Wolfmann
Member
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
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
