What type of evolution

Discussion in 'Religion and Ethics' started by Wolfmann, Aug 31, 2012.

  1. Wolfmann
    Offline

    Wolfmann Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2012
    Messages:
    44
    Thanks Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    East Waboo
    Ratings:
    +10
    Hello

    If this post sounds "preachy" I apologize in advance.

    The big argument against evolution is that most people who don't believe it can't conceive of human beings as "apes" and therefore animals. This is an ancient version which is no longer held by most zoologist (I am one). We tend to look at the modern big picture.

    The Scientific definition of Natural evolution is "The ability of an organism to successfully adapt to it environment" However this only refers to Natural evolution and not physical evolution.

    Before I go to far. An organism whether it is a mold or an elephant has "evolved" when it has successfully adapted to its environment. This may or may not require physical change but it does require some kind of adaptation to the place where it lives over time.

    Physical evolution is defined as I understand it as "An objects ability to reach equilibrium (or steady state?) with its "environment"." I am not sure of the criteria to determine when this has occurred but this type of thing generally refers to astronomical bodies and not objects such as rocks and the like.

    Natural evolution can occur over a long time or a short time. Example In my home state of Wisconsin before the 1930's there was no official record of cardinals in the state. By 1960 they were all over the place. They entered a new habitat and successfully adapted. This is also true of Fox squirrels, black squirrels, alewives, crackles, urban foxes and many many others. In the case of fox squirrels the adaptation was violent. They literally chased greys out of their habitat and took over. For Humans the changed occurred over a very long period of time and was primarily the result of migration and climate/habitat changes.

    The idea that humans are not animals is unjustified from a scientific view when the information gathered is put through the scientific method. Our genes are more than 90% similar to higher apes and others. Our physiology and anatomy is either identical or similar to high apes and other mammals (why do you think freshman biology students use the fetal pig? Because its internal physiology is almost identical to ours), our development in utero shows aspects of almost every vertebrate group except birds and we have all the same characteristics found in other mammals.

    Speaking strictly from a taxonomic perspective we did not "evolve from apes" as described by Darwin. We are a separate family from all other primates HOMINIDAE and it was from these earlier creatures that we as Homo sapiens came to be. But we are primates and part of a larger group known as modern apes.

    Creationists are found of citing Darwin as the only source of evolutionary knowledge or truth. The forget about Leaky, Watson and Crick and others. Darwin did his work in the 1830's and 40's. He published his works in the 1860's.. When this Anglican Deacon did so the information was actually acknowledged by the Anglican Church.

    One last item to think about. If you were trying to explain to ignorant nomadic people how the world came about, how would you do it? According to some Theologians you would do it in the manner described in the first chapters of Genesis. If Genesis is read as a historical document taking into account the times and people that existed then, Genesis is a very good description of the big bang both types of evolution.

    Sorry for the length of this

    The only thing constant about nature is that it is constantly changing.

    Thanks

    Wolfman 24
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  2. CrusaderFrank
    Online

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,259
    Thanks Received:
    14,919
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +37,056
    "If man evolved from monkeys and apes, why do we still have monkeys and apes?" -- George Carlin
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. The Irish Ram
    Offline

    The Irish Ram LITTLE GIRL / Ram Tough

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    Messages:
    9,981
    Thanks Received:
    2,371
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    diagonally parked in a parallel universe
    Ratings:
    +7,837
    Wolfman, I have a couple of questions. People go to the electric chair on the basis of DNA testing. It is suppose to be extremely precise. Given that, why does the % number of our relationship to primates keep changing?

    And if we are that closely related, why can't we use chimp organs or tissue to replace our own? We use pig, or even cow. We reject monkey parts like heart valves etc.

    The DNA of a child will only have 94% of it's parents DNA. That is a 6% difference. Yet an organ transplant can be done between them. But not with the monkey, that supposedly, is a closer match to humans than even the human offspring. Why is that?
     
  4. rdean
    Online

    rdean rddean

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Messages:
    60,152
    Thanks Received:
    6,898
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    chicago
    Ratings:
    +14,998
    Republicans deny that people could be related to apes. Yet, at the Republican Convention, delegates threw peanuts at a black CNN camerawoman. Very similar to apes throwing around shit at the zoo.

    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=st4UBJOecXc]Little rock zoo monkey threw poop at us[/ame]
     
  5. The Irish Ram
    Offline

    The Irish Ram LITTLE GIRL / Ram Tough

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    Messages:
    9,981
    Thanks Received:
    2,371
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    diagonally parked in a parallel universe
    Ratings:
    +7,837
    Democrats throw fits.
     
  6. Mad Scientist
    Offline

    Mad Scientist Deplorable Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    23,940
    Thanks Received:
    5,212
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Ratings:
    +7,683
  7. Gadawg73
    Offline

    Gadawg73 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    Messages:
    14,426
    Thanks Received:
    1,603
    Trophy Points:
    155
    Location:
    Georgia
    Ratings:
    +1,677
    Jokes are funny! That was a good one.
    Ever heard of SCIENCE?
     
  8. Gadawg73
    Offline

    Gadawg73 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    Messages:
    14,426
    Thanks Received:
    1,603
    Trophy Points:
    155
    Location:
    Georgia
    Ratings:
    +1,677
    One only has to read the Dover case against the school board up in Pa. to see the valid evidence supporting evolution.
    In that case a conservative Republican Bush appointed Federal Judge ruled that the creation/ID crowd that advised the school board up there were frauds, liars and made up the evidence as they went.
    Their entire case was pitiful and not one ounce of evidence.
    Read that ruling and know how valid the theory of evolution is.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  9. Wolfmann
    Offline

    Wolfmann Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2012
    Messages:
    44
    Thanks Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    East Waboo
    Ratings:
    +10
    In terms of what science has determined to be the percentage I don't believe that the numbers have changed that much in the last 15 to 20 years. What I have heard since the early 90's from reputable objective sources is in the high 90"s. As for your question about substitutions this is not really my field but as I was aware there are parts that can be used from Primates just as there are parts that can't in pigs and cows.

    As for the 6% you speak of I don't think that is accurate but again this is not my field. I am a wildlife biologist not a molecular genetist.

    When I talk about Natural evolution I use the modern scientific definition "The ability of an organism to successfully adapt to its environment." this involves many different processes some short some not. I do not get hung up on apes v man. I follow the yellow brick road of scientific research. Darwin was then this is now. Science has "evolved" beyond anything Darwin in his Anglican deacon mind could have imagined. Yes Darwin was an Anglican deacon who had a strong believe in God as do I.

    FYI to use Darwin to explain modern concepts of evolution is like using the idea of using leeches to explain the modern concepts of healing the sick. that was then this is now.

    NO offense but here is a question for you. If we are suppose to be separate in God's creation how is it that we can use these organs? Common sense tells us that there must be a reason other than the obvious comeback of many conservatives. It is God's will. I believe in God but that is a cop out. That phrase is too overused to support something that a person cannot think of a good answer for.

    I appreciated your post it was well constructed and thought out which is better than alot of the ones I get. Thank you

    Wolfman 24
     
  10. CrusaderFrank
    Online

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,259
    Thanks Received:
    14,919
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +37,056
    It only happened in David Shusters imagination
     

Share This Page