The Theory of Evolution

[Charles Stucker]

I am a child of God and I was created in His image exactly as the Bible says I was. I am certain though that my wife evolved from monkeys!

Is she an Arab?
That would explain it.

 

[Immanuel]

Yes, they can breed, but the offspring have "issues" to put it mildly. The offspring of a donkey and a horse isn't called a "mule" for no reason. They are nearly always sterile, among other physical problems.

The offspring of a lion and tiger ALWAYS have problems. One that pops up over again is unchecked growth. The genetics between the two species don't line us correctly because they have "diverged" too far. This is why they are considered two seperate species. The same genus, but seperate species.

These are only two cases of many, many divergent "species". The right tries to get around it calling animals that look similiar the same "kind". But it's another excuse.

The difference between science and mysticism:

Science looks at the data and attemps to come up with the best possible theory that fits the data.

Those with occult beliefs already know what they want to believe. When they think they find evidence that supports those supernatural beliefs, they have an "ah ha" moment. Everything else is ignored or dismissed.

Well, can you point to me where two cats can breed and come up with something else? Can you show me where two horses can breed and come up with something else?

With the lion/tiger you still have two cats and the product is a cat. With the horse/donkey you still have two horses and the product is a horse.

If you are pointing fingers at me, and I don't think you are, I have never dismissed evolution. I simply think there are still questions to be answered.

Immie

Evolution isn't about seperate species reproducing with each other.

It's about a single species, population divided and then seperated, by either land or water, and over time, adapting to two seperate environments and evenually, the adaptations become so great, animals from the seperated populations can no longer reproduce with each other.

The lion and the tiger are prime examples of the "transition". Give them another half million years and they probably won't be able to breed at all. The evolving adaptations will have created changes too great in the genetic code for there to be a possibility of successful offspring. That is what evolution is all about.

You were the one that brought up lions/tigers horses/donkeys, not me.

So then explain how dogs become whales and how that is different than what you said:

Prehistoric Whales - The Story of Cetacean Evolution

A common theme in evolution is that large animals descend from much smaller ancestors--and nowhere is this more true than in the case of multi-ton sperm and gray whales, whose ultimate forebears were small, dog-sized mammals that prowled the riverbeds of Asia 50 million years ago. Even more intriguingly, whales are a case study in the gradual evolution of mammals from fully terrestrial to fully aquatic lifestyles, with corresponding adaptations (elongated bodies, webbed feet, etc.) at various key intervals along the way.

I actually like the page below as it shows the progression from "dog" to whale. But the fact that those "beasts" in the middle existed is not proof of the progression from "dog" to whale.

whales

And again, I am not contending that cats can't breed different kinds cats. However, it is a huge leap to go from dog to whale. Impossible?... nothing is impossible with God. As I have said before, my contention is not with "evolution" but rather "abiogenesis".

The predessors of the Chimp "evolving" into chimps and humans? Possible. But why must we assume that humanity and chimp started from the same unknown ancestors and that the two species were not individually formed as separate species from the very beginning?

Either you have to admit that there were different species created from something or you eventually get down to that single cell animal that has miraculously evolved into all forms of life (and to each type of specialized cell needed by life) out of a "primordial soup".

Immie

 

[midcan5]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1fGkFuHIu0[/ame]

 

[Toronado3800]

Immanuel, it is a MUCH slower process.

Imagine if you have red hair and your wife is blond. All things being equal 1/2 your 4 kids will carry genes to make them blond and the others red heads. So you get 2 and 2.

After a few generations you have 100 breeding pairs of your offspring. 1/2 on one side of a river, the other half on another each side 50% blond. Oops, the river gets deeper and they can no longer interbreed. Now random changes will start to occur in the populations. Especially quickly if a predator on one side for some reason starts to eat red heads.

Soon as you know it the red head gene will almost entirely disappear from the side with the predator and now you have a genetic difference. Build up enough of them that interbreeding is impossible and you'll have two separate species.

 

[Toronado3800]

Either you have to admit that there were different species created from something or you eventually get down to that single cell animal that has miraculously evolved into all forms of life (and to each type of specialized cell needed by life) out of a "primordial soup".

Exactly. In essence I believe the single cell "animal" has evolved over 4.5 Billion years. Now don't go quoting me that there was only 1 single cell animal or any of that but it is in essence what I believe.

Heck, I'll even admit some superior being could have set the big bang in motion. Who knows. I don't find the two trains of thought exclusive

 

[rdean]

Well, can you point to me where two cats can breed and come up with something else? Can you show me where two horses can breed and come up with something else?

With the lion/tiger you still have two cats and the product is a cat. With the horse/donkey you still have two horses and the product is a horse.

If you are pointing fingers at me, and I don't think you are, I have never dismissed evolution. I simply think there are still questions to be answered.

Immie

Evolution isn't about seperate species reproducing with each other.

It's about a single species, population divided and then seperated, by either land or water, and over time, adapting to two seperate environments and evenually, the adaptations become so great, animals from the seperated populations can no longer reproduce with each other.

The lion and the tiger are prime examples of the "transition". Give them another half million years and they probably won't be able to breed at all. The evolving adaptations will have created changes too great in the genetic code for there to be a possibility of successful offspring. That is what evolution is all about.

You were the one that brought up lions/tigers horses/donkeys, not me.

So then explain how dogs become whales and how that is different than what you said:

Prehistoric Whales - The Story of Cetacean Evolution

A common theme in evolution is that large animals descend from much smaller ancestors--and nowhere is this more true than in the case of multi-ton sperm and gray whales, whose ultimate forebears were small, dog-sized mammals that prowled the riverbeds of Asia 50 million years ago. Even more intriguingly, whales are a case study in the gradual evolution of mammals from fully terrestrial to fully aquatic lifestyles, with corresponding adaptations (elongated bodies, webbed feet, etc.) at various key intervals along the way.

I actually like the page below as it shows the progression from "dog" to whale. But the fact that those "beasts" in the middle existed is not proof of the progression from "dog" to whale.

whales

And again, I am not contending that cats can't breed different kinds cats. However, it is a huge leap to go from dog to whale. Impossible?... nothing is impossible with God. As I have said before, my contention is not with "evolution" but rather "abiogenesis".

The predessors of the Chimp "evolving" into chimps and humans? Possible. But why must we assume that humanity and chimp started from the same unknown ancestors and that the two species were not individually formed as separate species from the very beginning?

Either you have to admit that there were different species created from something or you eventually get down to that single cell animal that has miraculously evolved into all forms of life (and to each type of specialized cell needed by life) out of a "primordial soup".

Immie

Oh that darn fossil record. Perhaps in another 20 million years, that horse would be the size of an elephant. It works the other way to. Over time, animals will grow smaller. We know this based on fossils found on islands. It's all about adapting to the envirnment.

Cats and dogs had a distant ancestor.

The say that chimps and humans began seperately at the very beginning is suggesting they were somehow "shimmered" magically into being. We know this to not be true. There has never been a documented event ever concerning the "supernatural".

Comparing Chimp, Human DNA

It might help to do some reading to clear up those misconceptions about evolution. The fun thing about learning is it's fun. Expecting people to answer your questions on a blog when you already don't want to believe the truth is never good. Better to read what the experts have to say, study it, find out the information, and then if you come to the conclusion they are wrong, you will at least be working from a position of knowledge.

 

[Immanuel]

Either you have to admit that there were different species created from something or you eventually get down to that single cell animal that has miraculously evolved into all forms of life (and to each type of specialized cell needed by life) out of a "primordial soup".

Exactly. In essence I believe the single cell "animal" has evolved over 4.5 Billion years. Now don't go quoting me that there was only 1 single cell animal or any of that but it is in essence what I believe.

Heck, I'll even admit some superior being could have set the big bang in motion. Who knows. I don't find the two trains of thought exclusive

Sorry, I'm holding you to exactly 4.5 Billion years give or take an hour or two.

Evolution isn't about seperate species reproducing with each other.

It's about a single species, population divided and then seperated, by either land or water, and over time, adapting to two seperate environments and evenually, the adaptations become so great, animals from the seperated populations can no longer reproduce with each other.

The lion and the tiger are prime examples of the "transition". Give them another half million years and they probably won't be able to breed at all. The evolving adaptations will have created changes too great in the genetic code for there to be a possibility of successful offspring. That is what evolution is all about.

You were the one that brought up lions/tigers horses/donkeys, not me.

So then explain how dogs become whales and how that is different than what you said:

Prehistoric Whales - The Story of Cetacean Evolution

A common theme in evolution is that large animals descend from much smaller ancestors--and nowhere is this more true than in the case of multi-ton sperm and gray whales, whose ultimate forebears were small, dog-sized mammals that prowled the riverbeds of Asia 50 million years ago. Even more intriguingly, whales are a case study in the gradual evolution of mammals from fully terrestrial to fully aquatic lifestyles, with corresponding adaptations (elongated bodies, webbed feet, etc.) at various key intervals along the way.

I actually like the page below as it shows the progression from "dog" to whale. But the fact that those "beasts" in the middle existed is not proof of the progression from "dog" to whale.

whales

And again, I am not contending that cats can't breed different kinds cats. However, it is a huge leap to go from dog to whale. Impossible?... nothing is impossible with God. As I have said before, my contention is not with "evolution" but rather "abiogenesis".

The predessors of the Chimp "evolving" into chimps and humans? Possible. But why must we assume that humanity and chimp started from the same unknown ancestors and that the two species were not individually formed as separate species from the very beginning?

Either you have to admit that there were different species created from something or you eventually get down to that single cell animal that has miraculously evolved into all forms of life (and to each type of specialized cell needed by life) out of a "primordial soup".

Immie

Oh that darn fossil record. Perhaps in another 20 million years, that horse would be the size of an elephant. It works the other way to. Over time, animals will grow smaller. We know this based on fossils found on islands. It's all about adapting to the envirnment.

Cats and dogs had a distant ancestor.

The say that chimps and humans began seperately at the very beginning is suggesting they were somehow "shimmered" magically into being. We know this to not be true. There has never been a documented event ever concerning the "supernatural".

Comparing Chimp, Human DNA

It might help to do some reading to clear up those misconceptions about evolution. The fun thing about learning is it's fun. Expecting people to answer your questions on a blog when you already don't want to believe the truth is never good. Better to read what the experts have to say, study it, find out the information, and then if you come to the conclusion they are wrong, you will at least be working from a position of knowledge.

Again, you can point out the difference between Eohippus and the modern day horse, but both still look like horses to me.

If you ask me it is better to read what the experts say and then ask questions.

Here we are having a discussion. I have not expected you to answer any of my question except for in the framework of this discussion and who says I don't want to believe the truth? You provide irrefutable evidence and we can go from there. In the meantime, you have not provided proof. You have provided what you believe to be true and you are absolutely unwilling to accept that anyone can possibly disagree with you or God forbid ask for more proof. The "evidene" you have presented is plausible. I can see what you are saying and I can understand the ideas you are presenting, but eventually you have to prove to me (if you want me to accept your hypothesis) that all life began from the primordial soup and then that the "beginning" was still not caused by a higher intelligence.

It is not that I am unwilling to accept the truth. It is that I don't think it has been presented yet. Nor do I believe that we can ever attain the knowledge we seek. That does not however mean we must stop asking questions.

Immie

 

[geauxtohell]

At any rate, like Behe, you can find dissident scientists that will argue anything. The more important issue is that the overwhelming majority of scientists do accept the fossil record. Thus, "scientific consensus" trumps any few people you can dredge up to support your point (even if they don't really support it).

History has proved over and over again, that "scientific consensus" isn't always correct.

That sometimes the lone dissident scientist is proven right and goes down in history books.

While the believers in the current scientific consensus of the day are basically forgotten.

I don't disagree with that, but it's correct the vast majority of the time. We only hear about the times when it has been wrong (i.e. Haeckel).

At this point, 150 years later, the basics of evolution are firmly established and are constantly reaffirmed by emerging sciences (genetics). The finer points are still up for debate and being established, as they probably always will be.

 

[geauxtohell]

when some folks butcher their science to the extent that can be witnessed on this thread, i could appreciate how some may respond with skepticism about the theory. but i've witnessed that these skeptics arent sincere students either. they say they want to get downtown, but wont be bothered to step in the taxi.

for folks like cecilie who bring up some bare points in the living record of evolution, some bare points in their deductive ability are mutually exposed. again its the absolutes that radicals on either side of the arguement work with which dont function in science or in our regular lives, well, my life.

That sums it up for me. The anti-evolution crowd are rarely, if ever, "sincere students". That's a great term. They aren't interested in actually discussing the theory, they are just interested in casting stones. That's easy to do.

I am more than happy to discuss the matter with people who are truly interested, and I can respect a different viewpoint. However, If a person is going to bash evolution, it would be nice if they presented a workable alternative. Even saying: "I believe God created the world in six days about 6000 years ago" is more helpful than people who just sit on here and demand proof and then ignore it.

On the other hand, I don't appreciate athiests using evolution to bash Christianity. The theory was never intended to be theological. Just scientific. The existence and hand of God or whatnot, is beyond the scope of evolution.

 

[geauxtohell]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1fGkFuHIu0

Don Exodus is excellent.

But, uh oh, his videos are on "Youtube" so they will just be ignored.

I appreciate his work though. When he's not busy being a medical student (or Doctor by now), he devotes his time and energy into debunking the wild eyed claims of the deniers.

 

[Sunni Man]

Oh that darn fossil record. Perhaps in another 20 million years, that horse would be the size of an elephant. It works the other way to. Over time, animals will grow smaller. We know this based on fossils found on islands. It's all about adapting to the envirnment.

Just more nonsense from the evolution "true believers"

The drawings show supposedly the evolution of the horse.

In reality, they are all horses, just different sizes.

The small horse on the left side of the picture is the most comical of the group.

They show him almost dog like with spots on his fir.

Pure fantasy!!

There is ZERO evidence that this animal had spots on it's fir, or even what color it was.

The evolution crowd just makes it up as they go

 

[rdean]

Oh that darn fossil record. Perhaps in another 20 million years, that horse would be the size of an elephant. It works the other way to. Over time, animals will grow smaller. We know this based on fossils found on islands. It's all about adapting to the envirnment.

Just more nonsense from the evolution "true believers"

The drawings show supposedly the evolution of the horse.

In reality, they are all horses, just different sizes.

The small horse on the left side of the picture is the most comical of the group.

They show him almost dog like with spots on his fir.

Pure fantasy!!

There is ZERO evidence that this animal had spots on it's fir, or even what color it was.

The evolution crowd just makes it up as they go

Zero evidence?

First Proof: Ancient Birds Had Iridescent Feathers

Proving you wrong is one of the more pleasurable things about this board.

 

[geauxtohell]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRdWZlmA178[/ame]

I figured this thread needed a soundtrack.

 

[GEORGE ORWELL]

Creation versus Evolution seems to be all about the result, the articles that come off the revolving machine and nothing about the one, or those who run it. It also seems to be a mostly Christian worry, who in turn base their ideology on Theologians, who in turn base their Theology on Authority and Power. Any Theologian straying from the fold is banished. But how can one confide in a Christian-Jewish God whose first error seems to be to make man? Not long after man's Creation God's Wrath came upon man because God had found man evil throughout. And so, God destroyed almost all men via a Flood. Only a few survived. Soon God gets the idea he wants to have a Chosen People for himself, and in pops Abraham, who is ordered not to work his own land and place, but vanish from there to a Promised Land of Milk and Honey which would be given his offspring provided he killed off, Genocide all the inhabitants. All would be killed except for virgin babes and girls, who would now be duly raped. Even trees were to be destroyed, and towns burned to the ground. Out of this barbaric story, we are next told, would come a Messiah to rescue man, not from God who had caused all these evils, but from a Devil, who now gets the blame for it all. Soon Witch Trials start and men, women, and children get burned up. Endless of Crusades and persecutions filled out the butchery. If Evolution is wrong, what can we say of the Morals of such a failure God? If I was convinced by Creationists that Evolution is error, what encouragement would I have to worship a God of cruelties and endless failures?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

I find it hard to believe that a dog can become a whale, or was it supposed to be the other way around?

Thank you for making it clear you have no idea what you're talking about. Now noone will mistakenly believe you have a fucking clue.

I always struggle with the abiogenesis theory because to me it takes more faith to believe that then to believe that God started all of this

First you must prove that something exists that violates all laws of physics

 

[☭proletarian☭]

For evolution to work, there needs to be a mechanism to pass on genetic code to offspring. In the process of a life span, genetic code is modified. When two genetically different people produce a child, it is genetically distinct from it's parents. Occasionally there are mutations (i've already listed one mutation that is absolutely devastating for homozygous persons that requires the modification of one base pair) and they are passed on through out history if they aren't too deleterious. The sum of several mutations (microevolution) leads to novel phenotypes (macroevolution) that create distinct and novel species. Underlying all of this is the cells ability to mutate.

Metal is an element. Elements don't have DNA. Elements don't self replicate. So elements don't accumulate mutations and become "new elements".

It's an absurd analogy.

And yet you drew it....

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Why does one have to assume that Charles Darwin was 100% correct and that people who believe that God or another intelligent being, created life or even the universe have to be 100% incorrect. I have always believed that Charles Darwin was at least partially correct when he presented his theory and that there is room for "expansion" of the theory.

It doesn't have to be an either/or situation despite what the church proclaims.

For instance, I find it hard to believe that a dog can become a whale, or was it supposed to be the other way around? But, I can find daily evidence of dogs and cats having been bred into different species; still dogs and cats just not the same breed.

I always struggle with the abiogenesis theory because to me it takes more faith to believe that then to believe that God started all of this, but who says God didn't start it all and set evolution into motion? IF God did create it all, we know he had to include all the other scientific laws such as gravity so why is it so hard to believe that he put evolution into motion as well?

Immie

Note: I'm not stating that you assume such, geauxtohell, just posing the question.

What about lions and tigers being able to breed. Or horses and donkeys. Of course, the offspring isn't quite "right". Because of our understanding of genetics, we can pinpoint when they began to "drift" from the oringinal species which is why the genetics don't line up correctly. Ain't science grand?

Actually, I did not know lions and tigers could be bred together successfully but it doesn't surprise me.

What about it? Lions are big cats... Tigers are big cats. Horses are equine... donkeys are equine?

It is not like lions are cats and tigers are mutts... er sorry dog lovers.

Immie

*yawn*

Only the scientifically illiterate think speciation is clearly delineated and cut and dry. Those familiar with the subject know how complex evolution is. I'll sum it up in two words: ring species.

 

[geauxtohell]

For evolution to work, there needs to be a mechanism to pass on genetic code to offspring. In the process of a life span, genetic code is modified. When two genetically different people produce a child, it is genetically distinct from it's parents. Occasionally there are mutations (i've already listed one mutation that is absolutely devastating for homozygous persons that requires the modification of one base pair) and they are passed on through out history if they aren't too deleterious. The sum of several mutations (microevolution) leads to novel phenotypes (macroevolution) that create distinct and novel species. Underlying all of this is the cells ability to mutate.

Metal is an element. Elements don't have DNA. Elements don't self replicate. So elements don't accumulate mutations and become "new elements".

It's an absurd analogy.

And yet you drew it....

What?

I didn't make the analogy. I pointed out why it was stupid. I didn't even have to go into thermodynamics to do so.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

My bad. I misread the properly nested quotations >.<

 

[geauxtohell]

My bad. I misread the properly nested quotations >.<

N/P. I've done that more times than I can count.

For the record, of all the dumb-assed arguments made by the anti-evolution crowd, I consider that one to be the most idiotic.