Evolution II

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Moiraine: Quote: Originally posted by Yorick: Unlike the atheist who HAS to believe in evolution, or hold to no scientificly accepted theory, I have a choice as to which theory I accept. But this is a CHOICE for me that does not conflict with my CHOICE to love God.

Isn't 'believing in evolution or hold to no theory' a choice ?

Besides, an atheist can also propose a new theory. [img]smile.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]That's why I clarified with "scientificly accepted theory." I too can make my own theory. I could also go with the two minutes old universe theory also.

But at this point there are only two theories with any weigth scientifically, and they are evolution theory and it's many branches; and creationism with it's branches.

I'm still wondering at this though:

If natural selection works as Larry said. How is it that the originally unmutated species survives along with the mutated species?

How did a species that had cold blood develop the ability to make it's blood warm? Why did the cold blooded creatures, and the warm blooded mutants BOTH survive if natural selection is supposed to weed out the kind better suited to it's environment?

This hasn't happened once or twice, but the whole way through. We still have insects, jellyfish and molluscs, arachnids, reptiles, fish, avians, mammals. Every link in the chain.

Unless each and every creature has a "common ancestor" that we're conveniently yet to find evidence of.

The nasal shape situation I can understand. But how does a single being celled become a multicelled being?

Greater yet, if you are an atheistic evolutionist, how does an inanimate speck of dust just become a life form by chance? DARWIN, when he put forth his theory DID NOT SUGGEST IT COULD ALL HAPPEN BY CHANCE.

Evolutionists who put that idea forth are in direct contradiction with the theories originator.

[ 02-25-2003, 10:05 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[The Hunter of Jahanna]

originaly by Yorick in the first evolution thread.

Oh come on... you don't believe in being in the right place at the right time?? Fortunate chance, or the benefit of being born into privelege? Serendipity? A person born with more inventiveness, brains, and entrepeneurial skill could be languishing in India because of external circumstances, not how advanced they are as a human. If you can even say that one human is more advanced than the next!

I dont believe in being in the right pace at the right time or being born into privelege. Your parents can leave you all the money in the world. If you arent smart enough to survive you will be broke and homeless in no time.I am saying that some people are more advanced than others. Look at the people you meet in your daily life. Not every one is smart or strong. To say that all people are at the same place in terms of smarts and potential is to blatantly ignore what is seen in daily life. Not all humans are smart enough to be Bill Gates or Stephen Hawking.

This is what I was talking about earlier. Following an evolutionist mindset can open up justification for and acceptance of injustices. No point in helping out the weak or oppressed, because if they're meant to survive they will. En-masse or individually. Right? Look at India, founded on the caste system where everyone has earned their lot in life owing to past misdeeds or heroics. The main people working for the oppressed, sick or needy are christian organisations like Mother Theresas. Groups outside the view of self perptuated reality.

In a way that is true. If a population is going to survive it should be able to do so on its own merits.Look at dinosars. When the ice age or commet or whatever it is that killed them hit they pretty much died out en masse. The only things that survived were mammals with furry coats and warm blood. If any of them were capable of survival they would have survived. To use your India example, that shows what happens when evolution and natural selection are slowed down. Since more of the oppressed, sick and needy survive than would if there was no aid, India is faceing a huge over population problem. They have too many mouths and not enough food. When something like that happens in nature the surplus dies off because of starvation. With humans the surplus will be fed and allowed to be a continueing strain on the ecology of the area for no better reason that the fact that they are human.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by The Hunter of Jahanna: I am saying that some people are more advanced than others. Look at the people you meet in your daily life. Not every one is smart or strong. To say that all people are at the same place in terms of smarts and potential is to blatantly ignore what is seen in daily life. Not all humans are smart enough to be Bill Gates or Stephen Hawking.

I could not disagree more. Every human is smart enough to be either of those two. It comes down to focus and direction of physical and mental energy. Because the brain controls every action, a sucessful athlete has a sucessful brain - motivation, control, finesse etc all require mental strength.

I accept some have APTITUDES for certain skills more than others, but these are not defined limitations.

Every healthy human should be able to sing for example. Mental and psychological inhibitions prevent this. If it's true in one field it can be true in others.

I do not accept that a smart person like Einstein is more advanced than the next. Especially when someone like Einstein is deficient in other areas, like relationships.

[Moiraine]

Originally posted by Yorick: I'm still wondering at this though: If natural selection works as Larry said. How is it that the originally unmutated species survives along with the mutated species? How did a species that had cold blood develop the ability to make it's blood warm? Why did the cold blooded creatures, and the warm blooded mutants BOTH survive if natural selection is supposed to weed out the kind better suited to it's environment?

That is easy to answer. Groups of individuals separated and evolution didn't happen the same way for both groups. It may be that the separated groups had to face different environmental conditions. It may also be that the separated groups stiill had to face similar conditions, but in each group a specific evolution proved to be a valid solution. There can be several good solutions to a problem, you know. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Originally posted by Yorick: This hasn't happened once or twice, but the whole way through. We still have insects, jellyfish and molluscs, arachnids, reptiles, fish, avians, mammals. Every link in the chain. Unless each and every creature has a "common ancestor" that we're conveniently yet to find evidence of.

I have watched a documentary about a paleontologist who is currently digging lots of fossils from the cambrian era - you know, the era when the explosion of life is supposed to have been happening. What this guy said was remarkable was that all the different fossils he found were all following widely different organisational shapes. While most animals now - fish, birds, insects, mammals - all show variations on a same basic organization consisting of a torso, a head holding the sensory devices and the brain, two forelegs, two hindlegs. Isn't that interesting ? [img]smile.gif[/img]

Also interesting is that if you take the gene responsible for growing en eye at the right place from a fly embryo and replace it by the similar gene from a mouse ... the fly will still grow a perfect fly eye at the right fly location. We can all share genes ! [img]smile.gif[/img]

Originally posted by Yorick: The nasal shape situation I can understand. But how does a single being celled become a multicelled being?

But Yorick, what IS life ? Basically, what life is is the ability to reproduce. The single cell divided by accident, and the mutation caught. Same mechanism as for any other mutations ever happening. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Originally posted by Yorick: Greater yet, if you are an atheistic evolutionist, how does an inanimate speck of dust just become a life form by chance? DARWIN, when he put forth his theory DID NOT SUGGEST IT COULD ALL HAPPEN BY CHANCE. Evolutionists who put that idea forth are in direct contradiction with the theories originator.

Again, the inanimate speck of dust became a life form because it divided and by doing so it became able to reproduce. No more no less. Not much sentience in that, I'll accord you that - but it is the very basis of life. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Originally posted by Yorick: I could not disagree more. Every human is smart enough to be either of those two. It comes down to focus and direction of physical and mental energy. Because the brain controls every action, a sucessful athlete has a sucessful brain - motivation, control, finesse etc all require mental strength. Yorick, you cannot possibly believe that all men are created equal....give me a break, I can show you any number of people that are definately not equal in all aspects or even most....and these are within rubber band shooting distance of my office. I accept some have APTITUDES for certain skills more than others, but these are not defined limitations. Every healthy human should be able to sing for example. Mental and psychological inhibitions prevent this. If it's true in one field it can be true in others. Sing yes but not carry a tune, ever watch American Idol? I do not accept that a smart person like Einstein is more advanced than the next. Especially when someone like Einstein is deficient in other areas, like relationships.

If you really believe that there are not obvious and readily apparent limitations on some people and not others, and that some people are more well endowed than others, you are ignoring reality.

[ 02-25-2003, 10:30 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Moiraine]

Originally posted by MagiK: If you really believe that there are not obvious and readily apparent limitations on some people and not others, and that some people are more well endowed than others, you are ignoring reality.

How come that when confronted to the simple neutral statement that all people are singular and different from each other, the human brain HAS to create a hierarchy ?

[Timber Loftis]

Yet More interesting reading - took me forever to catch up from just 14 hours ago. Some notes:

Wonderful TREATISE, Moraine.

As an atheist, I want to point out that I don't *have* to believe in evolution. I believe in evolution because it makes a lot of sense to me and in the world I live in. I look at the evolution of a horse over time and I see it as the beautiful wonderful random chance choas of gene replication meets environmental adaptability process by which life continues.

I choose not to believe in God because the existence of a god simply makes no sense to me. I'm just that kind of person. When I'm hiking and I come across a perfectly cylindrical hole in a rock, I look up for a tree or cliff that the rock may have sat under for years where falling water dug the hole. I don't look up to the sky and wonder what spirit swooped down and put the rock with the hole here. I'm not being snide, I just don't personify the world around me, nor do I think any eternal being like or similar to man man created the ground I stand on. The ground seems eternal enough for me all on its own.

And no, evolutionists don't have The Big Bang as a creation story. I, in fact, think the Big Bang is likely part of a recurrent pattern of expansion and contraction of the material in the eternal universe.

I see religion as a social tool that developed for the good of communities. I think it is a good rock for most people to base their moral code on. I think it answers many otherwise unanswerable questions and fears people do not want to address everyday. I am also an intellectual elitist who thinks that while others need this, I do not. I am fine with accepting my mortality, choosing to live a good life anyway, and moving on past the God issue without too much worry. I feel I will immediately cease to be upon death, and will be nothing but food for worms unless some kind soul has my carcass burned according to my wishes. Not that I'd know.

To continue the debate regarding evolution, I'd like to throw in a wonderful website I found detailing that evolution is both fact and theory:
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html

Let's back off and go at this whole thing bit by bit. Creationists, what parts of genetics do you accept.

1. Do you accept recombination and the Punnet Square used by Mendel - the matrix for taking parent genes and combining them to predict offspring genetics and percentages?

2. What about mutation - that sometimes there is a random screw-up in the genes, making the offspring a "mutation" that has a characteristic falling outside the Punnet Square prediction?

3. What about genetic drift? For an online workshop experiment on this, see: http://www.biology.arizona.edu/evolu...ift/drift.html

Finally, I'll point out that I see evidence in the modern day:
In bacteria and viruses, where the generations occur fast enough that we can trace the genetic drift and sometimes witness evolution. The AIDS virus has mutated over 8 times since it was discovered in the US in 1984. In the past 10 years, hospitals have discovered "new" germs in hospitals that are immune to alcohol sterilization.

In invasive species, I see natural selection at work. Zebra mussels have no natural predators on this continent. They have overpopulated most Great Lakes, with as many as 10,000 found in a growing colony with 1 native mussel buried at the bottom. They have so overpopulated lake Champlain that it is being depleted of oxygen and nutrients, affecting the other life in the Lake. Before man set foot on Hawaii the largest mammal was a bat. Since man has introduced invasive species, such as cats, Hawaii has lost nearly half its avian population to extinction. These are human-made problems of course, but they evidence how an animal "new" to an environment can have favorable characteristics. Thankfully, when such mutations occur in nature, there is only one of the new species, and it takes time to become dominant, giving the environment time to reach equilibrium.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Moiraine: Quote: Originally posted by MagiK: If you really believe that there are not obvious and readily apparent limitations on some people and not others, and that some people are more well endowed than others, you are ignoring reality.

How come that when confronted to the simple neutral statement that all people are singular and different from each other, the human brain HAS to create a hierarchy ? [/QUOTE]Exactly. Why does "different" become "better" or "worse"? WHy is the pursuit of money more highly regarded by some than the puruit of happiness.

It's like how humans rate a dogs intelligence by how obedient it is. Yet we would deride a human that slavishly followed the leader as a dog does.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

I have to admit I'm impressed at how this discussion has progressed. While a lot of the same arguments have been presented, we have managed to avoid the "hamster wheel" effect of just going round and round saying the same thing over and over again. I've seen many new - and interesting - perspectives and ideas put forth so far.

I especially want to address comments made by Moiraine, Lord Kathan, and Draconia.

Moiraine - I was also very impressed with your opening treatise in this second thread. That was very elegantly written and thought provoking. You put forth good, sound logic for your reasoning and - surprisingly - I found myself agreeing with most of what you said. I still don't believe apes and man have a common ancestor - I believe we have a common Creator who made us similar for reasons of His choosing that we are only just now beginning to understand. In that light, I certainly don't find the concept of a "shared heritage" between the two species as threatening as I may have before.

Lord Kathan - I think your observation about Christians becoming more "accepting" of evolution is correct. As has been pointed out many times now...evolution encompasses much more than just the origination of our species. I think Christians may be realizing that they can "agree" with some aspects of evolution without abandoning their belief in Creation. Science and religion do not have to be "mutually exclusive". In fact, quite the opposite is true.

Draconia - You hit the mark dead-on with your comments in the original thread. Religion and science are not mutually exclusive. Why? Because GOD is the one who determined what the Laws of Science would be when He created the universe. The universe, Earth, and our ecology are incredibly intricate and complex . Yet there are specific patterns of behavior and interaction directing this vast arena. These interactions follow specific rules and guidelines which mankind has been able to "discover" and study for himself - thus gaining a better understanding of the world around him. There are still "unexplained phenomena" - because we haven't "learned" everything yet...but once we do, we will find the same logical order can be applied to these phenomena as well.

Does this "disprove" the existence of God? Since everything seems to be working just fine on it's own? In my opinion, just the opposite is true. God is the one who created this underlying order. He already knows all the answers. And He has given us the intelligence and aptitude to "discover and learn" these "answers" for ourselves. The very fact that everything DOES seem to be "working just fine" is further proof (to me, anyway) that God does exist - and is content to quietly direct the play of our lives from behind the scenes.

[The Hunter of Jahanna]

Exactly. Why does "different" become "better" or "worse"? WHy is the pursuit of money more highly regarded by some than the puruit of happiness. It's like how humans rate a dogs intelligence by how obedient it is. Yet we would deride a human that slavishly followed the leader as a dog does.

Are you just purposely not seeing the issue here? It isnt about money or happieness, its about preformance. If you take a look at schooling it is clear that not every kid can preform at the same mental or physical level. Not every child is a straight A student. Just because you may not feel you are better than someone who cant read or add 2+2 doesnt mean that you arent. Physical and mental disabilities ,much like diseases, are some of natures tools used to contol populations. A person who can not solve problems and comprehend simple concepts is simmilar to a house cat who can not learn to hunt. If left out in the wild both would die. Humans have upset the balance of nature by removeing most diseases that kill us and keeping alive people who would have died from physical abnormalities if it wasnt for modern medicine.