice to find one

 

[rbaldino]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
That's an opinion, and I disagree. You said our tanks teach us evolution. I pointed out that actually they prove the Law of Entropy. Our tanks must be maintained.... who maintained life as it began from nothing in the closed system of the universe?
How did anemones and clams symbiotically evolve with algaes? Who was the first Clownfish that evolved the ability to avoid being stung by anemones, AND taught itself how to do so?
How did the male seahorse evolve to hold it's young? How did fish develop eyesight? What gave the Lionfish it's venom?
What algae first synthesized sunlight and breathed out the first O2 molecule? What coral first began secreting calcium carbonate? What came before the nematocyst?

You may look into your tank and see evolution. I don't. I see the trillions upon trillions of minute variances that randomness could never hope to replicate.
Most evolution is the product of a random mutation that proved very succesful, and the successful species passed on their genes, eventually forcing out less successful species. If you want to try and argue that God planned it all out, I would respond that God must then be a massive failure, because most things eventually die off, like the Dinosaurs. He really blew it with them. And the Dodo bird, another miscalculation on God's part. Like it or not, everything is random, with nature trying out different things, some more successful than others.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by sepulatian
John, A point we both very much agree with!!!! It is nice to find one

All is right once again in the world

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by rbaldino
Most evolution is the product of a random mutation that proved very succesful, and the successful species passed on their genes, eventually forcing out less successful species. If you want to try and argue that God planned it all out, I would respond that God must then be a massive failure, because most things eventually die off, like the Dinosaurs. He really blew it with them. And the Dodo bird, another miscalculation on God's part. Like it or not, everything is random, with nature trying out different things, some more successful than others.
Death is a natural part of Creation... the extinction of the dinosaurs in no way convinces me that God is a massive failure. Could you do better?

Random mutations, as you point out, are far more likely to kill the animal. That makes the mathmatical probablility of numerous mutations occuring at the same time, in successive order, for millions of years, a mathmatical pariah.
Furthermore, the mutations would not make the particular animal more successful for millions of steps. Take scales or feathers for instance. What would all of the intemittent steps look like and how possibly could those early steps be beneficial? How many steps did it take for eyes to develop? What were the benefits of the unformed beginnings of the eyes that allowed a species to out-compete others?
Lastly, consider that the brain of the evolving creature would have to evolve simultaniously with the physical mutations.
Having said all of that, let's not over-complicate the issue. Simply study Cellular biology. Explain how Mitochondria in a Eukaryotic cell evolved. Or cell walls, or the nucleus, etc. Imagine the tremndous "jump" in complexity that life would have had to undergo to leap from single celled to multi-celled organisms.

 

[jerthunter]

Originally Posted by reefreak29
you wouldnt have a reef tank in 1 billion years . you would have apes with gills
What an odd statement. If you look at the embryonic development of apes and humans as well you will see gill slits.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by Clown Boy
Science actually disproves evolution. So does the Bible. How did you come to this conclusion?

The bible does not disprove evolution. In fact it helps promote it to a degree. Not evolution that man came from apes, but evolution as far as how the earth and creatures were created. In the bible it never says how GOD creates the heavens and the earth, it never states how he created man and animals in detail. It says man was formed from dust and he breathed life into him and that woman came from the rib of a man.
It also later in the bible says a day in the life of GOD can be the equivalant of thousands of years to a man.
So the man from dust could be a true thing, it just took thousands of years for the dust to evolve into man. The woman from the rib of man can be explained as the rib was equivalent to DNA from a man.
Another thing to think about. At no point in the bible is there any mention of dinosaurs or over large predators or beasts. Science has shown these to live on the planet however while man was not around. My belief is the dinosaurs were on the planet "day 5 to day 6", before man was created.
The bible has never disproved evolution, if you read it in it's entirety as it was meant, then you will see this. But like anything, if you take an exerpt from it out of the entire context, you can have it mean what you wish it to mean.
I am not a devote christian. I am a christian and just recently started going to a church agaun after about 15 years of not. But I do study religions and read as many "holy" books as I can get my hands on.

 

[jerthunter]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Death is a natural part of Creation... the extinction of the dinosaurs in no way convinces me that God is a massive failure. Could you do better?

Random mutations, as you point out, are far more likely to kill the animal. That makes the mathmatical probablility of numerous mutations occuring at the same time, in successive order, for millions of years, a mathmatical pariah.
Furthermore, the mutations would not make the particular animal more successful for millions of steps. Take scales or feathers for instance. What would all of the intemittent steps look like and how possibly could those early steps be beneficial? How many steps did it take for eyes to develop? What were the benefits of the unformed beginnings of the eyes that allowed a species to out-compete others?
Lastly, consider that the brain of the evolving creature would have to evolve simultaniously with the physical mutations.
Having said all of that, let's not over-complicate the issue. Simply study Cellular biology. Explain how Mitochondria in a Eukaryotic cell evolved. Or cell walls, or the nucleus, etc. Imagine the tremndous "jump" in complexity that life would have had to undergo to leap from single celled to multi-celled organisms.
Many scientists today believe that mitochondria and chloroplasts started off as a symbiotic relationship between types of cells. Although this theory did not get much support initally it has become widely accepted due to the overwhelming similarities between mitochondria and types of bacteria.
Also, concerning the 'most mutations are bad' statement, often times mutations do not get expressed, perhaps the mutation is not in a gene, are DNA has huge sections of unexpressed repeating sequences that can mutate without showing any side effects. So several mutations can build up over time without being seen until perhaps a promoter region gets moved via transposons or maybe by a virus inserting its own DNA.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by rbaldino
Most evolution is the product of a random mutation that proved very succesful, and the successful species passed on their genes, eventually forcing out less successful species. If you want to try and argue that God planned it all out, I would respond that God must then be a massive failure, because most things eventually die off, like the Dinosaurs. He really blew it with them. And the Dodo bird, another miscalculation on God's part. Like it or not, everything is random, with nature trying out different things, some more successful than others.

I won't get into an argument about your view on GOD so I will sidestep your comment there. However, if nature is random, how come in every creature that has active brain activity (meaning communication of some form) they require a male and female of the species to procreate.....seems to me this would be random then as well.

 

[jerthunter]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
I won't get into an argument about your view on GOD so I will sidestep your comment there. However, if nature is random, how come in every creature that has active brain activity (meaning communication of some form) they require a male and female of the species to procreate.....seems to me this would be random then as well.
There is atleast one species of reptile that reproduces asexually yet has social interaction and communication. I apologize but I cannot remember the name off the top of my head but it is a very interesting species since they require social interaction to reproduce but the offspring are merely clones of the mother.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by Jerthunter
There is atleast one species of reptile that reproduces asexually yet has social interaction and communication. I apologize but I cannot remember the name off the top of my head but it is a very interesting species since they require social interaction to reproduce but the offspring are merely clones of the mother.
whip tail lizard, purely female and no males ever. Asexual reproduction through the egg. However, if nature was random, why no males for this single species?

 

[jerthunter]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
whip tail lizard, purely female and no males ever. Asexual reproduction through the egg. However, if nature was random, why no males for this single species?
Thank you, I could not figure the name out...
As far as being random, I believe the idea is that random changes occur but not all get passed on. A huge number of genetic mutations do not get expressed because they do not occur in genes or atleast in active genes. What I am trying to say is that the mode of evolution could perhaps be called random however what we see are only the results the show some order.
Concerning why the question about the asexual lizards, I believe the theory is that at one time there were male and females of this species of lizard however it lost its need to sexually reproduce somewhere along the line.

 

[deltablack22]

Originally Posted by Jerthunter
What an odd statement. If you look at the embryonic development of apes and humans as well you will see gill slits.
This is a very old crutch used by evolution supporters and is more outdated some of the scientific dating methods you spoke of earlier...
The Truth About "Gill Slits":
In the human embryo at one month, there are wrinkles (flexion folds) in the skin where the "throat pouches" grow out. Once in a while, one of these pouches will break through, and a child will be born with a small hole in the neck. That's when we find out for sure that these structures are not gill slits. If the opening were really part of a gill, if it really were a "throwback to the fish stage," then there would be blood vessels all around it, as if it were going to absorb oxygen from water as a gill does. But there is no such structure. We simply don't have the DNA instructions for forming gills.
The throat (or pharyngeal) grooves and pouches, falsely called "gill slit," are not mistakes in human development. They develop into absolutely essential parts of human anatomy - the lower jaw, tongue, thymus gland, the parathyroid, etc. The middle ear canals come from the second pouches, and the parathyroid and thymus glands come from the third and fourth.
Without a thymus, we would lose half our immune systems. Without the parathyroids, we would be unable to regulate calcium balance and could not even survive. Another pouch, thought to be vestigial by evolutionists until just recently, becomes a gland that assists in calcium balance. Far from being useless evolutionary vestiges, then, these so-called "gill slits" are quite essential for distinctively human development.

 

[clown boy]

Originally Posted by rbaldino
Most evolution is the product of a random mutation that proved very succesful, and the successful species passed on their genes, eventually forcing out less successful species. If you want to try and argue that God planned it all out, I would respond that God must then be a massive failure, because most things eventually die off, like the Dinosaurs. He really blew it with them. And the Dodo bird, another miscalculation on God's part. Like it or not, everything is random, with nature trying out different things, some more successful than others.
God is not the one who introduced Death into the world. Man is.

 

[jerthunter]

Originally Posted by DeltaBlack22
This is a very old crutch used by evolution supporters and is more outdated some of the scientific dating methods you spoke of earlier...
The Truth About "Gill Slits":
In the human embryo at one month, there are wrinkles (flexion folds) in the skin where the "throat pouches" grow out. Once in a while, one of these pouches will break through, and a child will be born with a small hole in the neck. That's when we find out for sure that these structures are not gill slits. If the opening were really part of a gill, if it really were a "throwback to the fish stage," then there would be blood vessels all around it, as if it were going to absorb oxygen from water as a gill does. But there is no such structure. We simply don't have the DNA instructions for forming gills.
The throat (or pharyngeal) grooves and pouches, falsely called "gill slit," are not mistakes in human development. They develop into absolutely essential parts of human anatomy - the lower jaw, tongue, thymus gland, the parathyroid, etc. The middle ear canals come from the second pouches, and the parathyroid and thymus glands come from the third and fourth.
Without a thymus, we would lose half our immune systems. Without the parathyroids, we would be unable to regulate calcium balance and could not even survive. Another pouch, thought to be vestigial by evolutionists until just recently, becomes a gland that assists in calcium balance. Far from being useless evolutionary vestiges, then, these so-called "gill slits" are quite essential for distinctively human development.
I did not mention gill slits in an attempt to explain evolution, someone else made mention of 'apes with gills' so I thought I would pass on this information. Gill slits are interesting because they show how similar precursor features develop differently in different organisms.

 

[clown boy]

But they aren't "slits"...

 

[jerthunter]

Originally Posted by Clown Boy
God is not the one who introduced Death into the world. Man is.
But God introduced man into the world right? So indirectly I suppose that means he introduced death into the world.

 

[reefreak29]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
The bible does not disprove evolution. In fact it helps promote it to a degree. Not evolution that man came from apes, but evolution as far as how the earth and creatures were created. In the bible it never says how GOD creates the heavens and the earth, it never states how he created man and animals in detail. It says man was formed from dust and he breathed life into him and that woman came from the rib of a man.
It also later in the bible says a day in the life of GOD can be the equivalant of thousands of years to a man.
So the man from dust could be a true thing, it just took thousands of years for the dust to evolve into man. The woman from the rib of man can be explained as the rib was equivalent to DNA from a man.
Another thing to think about. At no point in the bible is there any mention of dinosaurs or over large predators or beasts. Science has shown these to live on the planet however while man was not around. My belief is the dinosaurs were on the planet "day 5 to day 6", before man was created.
The bible has never disproved evolution, if you read it in it's entirety as it was meant, then you will see this. But like anything, if you take an exerpt from it out of the entire context, you can have it mean what you wish it to mean.
I am not a devote christian. I am a christian and just recently started going to a church agaun after about 15 years of not. But I do study religions and read as many "holy" books as I can get my hands on.
your right the bible never disproved evolution it never talks about it at all and ive read the whole thing, evolution is a subject created by man to try and disprove the exsistance of God

 

[jerthunter]

Originally Posted by Clown Boy
But they aren't "slits"...
The are a similiar feature in the embryonic development, call them whatever you like but they have many of the same precursors of fish gills.