Do you believe in evolution?

[darknes]

Originally Posted by LazyPinoy
i was watching "before the dinosaurs" on the discovery channel....had some persuading things that promoted evolution. u guys should watch it.pretty cool stuff.
Lol, I mentioned that show in post 757. I only watched about 5 minutes, but I didn't care for it.

 

[darknes]

Originally Posted by GeriDoc
Evolution is a continuing process, only the selection forces change. Once, perhaps foot speed was an advantage. Now, it might be darker skin color that would confer resistance to UV irradiation that would be advantageous, or the ability to multi-task in a bar by drinking a beer while looking cool and simultaneously checking out the girls

It is incorrect to think of organisms evolving towards anything. They just change. In a great book, Richard Dawkins emulates Chaucer's Canterbury Tales by telling the trip in reverse so that it is clearer that evolution did not move towards mankind. He argues that giraffes would, just as reasonably, conclude that evolution functioned to make giraffes. Viewed in reverse it is clearer that there is no goal, so nothing can de-evolve. We are what we are, and will be whatever we will be. Don't be fooled by the term "survival of the fittest". There is a tendency to misinterpret that term. "Fittest" refers to a trait that makes an organism more likely to reproduce successfully than its competitor. That is an eternal test, and even with medicine, etc., it still works.
LOL, good explanation!

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by rbaldino
Then please provide me with factual statistics about what percentage of the population "educated Romans" accounted for at the time.
do you really want to argue that Romans were ignorant barbarians?
See the graffiti at pompeii for examples of "lower class" literacy., The writings of Pliny, Martial and Horace for discussions and examples of the importance of education.
While literacy numbers were probably low, you cannot study the early Roman Empire and conclude that Roman citizens were ignorant peasants. The very fact that many of the books of the NT were written as letters to disperse to the church furthers this.
The Dead Sea Scrolls, city of Qumran, ancient public libraries, etc. also point to the importance of knowldege.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by rbaldino
Go look at an ape, then look at yourself in the mirror. Notice any similarities? Look at how animals have adapted themselves to their environments, how a Marine Iguana behaves differently than any other iguana because of the environment it lives in, or how certain animals have patterns on their skin/fur to blend into thier surroundings to either avoid predators or improve hunting prowess. These are examples of the circumstances that Darwin observed, leading to the theory of evolution. Did you observe God writing the Bible? Has anyone ever observed God?
1. So, out of the millions of species on Earth, the fact that apes can walk on two legs points to evolution?
2. Behavior, camoflauge, etc. point to adaptation, not macro evolution.
3. Historically, yes.... many have.

 

[ophiura]

Hey journey - for clarification, as it has been confusing me, could you define what is meant by adaptation, micro evolution and macro evolution? I don't want to be like "on YOUR side"

Hopefully it doesn't come across that way. But I think it would help to understand the common ground.

 

[itom37]

God created hair algae, aiptasia, and bristle worms, right? So shouldn't we not kill them? Or wait it's ok that we kill them because we have to kill them since all of our actions are known in advance (by that god fella) and thus we are fatalistically bound to do what we will do. I love the zero culpability fine print of most religions... it means I can't be held accountable for anything I do since it was always gonna happen that way. But why,then, all the judgement (from sanctimonious christians and god, himself)?

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by ophiura
Hey journey - for clarification, as it has been confusing me, could you define what is meant by adaptation, micro evolution and macro evolution? I don't want to be like "on YOUR side"

Hopefully it doesn't come across that way. But I think it would help to understand the common ground.
Np. As I've stated, hopefully clearly in this thread, I'm not trying to promote my beliefs. I'm not sure how it all works out.
Adaptaion=micro evolution (in my use of the words). Classic example is the Peppered Moth in England. Before the industrial revolution majority were white (because the lichens that grew on trees were white and they blended in). The black coloration was predated upon much more. During the industrial revolution the lichen began to darken and die. The black form of the Peppered Moth became the dominant coloration as they blended in better.
The species "adapted" to survive. In many ways, Natural Selection.
Macro evolution would be a change in the genotype of the species to produce another species.
That's where I'm hung up at. I just don't see the genetic "trail" of genotypes leading back to primitive ancestors.

 

[geridoc]

That's where I'm hung up at. I just don't see the genetic "trail" of genotypes leading back to primitive ancestors.
If that's the only problem, then problem solved. You need to do some reading in modern evo-devo to get a handle on this, but here's an example: The fruit fly has a gene known as hox that codes for feet and wings, depending on where it is activated in the animal and in the genome (it exists in several places in the genome). A virtually identical gene is found in mice, where it too produces legs (hox defectives have no legs). If you put the mouse gene into the wing of a fruit fly and activate it you get a leg - a fruit fly leg, not a mouse leg. The same gene, in a different setting codes for flight wings, or in others, for club wings, or for left wing or right wing, etc. This illustrates the genetic trail, and how a single gene can serve multiple uses depending on the context in which it is expressed. That is why evo-devo is receiving so much attention now - it serves to explain so many things.

 

[darknes]

Originally Posted by GeriDoc
If that's the only problem, then problem solved. You need to do some reading in modern evo-devo to get a handle on this, but here's an example: The fruit fly has a gene known as hox that codes for feet and wings, depending on where it is activated in the animal and in the genome (it exists in several places in the genome). A virtually identical gene is found in mice, where it too produces legs (hox defectives have no legs). If you put the mouse gene into the wing of a fruit fly and activate it you get a leg - a fruit fly leg, not a mouse leg. The same gene, in a different setting codes for flight wings, or in others, for club wings, or for left wing or right wing, etc. This illustrates the genetic trail, and how a single gene can serve multiple uses depending on the context in which it is expressed. That is why evo-devo is receiving so much attention now - it serves to explain so many things.
How do you explain this identical gene being evolved from completely different phyla? Or was this gene present before the two phyla separated?

 

[clown boy]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Classic example is the Peppered Moth in England. Before the industrial revolution majority were white (because the lichens that grew on trees were white and they blended in). The black coloration was predated upon much more. During the industrial revolution the lichen began to darken and die. The black form of the Peppered Moth became the dominant coloration as they blended in better.
The species "adapted" to survive.
Um... that was a hoax.
1. The moth does not rest on the tree trunks! Exactly two moths have been seen on tree trunks in more than 40 years. Kettlewell (the guy who made this up) GLUED two dead moths on the tree trunk to take his famous photograph that was published in so many textbooks.
2. Moths have no tendency to choose matching backgrounds.
3. Kettlewell's results have not been duplicated in further studies.
4. A shift in population did occur, but it took place well before new lichens grew on polluted trees. A parrellel shift in moth population occurred in the U.S. industrial areas, but there was no change in the lichens.
This is just another example of so-called evolutionary proof that was publisized, proven false, and then quietly deleted.

 

[socal57che]

Originally Posted by rbaldino
Has anyone ever observed God?
Anyone that knew me a few years ago could certainly observe the change that God caused in my life. A few years ago my posts would have looked identical to Ophiura's. I even tried to discount the stories in the Bible that were too far fetched to believe. After asking Jesus into my heart, and seeing the changes that have occured since, I can only conclude that I have, in fact, observed God through Christ. Fulfilled prophecy of the Bible leads me to believe that it is true and can be trusted as the word of God. Much of my fervor on the subject stems from my feeling duped by the education system for not allowing an alternative to Darwin's evolution. Like Oph, I felt that someone had crammed this down my throat. Now I'm on the other side. Not to say that things don't adapt, just can't see new species/creations from old ones. I don't believe the earth is old enough to accomodate evolution that takes millions of years to occur.
I am OK with being labeled a "sheeple" because I personally know the Shepherd.

 

[socal57che]

Hey, Clown Boy. I sent you a PM.

 

[clown boy]

I replied.

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by Darknes
I don't believe in evil. I believe in good and absence of good. To explain this, think of heat; cold doesn't really exist as anything, it's merely the absence of heat (there is either heat or lack of it).
God is pure "good". Everything he is and does is good. Anything that we suppose to be "evil" is really just an absence of God. He never created evil. We create this evil (absence of good) by turning from God through our free will.
(Not sure if any of that made sense

)
thats a good analogy.

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by MIKE22cha
Impossible to prove? Impossible otherwise, I think. Explain how there were giant people talke about in the Bible?
We have giants and pygmies in modern times too. We have families of very tall people and of short people... There are tribes in Africa for example that have very tall people, the same can be said about pygmies.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Clown Boy
Um... that was a hoax.....
That's funny. I'll have to check when I get more time to find out if it is really a hoax. That story is in a couple of my old text books.

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by Darknes
The Big Bang Theory actually gives atheists a tough time. If the size of the Universe were found to be constant (as Einstein wanted to believe), it would be easier to discount a god.
Agreed... there is evidence of an expanding universe... and that the Universe began...I don't know the reasoning behind Einstein's unwillingness to state this..his evidence and theory of gravity and time and space support it.

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by LazyPinoy
i was watching "before the dinosaurs" on the discovery channel....had some persuading things that promoted evolution. u guys should watch it.pretty cool stuff.
that stuff is garbage... all the information is based off of assumptions and imagination... I happened to flip on it and there is no way of knowing the things they hypothesised.

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by reefreak29
yawn i dont think you would believe in creation if God came down from heaven and thumped yoiu on the head .
im done with this thread God bless, btw none of the pictures would down load but it doesnt really matter
Many people would not...

 

[geridoc]

Originally Posted by Clown Boy
Um... that was a hoax.
1. The moth does not rest on the tree trunks! Exactly two moths have been seen on tree trunks in more than 40 years. Kettlewell (the guy who made this up) GLUED two dead moths on the tree trunk to take his famous photograph that was published in so many textbooks.
2. Moths have no tendency to choose matching backgrounds.
3. Kettlewell's results have not been duplicated in further studies.
4. A shift in population did occur, but it took place well before new lichens grew on polluted trees. A parrellel shift in moth population occurred in the U.S. industrial areas, but there was no change in the lichens.
This is just another example of so-called evolutionary proof that was publisized, proven false, and then quietly deleted.
Oh, my!! You just keep cutting and pasting without critically evaluating what you are being told. Take a look at this site for another view of the issue.