Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

ruiner · Feb 24, 2004, 06:31 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (theophysics,)

When Darwin came up with this THEORY<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Why emphasise the word "theory"? Scientific theories are a lot different from the everyday usage of the word "theory". There's a THEORY of gravitation for example, but this doesn't mean gravity is in any doubt does it? (i hope not)

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
He was ashamed to say the least about what he had done when he was on his death bed[FACT]<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
No, that's wrong, a myth. Not that I would care what Darwin said, but I do know that one there is a myth

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
The New York Times said, a million mathematicians and a million engineers in a million years will never get man to fly. In two weeks two bicycle makers flew. So take what this world gives to you, but always question.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
A newspaper said that, not science. But sure scientists do get things wrong a lot, but are you seriously claiming that they never get anything right, that everything science has ever said is in doubt? Are you saying we cannot be certain about anything? Seems rather paranoid to me. I will go with what current science says because what it says is based on the best current knowledge. Sure it might change in the future, but going against what current science says for something that is more shaky is just illogical.
Have you ever known science to go on a complete U-Turn of understanding in an entire field? I don't. Instead what seems to happen are small areas within a field turn out wrong, and often just require a little changing. No dramatic changes have ever occured in science that creationism would require happen to biology

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Never assume something is just because a "scientist" says it is. Believe me.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
By all means check the evidence out yourself. The evidence I have seen shows common descent of life on earth is beyond doubt. Evolution, despite its inabilities, is the only theory I can think of that even comes close to explaining how common descent occured

shunyadragon · Feb 27, 2004, 07:08 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (theophysics,)
]

When Darwin came up with this THEORY he had no idea it would turn into what is has become. He was ashamed to say the least about what he had done when he was on his death bed[FACT]. And as a physics major I do understand the percentages of how our earth came about. But you know what, who can take what people say now and commit to that forever. Thats why most of all of the papers on the origins of life are all theories. And they will always remain that way, unless the public decides to accept it. Which is still only personal beliefs. Think of it this. The New York Times said, a million mathematicians and a million engineers in a million years will never get man to fly. In two weeks two bicycle makers flew. So take what this world gives to you, but always question. Never assume something is just because a "scientist" says it is. Believe me.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Do you by any chance have any evidence or sources to support this . . . of He was ashamed to say the least about what he had done when he was on his death bed[FACT]. I am not sure what this sentence means??????????

How do you understand the percentages of how the earth 'came about'????????

As a physics major do you understand the uses of the word 'theory' in science. Theories are the foundation of the knowledge of science.

**Pooeypants** · Feb 27, 2004, 08:56 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (shunyadragon,)

Do you by any chance have any evidence or sources to support this . . . of He was ashamed to say the least about what he had done when he was on his death bed[FACT]. I am not sure what this sentence means??????????

How do you understand the percentages of how the earth 'came about'????????

As a physics major do you understand the uses of the word 'theory' in science. Theories are the foundation of the knowledge of science.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
This guy reckons we can see the Flag pole from the first moon landing with telescopes on earth...I think we know what to make of that.

gluadys · Feb 28, 2004, 06:46 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (AnonT,)
So, we have a message from thousands of years before any form of physics or biology was around telling us basically how the universe was created and the basic order in which life evolved. Kinda miraculous, huh?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

It' s a great concept, Anon T, but unfortunately there is a lot wrong with it.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
According to evolution, plants came extremely early on the evolutionary scale, before anything we'd consider animals, having evolved almost 4 billion years ago, within a few hundred million years of the time that the first bacteria evolved. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

No, according to the geological record, life appeared on earth around 3.8 billion years ago (maybe earlier--but we haven't discovered anything earlier yet). And that life was simple prokaryotic cells (archea and bacteria). No plants. Nothing more complex appeared for over 2 billion years. Then we start finding eukaryotic monocells like ameobae and ciliates and dinoflagellates. Still no plants unless you consider microscopic green algae to be plants.

If by "plants" you mean photosynthetic organisms with roots and stems i.e. terrestrial plants, then animals appeared long before any plants appeared. Algae, on the other hand, did appear before animals, so if you consider green algae to be "plants", then, yes, plants appeared before animals.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
According to evolution, the first animals evolved out of the sea, and the first major era (epoch? I think that's the word they use) of life on earth was water-based.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Do you mean evolved "in" the sea? In that case you are right. From the time the first animals appeared some 600 to 700 million years ago and through the Cambrian period (540 to 490 million years ago) all animal life appears to have been marine life. In the next period (Ordovician 490-440 mya) there is evidence that some species became adapted to fresh water environments. But it is not until the following period (Silurian 440-420mya) that there is any evidence of animal life on land: centipedes and spiders. Terrestrial vertebrate life (amphibians and reptiles) did not develop until the Devonian (420 to 340 mya). So animals have an evolutionary record of some 300 million years before ever setting foot on land.

Terrestrial plant life also became abundant in the Devonian period, and in fact, the following period (Carboniferous) is so named because the plant forests of the time became the coal and oil we use today as fossil fuels.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
According to evolution, the next epoch was mostly the dinosaurs.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Actually the word you are looking for is "era". Geological history is divided into 5 eras: Hadean (when the earth's crust was still too hot to support life), Proterozoic (when most life was monocellular), Paleozoic (literally "old life" beginning with the Cambrian period, Mesozoic (middle life--the time of the dinosaurs) and Cenozoic (which includes the present). Eras are sub-divided into periods. Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, etc. are all period of the Paleozoic. Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous are the periods of the Mesozoic. And the cenozoic is divided into Tertiary and Quaternary periods. Periods can be subdivided still further into epochs, though this usually is done only for the Cenozoic. Words ending in "-ene" like Miocene, Oligocene and Pleistocene refer to different epochs of the Quaternary period. Then you can get down to an even finer sub-division known as an "age".

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
The last epoch was/is mammals, with humanity being an extremely recent (less than a million years old, with less than 10,000 years of "modern" man) evolution.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

The dinosaurs (except for birds) became extinct at the end of the Cretaceous period, with mammals dominating the large-animal niches since then. But humanity is much more than a million years old. Possibly as much as 3.5 million years. Hominids may have emerged as much as 7 million years ago. As for modern man, Homo sapiens has been around for close to 50,000 years, not just 10,000 years. 10,000 years ago is the end of the Pleistocene epoch (Ice Age) and not long after that the first complex civilizations begin to appear.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
As for dinosaurs vs. birds, there's actually a growing number of paleontologists who are arguing that dinosaurs were more likely birds than reptiles. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

As mentioned earlier, you have it backward about. Birds closely resemble one type of dinosaur and it is now recognized that they are descended from that dinosaur group. But there were all sorts of dinosaurs which were not bird-like at all.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Now we have another disparity: The Bible says that plants were created before the sun, moon, and stars. Well, consider that plants first evolved almost 4 billion years ago; that's about 1/4 to 1/3 of the age of the galaxy. Many of the stars in the sky hadn't fully formed yet, we may not have had a moon yet, and we may not have had as many planets in the solar system as we do now. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

There are two reasons for the bible putting plants on Day 3 while the sun does not appear until Day 4, neither of them having anything to do with mix-ups or mistakes or evolution or chronology. The first reason is that the biblical writer thought of vegetation as being part of the earth rather than living things. So he had no conceptual problem of plants needed sunlight to live. The second reason is that the biblical writer did not organize the creation days according to chronology, but according to a theme. The six days of creation are organized into two sets of three, with each of the first three sorting the chaos of dark waters into a structural order (Day/Night, Heaven/Earth, Ocean/Dry Land) and the last three populating each of these structures. So, since Day one is the day of separating Day from Night, its counterpart in the second cycle populates Day and Night with lights. Similarly, with Heaven and Earth separated on Day 2 (and Earth still being fully covered with water) the counterpart, Day 5 populates heaven and earth (birds and sea creatures). Day 3 separates dry land from the waters, so its counterpart, Day 6, is the day for populating the land.

Cosmologists tell us the whole solar system was formed together about 4.5 billion years ago. The sun and all the planets formed at the same time. It is believed the moon was formed from a part of the earth which separated from the planet in that early Hadean era, when the crust was still soft and molten and a serious gravitational event could rip part of it away. So there are no huge time differentials between the creation of the sun, its planets and any of their satellites.

gluadys · Feb 28, 2004, 06:49 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (shunyadragon,)
Creationism has two faces, 'Creation Science' and 'Theistic Evolution'. Both have several versions. But 'Creation Science' is the most controversial and at odds with science.

The difference between 'Thesistic Evolution and Atheistic Evolution is more a question of faith and abstract arguements on the necessity of the role of a Creator in the picture.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Right, and now we also have Intelligent Design which is somewhere between. ID is trying to be a big tent and actually has on its fringes some young earth creationists and some theistic evolutionists.

But while most of their spokespeople are clearly uncomfortable with YEC, and do not disavow evolution as the major source of species diversity, they still seem to me to be more creationist than the majority of theistic evolutionists. It would help if they did not imitate so many of the tactics of avowed creationists i.e. trying to put spokes into the theory of evolution rather than researching evidence for their own.

Genuine theistic evolutionists (among whom I count myself) don't feel the need to dispute the TofE in any way.

gluadys · Feb 28, 2004, 06:56 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (theophysics,)
Its not like we didn't have enough time to evolutionize, it took millions of years.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Most of us get discombobulated by large numbers. I know people who can't distinguish hundreds from thousands. A million years is a long, long time. But it takes a thousand million years to make just one billion years. (If you were to design a time line on which one billion years = 1 meter, then one million years would be represented by just one millimeter or 1/25th of an inch) When working with evolutionary concepts, it is really important to grasp the magnitudes of time scales. A million years is a blink of the eye in a geological or evolutionary perspective.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Before you answer think more about it. If we all came from similar organisms why is there such diversity on our world? <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

That is what the theory of evolution explains. But it is not an easy theory to master, because it is so comprehensive. It requires learning how variations occur within individuals in a population, how these spread through a population, how some variations become established as various breeds in a population, how such varieties can become separate species from the primary gene pool, what roles are played in this scenario by mutation, genetic sortation, mendelian inheritance, natural selection, genetic drift and environmental changes. And then how this whole scenario replicates itself again and again and again and again to generate more and more diversity over time. To fully understand the theory ( and I don't claim to) one has to have some mastery of molecular biology, DNA sequencing, variability, biological inheritance, ecology, population genetics and paleontology just for starters.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Why wouldn't humans have evolved into flyers, and underwater swimmers to better fit their enviroment? If you say that is stupid than give me an explanation why! <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

No honest question is stupid. The answer, as intimated elsewhere, is in our evolutionary history. Our early hominid ancestors adapted to the environment they were in, and that was not one that called for flying or swimming (though there is an "aquatic ape" theory as one suggestion for why we lost the thick pelt common to our hominid cousins. I don't think it is given much credence though.)

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
The world is just to perfect to believe in evolution from single celled organisms. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Could you explain what you mean by this? What do you mean, first, by "too perfect"? I know the world is a marvelous place containing many wonders. And among these are the amazing ways in which life forms have adapted so perfectly to their environment and each other. But is it not just as easy to find many examples of natural imperfection as well?

And then what do you mean by "to perfect to believe in evolutin from single celled organisms"?

gluadys · Feb 28, 2004, 07:05 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Edge)

*The theory of evolution mandates that ALL change is by chance. Any design at all; even by aliens, obviates evolution.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Not at all. Human interaction with other species, as by breeding them, is part of evolution too. It couldn't happen without evolution.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
*Creation science says God made it the way he wanted it.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

But it doesn't allow that God may have wanted evolution.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
*Anthropic principle: An observation that it seems that the entire world, solar system, universe is designed especial for man, or man for it.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

There are several versions of the anthropic principle. I don't know that any of them say the universe is designed especially for humanity. But some do say it was especially designed for living things. Others say that a life-supporting universe is one of many possible outcomes of an initial event such as the big bang, and--lucky for us--this universe hit the jackpot and developed into to life-supporting universe.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
*Intelligent design says that since it seems that so much of life was designed, it must be. The identiy of the designer is left to the individual.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Not a very good line of evidence. Sounds more like wishful thinking. It must be so because I think it must be so.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
*Theistic evolution: (Worst of both worlds) It's not evolution, because it was designed by God, and it's not Creation because God is a (albeit powerful, but) bumbling idiot who could only guide evolution.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Best of both worlds, IMHO. It is evolution and it is creation. It is a misrepresentation to picture the God of the theistic evolutionist as a bumbling idiot. IMO it takes a great deal more vision, wisdom, patience and love to nurture and guide an evolutionary process than to zap things into instant existance. Just as it takes more vision, wisdom, patience and love to guide and nurture a real living child than to play with a doll.

In fact, it seems to me that much of the creationist problem with evolution and other facets of modern science, is that creationists seem much more comfortable with the Newtonian concept of the universe as mechanism. Science has found that concept to be inconsistent with reality. Whatever it is, the universe is not a huge clockwork with God's hands on the levers.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Creation is not evolution. Evolution mandates a godless accident, Creation mandates a creation by God. Equating them does a disservice to the both of them.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Evolution is not accidental. It is an understandable and even manipulable process. It certainly does not mandate godlessness. Nor does it deny creation or a creator God.

gluadys · Feb 28, 2004, 07:10 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (StoneWT,)
http://www.drdino.com is a young-earth creation website. It is run by Kent Hovind. The site has dozens of hours of his radio show (free to isten to or download) covering many, many topics. He directly addresses the claims of old-earth 'creationists' and evolutionists. It also has a great collection of free articles.

Answers in Genesis is another excellent young-earth creation site.

If you want to see and evaluate the claims of the young-earth creationists, the above two sites are excellent starting points.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

And after reading them you should go to talkorigins list of creationist claims to see how all of them have been rebutted by science.

gluadys · Feb 28, 2004, 07:15 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Edge,)

The theory of evolution states that the progression from simple to complex forms is a result of random (chance) mutations followed by natural selection. If anything had a hand in it, it is DESIGN, not Evolution. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

1. Evolution is not about a progression from simple to complex forms. If that is what you thought, you thought wrong. Evolution is not about progression of any kind. It is about adaptation and diversity. Whether adaptation occurs through more complexity, less complexity or is a sideways move into change of form or behaviour with no difference in level of complexity is a matter of what works for survival. The idea that evolution is a progress toward some undefined perfection is a long outdated view based on Victorian era prejudices and has no place in the modern theory of evolution.

2. Evolution is not the result of random mutations + natural selection. It is a result of variation + changing environments + natural selection. Mutation is only one source, and possibly not the most important source, of variation. Furthermore, variation (from mutation or other causes) + natural selection, is insufficient to enable evolution. The point of evolution is to adapt to an environment. You can have all the variation and natural selection you want and get no change if a species is already well-adapted to its environment.

3. That design is incompatible with evolution (or vice versa) is an assertion that needs to be backed up with evidence.

gluadys · Feb 28, 2004, 07:22 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (ruiner,)

No I think chance has a lot to do with specific evolutionary events happenning in the past. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

There is certainly place for accident in evolutionary history. The classic example is the meteor whose impact with the earth did away with non-avian dinosaurs. Without that accident, it is unlikely that mammals would emerge as dominant large species.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Why for example did some primates millions of years ago split off to found the homnid lineage? It certainly wasn't the force of natural selection that drove this to happen, it would have required a chance first step. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

It is often difficult to speak of evolutionary processes (especially adaptation) without introducing inappropriate notions of intention. Certainly no primates ever split off from a parent group with the intention of founding the hominid lineage. And I don't expect you meant that. The simple and more accurate answer is that most species establish local population groups, and with less gene flow through the species as a whole, and more gene flow confined within the local group, different groups tend to accumulate different characteristics. In one such group, the characteristics we recognize as hominid began to appear and were incorporated as an adaptation to local conditions.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Perhaps some of our ancestors by chance were forced to leave their traditional forest habitat for one on the grasslands. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

"Lucy" (Australopithecus afarensis) is one of the early hominids. The pelvic structure shows adapation to both arboreal and upright terrestrial locomotion. This "dual adaptation" is fairly typical in transitional species. It doesn't require being forced into a new environment. Simply being able to enter it and exploit it, and gradually to leave the old one behind.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
In this new environment there was a benefit in walking upright and skeletons adapted to be better suited to do this over time. Perhaps the needed adaption of the spinal column caused the emergance of better vocal system, and language and larger brains developed as a result. Who knows, but I am sure that language, bipedularism and large brains didn't happen simply because they provided an advantage.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Right. They didn't happen because they provided an advantage. But because they did provide an advantage, they were selected and preserved and incorporated into the species when they happened.

gluadys · Feb 28, 2004, 07:26 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Edge)

I din't claim evidense of design in my post. I simply state that if anything OTHER than chance created mutations/variation then you have design, not evolution.

Example: I like dogs. I like dogs so much that I create a new breed by crossing terriers with great danes. This is not evolution. This is design (mine)

Example 2: I like dogs, but I wish they were more like cats. So I splice their genes to create cat-dogs. This too is not evolution, but design.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Both are examples of evolution. You could not design these innovations without using evolution to do so.

However, it should be pointed out that, especially with animals, these are highly unlikely methods of generating new species. (Plants often generate new species through cross-breeding followed by polyploidy, but animals are not as adept at this procedure.)

More typically, new species are (in Darwin's words) "strongly marked and permanent variations" of the ancestral species. It does not require either cross-breeding or gene splicing to make a new species. It does not even require mutations.

shunyadragon · Feb 28, 2004, 08:00 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (gluadys @ QUOTE=ruiner,)

No I think chance has a lot to do with specific evolutionary events happenning in the past.

There is certainly place for accident in evolutionary history. The classic example is the meteor whose impact with the earth did away with non-avian dinosaurs. Without that accident, it is unlikely that mammals would emerge as dominant large species.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I do not view the catastrophic events as necessarilly 'accidental'. The earth has apparently experienced a number of catastrophic events involving meteorites that are probably a part of the nature of the solar system and cyclic in nature. Words like 'by chance' and 'accident' are not appropriate for what we know now of the course of existence.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
It is often difficult to speak of evolutionary processes (especially adaptation) without introducing inappropriate notions of intention. Certainly no primates ever split off from a parent group with the intention of founding the hominid lineage. And I don't expect you meant that. The simple and more accurate answer is that most species establish local population groups, and with less gene flow through the species as a whole, and more gene flow confined within the local group, different groups tend to accumulate different characteristics. In one such group, the characteristics we recognize as hominid began to appear and were incorporated as an adaptation to local conditions. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Notions of intent or design should be kept separate from science of the evolving existence. They tend to cloud the important issues of science and create a bias in the conclusions.

I believe in God, but in my concept the creation cannot be separated from the creator like the clock and the clock maker. Intent and design are anthropomorphic in a clock maker concept. The attributes we see in the universe are simply our view and not reality.

'God is not a chess player with the white pieces.
God is the sea and we are the fishes.'

Your posts are well thought out and very accurate. They reflect a considerable depth of knowledge. You probably a scientist or an educator.

gluadys · Feb 29, 2004, 10:02 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (shunyadragon,)
I do not view the catastrophic events as necessarilly 'accidental'. The earth has apparently experienced a number of catastrophic events involving meteorites that are probably a part of the nature of the solar system and cyclic in nature. Words like 'by chance' and 'accident' are not appropriate for what we know now of the course of existence.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

They are "accidental" in the same sense as two cars meeting in a collision unintended by either driver are "accidental". That does not mean of course that they are without traceable causes.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
I believe in God, but in my concept the creation cannot be separated from the creator like the clock and the clock maker. Intent and design are anthropomorphic in a clock maker concept. The attributes we see in the universe are simply our view and not reality.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

It's an attractive view, but I don't share it. I do believe God is intimately connected with the universe and immanent as well as transcendant. I also believe that even though our view of reality is limited by the constraints of our senses, it is not a false view---only partial.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Your posts are well thought out and very accurate. They reflect a considerable depth of knowledge. You probably a scientist or an educator.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Thank you. Educator is right. Christian educator to be exact. I am an amateur when it comes to science, but I have a particular interest in this debate as I consider creationism to be a harmful Christian heresy.

**Pooeypants** · Mar 1, 2004, 10:42 am

Do you take paleontology and genetics as a hobby? I wish all theists were as well informed as you are.

gluadys · Mar 1, 2004, 08:59 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Pooeypants,)
Do you take paleontology and genetics as a hobby?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I've read a fair bit in paleontology and evolution. But my only exposure to genetics was a basic 101 overview of Mendel's findings. Still, most people don't even understand the basics, so I don't find that I need to get into situations where the genetic situation is much more complicated.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
I wish all theists were as well informed as you are.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Me too. But I think most (even well-educated theologians) see science as either boring or difficult. They just don't have the interest or the time ot become well-informed. I take the time because I'm interested.

shunyadragon · Mar 1, 2004, 09:54 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (shunyadragon,)
I do not view the catastrophic events as necessarilly 'accidental'. The earth has apparently experienced a number of catastrophic events involving meteorites that are probably a part of the nature of the solar system and cyclic in nature. Words like 'by chance' and 'accident' are not appropriate for what we know now of the course of existence.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (gluadys)

They are "accidental" in the same sense as two cars meeting in a collision unintended by either driver are "accidental". That does not mean of course that they are without traceable causes. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Car accidents are not part of a cyclic pattern of the solar system. Recent studies indicate that the Mexico impact crator was not the direct cause of the extinction. The timing was a little early. It was probably one of several impacts that caused the extinction over several hundred thousand years.

On large and small scales most of the events we see in the geologic and evolutionary record appear to be cyclic. This does not mean 'intent'. The problem with considering the course of existence in terms of 'cause and effect' is that both cause and effect apper to be inseperably linked in a cyclic way. Like the question which came first the chicken or the egg. The question can not in reality be answered, because both the chicken and the egg are part of a greater cycle.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (gluadys)

It's an attractive view, but I don't share it. I do believe God is intimately connected with the universe and immanent as well as transcendant. I also believe that even though our view of reality is limited by the constraints of our senses, it is not a false view---only partial. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

False or true it is a partial view, that is the key. It is also from our point of view. In my view the relationship is also an intimate and transcendent relationship, but it is not defined from the human point of view as is the contemporary beliefs of Judeo/Christian/Islamic beliefs.

Transcendent means beyond human understanding and that's the key to my viewpoint.

Jun 2, 2004, 11:05 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Pooeypants,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Pooeypants,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-shunyadragon,

Do you by any chance have any evidence or sources to support this . . . of He was ashamed to say the least about what he had done when he was on his death bed[FACT]. I am not sure what this sentence means??????????

How do you understand the percentages of how the earth 'came about'????????

As a physics major do you understand the uses of the word 'theory' in science. Theories are the foundation of the knowledge of science.

This guy reckons we can see the Flag pole from the first moon landing with telescopes on earth...I think we know what to make of that.[/b][/quote]

Are you kidding me? Yeah I guess that makes sense, we can see galaxies billions of miles away but we can see a flag pole on the moon. They have even zoomed in on the lunar tracks left behind.

**Pooeypants** · Jun 3, 2004, 05:10 am

Quote:

Originally posted by theophysics,

Are you kidding me? Yeah I guess that makes sense, we can see galaxies billions of miles away but we can't see a flag pole on the moon. They have even zoomed in on the lunar tracks left behind.

I hope you know enough physics to look up something called resolution. We can resolve galaxies from (several billion miles is barely the distance between the Sun and say Jupiter btw) millions of lightyears away because they are huge objects...literally tens of thousands of lightyears across.
The only photos we have of lunar tracks are the ones taken by the astronauts that landed there.

Sonart · Jun 4, 2004, 08:57 pm

Quote:

I din't claim evidense of design in my post. I simply state that if anything OTHER than chance created mutations/variation then you have design, not evolution.

Example: I like dogs. I like dogs so much that I create a new breed by crossing terriers with great danes. This is not evolution. This is design (mine)

Example 2: I like dogs, but I wish they were more like cats. So I splice their genes to create cat-dogs. This too is not evolution, but design.

Then I'm not clear that you understand the concept of evolution. Minor mutations and variations within species happen all the time and quite randomly. Some are taller, some shorter, some faster, some a bit darker, some a bit lighter, etc. etc. Those variations that result in an increased chance of survival, and thus an increased chance of passing on those genes, will continue. Those variations that make survival more difficult will eventually fade away. All this over generations after generations after generations.

Now one of the biggest engines of evolutionary change has been environmental change. Continenents shift, temperatures rise and fall, seas come and go. So you might have two seperate populations of the same species, but the local environment of one population goes through very slow changes and thus that population of species will also go through very slow changes as their natural variations produce traits that aid survival in the new conditions.

That is not design, that is random variation to random environments mixed with natural selection. Simple as pie.

shunyadragon · Jun 7, 2004, 09:29 am

There are other factors which greatly influence speciation once you have diversity an ability to adapt to new environments.

The first factor is apparently there are times when the environment is very favorable and presures of selection are weak. This allows for large populations with great diversity.

The next is opportunities to move into other environments with different conditions and food supplies. This where subspecies can be seen commonly developing today in many situations like grasses and birds.

Time and isolation are next. The subspiecies adapt to new foods and environments over time and change further and become distinct species.

Feb 24, 2004, 06:31 pm	#81 (permalink) (top)
ruiner Igneous Magma Posts: 180	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (theophysics,) When Darwin came up with this THEORY<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Why emphasise the word "theory"? Scientific theories are a lot different from the everyday usage of the word "theory". There's a THEORY of gravitation for example, but this doesn't mean gravity is in any doubt does it? (i hope not) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by He was ashamed to say the least about what he had done when he was on his death bed[FACT]<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> No, that's wrong, a myth. Not that I would care what Darwin said, but I do know that one there is a myth </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by The New York Times said, a million mathematicians and a million engineers in a million years will never get man to fly. In two weeks two bicycle makers flew. So take what this world gives to you, but always question.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> A newspaper said that, not science. But sure scientists do get things wrong a lot, but are you seriously claiming that they never get anything right, that everything science has ever said is in doubt? Are you saying we cannot be certain about anything? Seems rather paranoid to me. I will go with what current science says because what it says is based on the best current knowledge. Sure it might change in the future, but going against what current science says for something that is more shaky is just illogical. Have you ever known science to go on a complete U-Turn of understanding in an entire field? I don't. Instead what seems to happen are small areas within a field turn out wrong, and often just require a little changing. No dramatic changes have ever occured in science that creationism would require happen to biology </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Never assume something is just because a "scientist" says it is. Believe me.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> By all means check the evidence out yourself. The evidence I have seen shows common descent of life on earth is beyond doubt. Evolution, despite its inabilities, is the only theory I can think of that even comes close to explaining how common descent occured

Feb 27, 2004, 07:08 am	#82 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (theophysics,) ] When Darwin came up with this THEORY he had no idea it would turn into what is has become. He was ashamed to say the least about what he had done when he was on his death bed[FACT]. And as a physics major I do understand the percentages of how our earth came about. But you know what, who can take what people say now and commit to that forever. Thats why most of all of the papers on the origins of life are all theories. And they will always remain that way, unless the public decides to accept it. Which is still only personal beliefs. Think of it this. The New York Times said, a million mathematicians and a million engineers in a million years will never get man to fly. In two weeks two bicycle makers flew. So take what this world gives to you, but always question. Never assume something is just because a "scientist" says it is. Believe me.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Do you by any chance have any evidence or sources to support this . . . of He was ashamed to say the least about what he had done when he was on his death bed[FACT]. I am not sure what this sentence means?????????? How do you understand the percentages of how the earth 'came about'???????? As a physics major do you understand the uses of the word 'theory' in science. Theories are the foundation of the knowledge of science. The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .

Feb 27, 2004, 08:56 am	#83 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,549	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (shunyadragon,) Do you by any chance have any evidence or sources to support this . . . of He was ashamed to say the least about what he had done when he was on his death bed[FACT]. I am not sure what this sentence means?????????? How do you understand the percentages of how the earth 'came about'???????? As a physics major do you understand the uses of the word 'theory' in science. Theories are the foundation of the knowledge of science.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> This guy reckons we can see the Flag pole from the first moon landing with telescopes on earth...I think we know what to make of that. War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Feb 28, 2004, 06:46 pm	#84 (permalink) (top)
gluadys Molten Ash Posts: 28	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (AnonT,) So, we have a message from thousands of years before any form of physics or biology was around telling us basically how the universe was created and the basic order in which life evolved. Kinda miraculous, huh?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> It' s a great concept, Anon T, but unfortunately there is a lot wrong with it. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by According to evolution, plants came extremely early on the evolutionary scale, before anything we'd consider animals, having evolved almost 4 billion years ago, within a few hundred million years of the time that the first bacteria evolved. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> No, according to the geological record, life appeared on earth around 3.8 billion years ago (maybe earlier--but we haven't discovered anything earlier yet). And that life was simple prokaryotic cells (archea and bacteria). No plants. Nothing more complex appeared for over 2 billion years. Then we start finding eukaryotic monocells like ameobae and ciliates and dinoflagellates. Still no plants unless you consider microscopic green algae to be plants. If by "plants" you mean photosynthetic organisms with roots and stems i.e. terrestrial plants, then animals appeared long before any plants appeared. Algae, on the other hand, did appear before animals, so if you consider green algae to be "plants", then, yes, plants appeared before animals. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by According to evolution, the first animals evolved out of the sea, and the first major era (epoch? I think that's the word they use) of life on earth was water-based.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Do you mean evolved "in" the sea? In that case you are right. From the time the first animals appeared some 600 to 700 million years ago and through the Cambrian period (540 to 490 million years ago) all animal life appears to have been marine life. In the next period (Ordovician 490-440 mya) there is evidence that some species became adapted to fresh water environments. But it is not until the following period (Silurian 440-420mya) that there is any evidence of animal life on land: centipedes and spiders. Terrestrial vertebrate life (amphibians and reptiles) did not develop until the Devonian (420 to 340 mya). So animals have an evolutionary record of some 300 million years before ever setting foot on land. Terrestrial plant life also became abundant in the Devonian period, and in fact, the following period (Carboniferous) is so named because the plant forests of the time became the coal and oil we use today as fossil fuels. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by According to evolution, the next epoch was mostly the dinosaurs.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Actually the word you are looking for is "era". Geological history is divided into 5 eras: Hadean (when the earth's crust was still too hot to support life), Proterozoic (when most life was monocellular), Paleozoic (literally "old life" beginning with the Cambrian period, Mesozoic (middle life--the time of the dinosaurs) and Cenozoic (which includes the present). Eras are sub-divided into periods. Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, etc. are all period of the Paleozoic. Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous are the periods of the Mesozoic. And the cenozoic is divided into Tertiary and Quaternary periods. Periods can be subdivided still further into epochs, though this usually is done only for the Cenozoic. Words ending in "-ene" like Miocene, Oligocene and Pleistocene refer to different epochs of the Quaternary period. Then you can get down to an even finer sub-division known as an "age". </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by The last epoch was/is mammals, with humanity being an extremely recent (less than a million years old, with less than 10,000 years of "modern" man) evolution.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The dinosaurs (except for birds) became extinct at the end of the Cretaceous period, with mammals dominating the large-animal niches since then. But humanity is much more than a million years old. Possibly as much as 3.5 million years. Hominids may have emerged as much as 7 million years ago. As for modern man, Homo sapiens has been around for close to 50,000 years, not just 10,000 years. 10,000 years ago is the end of the Pleistocene epoch (Ice Age) and not long after that the first complex civilizations begin to appear. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by As for dinosaurs vs. birds, there's actually a growing number of paleontologists who are arguing that dinosaurs were more likely birds than reptiles. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> As mentioned earlier, you have it backward about. Birds closely resemble one type of dinosaur and it is now recognized that they are descended from that dinosaur group. But there were all sorts of dinosaurs which were not bird-like at all. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Now we have another disparity: The Bible says that plants were created before the sun, moon, and stars. Well, consider that plants first evolved almost 4 billion years ago; that's about 1/4 to 1/3 of the age of the galaxy. Many of the stars in the sky hadn't fully formed yet, we may not have had a moon yet, and we may not have had as many planets in the solar system as we do now. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> There are two reasons for the bible putting plants on Day 3 while the sun does not appear until Day 4, neither of them having anything to do with mix-ups or mistakes or evolution or chronology. The first reason is that the biblical writer thought of vegetation as being part of the earth rather than living things. So he had no conceptual problem of plants needed sunlight to live. The second reason is that the biblical writer did not organize the creation days according to chronology, but according to a theme. The six days of creation are organized into two sets of three, with each of the first three sorting the chaos of dark waters into a structural order (Day/Night, Heaven/Earth, Ocean/Dry Land) and the last three populating each of these structures. So, since Day one is the day of separating Day from Night, its counterpart in the second cycle populates Day and Night with lights. Similarly, with Heaven and Earth separated on Day 2 (and Earth still being fully covered with water) the counterpart, Day 5 populates heaven and earth (birds and sea creatures). Day 3 separates dry land from the waters, so its counterpart, Day 6, is the day for populating the land. Cosmologists tell us the whole solar system was formed together about 4.5 billion years ago. The sun and all the planets formed at the same time. It is believed the moon was formed from a part of the earth which separated from the planet in that early Hadean era, when the crust was still soft and molten and a serious gravitational event could rip part of it away. So there are no huge time differentials between the creation of the sun, its planets and any of their satellites.

Feb 28, 2004, 06:49 pm	#85 (permalink) (top)
gluadys Molten Ash Posts: 28	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (shunyadragon,) Creationism has two faces, 'Creation Science' and 'Theistic Evolution'. Both have several versions. But 'Creation Science' is the most controversial and at odds with science. The difference between 'Thesistic Evolution and Atheistic Evolution is more a question of faith and abstract arguements on the necessity of the role of a Creator in the picture.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Right, and now we also have Intelligent Design which is somewhere between. ID is trying to be a big tent and actually has on its fringes some young earth creationists and some theistic evolutionists. But while most of their spokespeople are clearly uncomfortable with YEC, and do not disavow evolution as the major source of species diversity, they still seem to me to be more creationist than the majority of theistic evolutionists. It would help if they did not imitate so many of the tactics of avowed creationists i.e. trying to put spokes into the theory of evolution rather than researching evidence for their own. Genuine theistic evolutionists (among whom I count myself) don't feel the need to dispute the TofE in any way.

Feb 28, 2004, 06:56 pm	#86 (permalink) (top)
gluadys Molten Ash Posts: 28	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (theophysics,) Its not like we didn't have enough time to evolutionize, it took millions of years.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Most of us get discombobulated by large numbers. I know people who can't distinguish hundreds from thousands. A million years is a long, long time. But it takes a thousand million years to make just one billion years. (If you were to design a time line on which one billion years = 1 meter, then one million years would be represented by just one millimeter or 1/25th of an inch) When working with evolutionary concepts, it is really important to grasp the magnitudes of time scales. A million years is a blink of the eye in a geological or evolutionary perspective. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Before you answer think more about it. If we all came from similar organisms why is there such diversity on our world? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> That is what the theory of evolution explains. But it is not an easy theory to master, because it is so comprehensive. It requires learning how variations occur within individuals in a population, how these spread through a population, how some variations become established as various breeds in a population, how such varieties can become separate species from the primary gene pool, what roles are played in this scenario by mutation, genetic sortation, mendelian inheritance, natural selection, genetic drift and environmental changes. And then how this whole scenario replicates itself again and again and again and again to generate more and more diversity over time. To fully understand the theory ( and I don't claim to) one has to have some mastery of molecular biology, DNA sequencing, variability, biological inheritance, ecology, population genetics and paleontology just for starters. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Why wouldn't humans have evolved into flyers, and underwater swimmers to better fit their enviroment? If you say that is stupid than give me an explanation why! <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> No honest question is stupid. The answer, as intimated elsewhere, is in our evolutionary history. Our early hominid ancestors adapted to the environment they were in, and that was not one that called for flying or swimming (though there is an "aquatic ape" theory as one suggestion for why we lost the thick pelt common to our hominid cousins. I don't think it is given much credence though.) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by The world is just to perfect to believe in evolution from single celled organisms. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Could you explain what you mean by this? What do you mean, first, by "too perfect"? I know the world is a marvelous place containing many wonders. And among these are the amazing ways in which life forms have adapted so perfectly to their environment and each other. But is it not just as easy to find many examples of natural imperfection as well? And then what do you mean by "to perfect to believe in evolutin from single celled organisms"?

Feb 28, 2004, 07:05 pm	#87 (permalink) (top)
gluadys Molten Ash Posts: 28	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Edge) The theory of evolution mandates that ALL change is by chance. Any design at all; even by aliens, obviates evolution.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Not at all. Human interaction with other species, as by breeding them, is part of evolution too. It couldn't happen without evolution. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by* Creation science says God made it the way he wanted it.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> But it doesn't allow that God may have wanted evolution. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by* Anthropic principle: An observation that it seems that the entire world, solar system, universe is designed especial for man, or man for it.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> There are several versions of the anthropic principle. I don't know that any of them say the universe is designed especially for humanity. But some do say it was especially designed for living things. Others say that a life-supporting universe is one of many possible outcomes of an initial event such as the big bang, and--lucky for us--this universe hit the jackpot and developed into to life-supporting universe. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by* Intelligent design says that since it seems that so much of life was designed, it must be. The identiy of the designer is left to the individual.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Not a very good line of evidence. Sounds more like wishful thinking. It must be so because I think it must be so. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by* Theistic evolution: (Worst of both worlds) It's not evolution, because it was designed by God, and it's not Creation because God is a (albeit powerful, but) bumbling idiot who could only guide evolution.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Best of both worlds, IMHO. It is evolution and it is creation. It is a misrepresentation to picture the God of the theistic evolutionist as a bumbling idiot. IMO it takes a great deal more vision, wisdom, patience and love to nurture and guide an evolutionary process than to zap things into instant existance. Just as it takes more vision, wisdom, patience and love to guide and nurture a real living child than to play with a doll. In fact, it seems to me that much of the creationist problem with evolution and other facets of modern science, is that creationists seem much more comfortable with the Newtonian concept of the universe as mechanism. Science has found that concept to be inconsistent with reality. Whatever it is, the universe is not a huge clockwork with God's hands on the levers. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by* Creation is not evolution. Evolution mandates a godless accident, Creation mandates a creation by God. Equating them does a disservice to the both of them.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Evolution is not accidental. It is an understandable and even manipulable process. It certainly does not mandate godlessness. Nor does it deny creation or a creator God.

Feb 28, 2004, 07:10 pm	#88 (permalink) (top)
gluadys Molten Ash Posts: 28	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (StoneWT,) http://www.drdino.com is a young-earth creation website. It is run by Kent Hovind. The site has dozens of hours of his radio show (free to isten to or download) covering many, many topics. He directly addresses the claims of old-earth 'creationists' and evolutionists. It also has a great collection of free articles. Answers in Genesis is another excellent young-earth creation site. If you want to see and evaluate the claims of the young-earth creationists, the above two sites are excellent starting points.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> And after reading them you should go to talkorigins list of creationist claims to see how all of them have been rebutted by science.

Feb 28, 2004, 07:15 pm	#89 (permalink) (top)
gluadys Molten Ash Posts: 28	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Edge,) The theory of evolution states that the progression from simple to complex forms is a result of random (chance) mutations followed by natural selection. If anything had a hand in it, it is DESIGN, not Evolution. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> 1. Evolution is not about a progression from simple to complex forms. If that is what you thought, you thought wrong. Evolution is not about progression of any kind. It is about adaptation and diversity. Whether adaptation occurs through more complexity, less complexity or is a sideways move into change of form or behaviour with no difference in level of complexity is a matter of what works for survival. The idea that evolution is a progress toward some undefined perfection is a long outdated view based on Victorian era prejudices and has no place in the modern theory of evolution. 2. Evolution is not the result of random mutations + natural selection. It is a result of variation + changing environments + natural selection. Mutation is only one source, and possibly not the most important source, of variation. Furthermore, variation (from mutation or other causes) + natural selection, is insufficient to enable evolution. The point of evolution is to adapt to an environment. You can have all the variation and natural selection you want and get no change if a species is already well-adapted to its environment. 3. That design is incompatible with evolution (or vice versa) is an assertion that needs to be backed up with evidence.

Feb 28, 2004, 07:22 pm	#90 (permalink) (top)
gluadys Molten Ash Posts: 28	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (ruiner,) No I think chance has a lot to do with specific evolutionary events happenning in the past. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> There is certainly place for accident in evolutionary history. The classic example is the meteor whose impact with the earth did away with non-avian dinosaurs. Without that accident, it is unlikely that mammals would emerge as dominant large species. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Why for example did some primates millions of years ago split off to found the homnid lineage? It certainly wasn't the force of natural selection that drove this to happen, it would have required a chance first step. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> It is often difficult to speak of evolutionary processes (especially adaptation) without introducing inappropriate notions of intention. Certainly no primates ever split off from a parent group with the intention of founding the hominid lineage. And I don't expect you meant that. The simple and more accurate answer is that most species establish local population groups, and with less gene flow through the species as a whole, and more gene flow confined within the local group, different groups tend to accumulate different characteristics. In one such group, the characteristics we recognize as hominid began to appear and were incorporated as an adaptation to local conditions. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Perhaps some of our ancestors by chance were forced to leave their traditional forest habitat for one on the grasslands. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> "Lucy" (Australopithecus afarensis) is one of the early hominids. The pelvic structure shows adapation to both arboreal and upright terrestrial locomotion. This "dual adaptation" is fairly typical in transitional species. It doesn't require being forced into a new environment. Simply being able to enter it and exploit it, and gradually to leave the old one behind. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by In this new environment there was a benefit in walking upright and skeletons adapted to be better suited to do this over time. Perhaps the needed adaption of the spinal column caused the emergance of better vocal system, and language and larger brains developed as a result. Who knows, but I am sure that language, bipedularism and large brains didn't happen simply because they provided an advantage.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Right. They didn't happen because they provided an advantage. But because they did provide an advantage, they were selected and preserved and incorporated into the species when they happened.

Feb 28, 2004, 07:26 pm	#91 (permalink) (top)
gluadys Molten Ash Posts: 28	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Edge) I din't claim evidense of design in my post. I simply state that if anything OTHER than chance created mutations/variation then you have design, not evolution. Example: I like dogs. I like dogs so much that I create a new breed by crossing terriers with great danes. This is not evolution. This is design (mine) Example 2: I like dogs, but I wish they were more like cats. So I splice their genes to create cat-dogs. This too is not evolution, but design.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Both are examples of evolution. You could not design these innovations without using evolution to do so. However, it should be pointed out that, especially with animals, these are highly unlikely methods of generating new species. (Plants often generate new species through cross-breeding followed by polyploidy, but animals are not as adept at this procedure.) More typically, new species are (in Darwin's words) "strongly marked and permanent variations" of the ancestral species. It does not require either cross-breeding or gene splicing to make a new species. It does not even require mutations.

Feb 28, 2004, 08:00 pm	#92 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (gluadys @ QUOTE=ruiner,) No I think chance has a lot to do with specific evolutionary events happenning in the past. There is certainly place for accident in evolutionary history. The classic example is the meteor whose impact with the earth did away with non-avian dinosaurs. Without that accident, it is unlikely that mammals would emerge as dominant large species.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I do not view the catastrophic events as necessarilly 'accidental'. The earth has apparently experienced a number of catastrophic events involving meteorites that are probably a part of the nature of the solar system and cyclic in nature. Words like 'by chance' and 'accident' are not appropriate for what we know now of the course of existence. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by It is often difficult to speak of evolutionary processes (especially adaptation) without introducing inappropriate notions of intention. Certainly no primates ever split off from a parent group with the intention of founding the hominid lineage. And I don't expect you meant that. The simple and more accurate answer is that most species establish local population groups, and with less gene flow through the species as a whole, and more gene flow confined within the local group, different groups tend to accumulate different characteristics. In one such group, the characteristics we recognize as hominid began to appear and were incorporated as an adaptation to local conditions. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Notions of intent or design should be kept separate from science of the evolving existence. They tend to cloud the important issues of science and create a bias in the conclusions. I believe in God, but in my concept the creation cannot be separated from the creator like the clock and the clock maker. Intent and design are anthropomorphic in a clock maker concept. The attributes we see in the universe are simply our view and not reality. 'God is not a chess player with the white pieces. God is the sea and we are the fishes.' Your posts are well thought out and very accurate. They reflect a considerable depth of knowledge. You probably a scientist or an educator. The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .

Feb 29, 2004, 10:02 pm	#93 (permalink) (top)
gluadys Molten Ash Posts: 28	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (shunyadragon,) I do not view the catastrophic events as necessarilly 'accidental'. The earth has apparently experienced a number of catastrophic events involving meteorites that are probably a part of the nature of the solar system and cyclic in nature. Words like 'by chance' and 'accident' are not appropriate for what we know now of the course of existence. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> They are "accidental" in the same sense as two cars meeting in a collision unintended by either driver are "accidental". That does not mean of course that they are without traceable causes. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by I believe in God, but in my concept the creation cannot be separated from the creator like the clock and the clock maker. Intent and design are anthropomorphic in a clock maker concept. The attributes we see in the universe are simply our view and not reality.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> It's an attractive view, but I don't share it. I do believe God is intimately connected with the universe and immanent as well as transcendant. I also believe that even though our view of reality is limited by the constraints of our senses, it is not a false view---only partial. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Your posts are well thought out and very accurate. They reflect a considerable depth of knowledge. You probably a scientist or an educator.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Thank you. Educator is right. Christian educator to be exact. I am an amateur when it comes to science, but I have a particular interest in this debate as I consider creationism to be a harmful Christian heresy.

Mar 1, 2004, 10:42 am	#94 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,549	Do you take paleontology and genetics as a hobby? I wish all theists were as well informed as you are. War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Mar 1, 2004, 08:59 pm	#95 (permalink) (top)
gluadys Molten Ash Posts: 28	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Pooeypants,) Do you take paleontology and genetics as a hobby?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I've read a fair bit in paleontology and evolution. But my only exposure to genetics was a basic 101 overview of Mendel's findings. Still, most people don't even understand the basics, so I don't find that I need to get into situations where the genetic situation is much more complicated. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by I wish all theists were as well informed as you are.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Me too. But I think most (even well-educated theologians) see science as either boring or difficult. They just don't have the interest or the time ot become well-informed. I take the time because I'm interested.

Mar 1, 2004, 09:54 pm	#96 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (shunyadragon,) I do not view the catastrophic events as necessarilly 'accidental'. The earth has apparently experienced a number of catastrophic events involving meteorites that are probably a part of the nature of the solar system and cyclic in nature. Words like 'by chance' and 'accident' are not appropriate for what we know now of the course of existence. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (gluadys) They are "accidental" in the same sense as two cars meeting in a collision unintended by either driver are "accidental". That does not mean of course that they are without traceable causes. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Car accidents are not part of a cyclic pattern of the solar system. Recent studies indicate that the Mexico impact crator was not the direct cause of the extinction. The timing was a little early. It was probably one of several impacts that caused the extinction over several hundred thousand years. On large and small scales most of the events we see in the geologic and evolutionary record appear to be cyclic. This does not mean 'intent'. The problem with considering the course of existence in terms of 'cause and effect' is that both cause and effect apper to be inseperably linked in a cyclic way. Like the question which came first the chicken or the egg. The question can not in reality be answered, because both the chicken and the egg are part of a greater cycle. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (gluadys) It's an attractive view, but I don't share it. I do believe God is intimately connected with the universe and immanent as well as transcendant. I also believe that even though our view of reality is limited by the constraints of our senses, it is not a false view---only partial. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> False or true it is a partial view, that is the key. It is also from our point of view. In my view the relationship is also an intimate and transcendent relationship, but it is not defined from the human point of view as is the contemporary beliefs of Judeo/Christian/Islamic beliefs. Transcendent means beyond human understanding and that's the key to my viewpoint. The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .

Jun 7, 2004, 09:29 am	#100 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	There are other factors which greatly influence speciation once you have diversity an ability to adapt to new environments. The first factor is apparently there are times when the environment is very favorable and presures of selection are weak. This allows for large populations with great diversity. The next is opportunities to move into other environments with different conditions and food supplies. This where subspecies can be seen commonly developing today in many situations like grasses and birds. Time and isolation are next. The subspiecies adapt to new foods and environments over time and change further and become distinct species. The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .