Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We are still evolving. We haven't yet found that ideal evolutionary niche like cockroaches have. We probably never will because we are changing the environment too quickly.
Ok, Ill humor you. How does evolution explain the first flower? where did it come from? What was its predacessor?
Not avoiding your question here, but I just want to be 100% sure of what you are asking. Are you asking literally about the first flower.... as in the colorful bit at the top of a plant that attracts insects.... or do you actually mean.... as a lot of people do when they say "flower".... the first PLANT of any kind?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug S. 123
why is the human race not continuing to evolve? Or is it?
Good questions in your post here. It shows you are genuinely interested now, unlike many who throw these questions out as accusations rather than inquiry. Well done.
Evolution is continuing in humans, but remember evolution is a slow slow process. You are not going to see massive evolution in your life time. Evolution does not stop as long as the environment does not stop changing. Each feeds the other remember.
What direction we will evolve in is open to question however. Evolution can not be predicted better than simple guess work. This is why the film "Idiocracy"... although a very poor film on every level... is actually quite disturbing as it shows a very plausible possibility for our future.
Many scientists agree that most of the evolution we will see in our species will be in and around our immune systems. Evolution is notable in many other places however. We here in the west use a lot of milk from cows. The chinese do not for example. As a consequence they have lost their ability to break down cows milks successfully and so much of their race is lactose intolerant. This is an example of relatively recent evolution in our species.
However having said all that, evolution in our species has definitely been slowed. The reason for this is our ability to counter selection criteria. Those who genetically have bad eyesight, such as myself, are no longer at selection disadvantage because we invented glasses. Those with genetic deficiencies such as diabetes do not die, because we have discovered insulin. People like Stephen Hawking survive and contribute to society, and successfully reproduce because our technology accounts for the massive disadvantages the man faces. Those in cold climates have clothing.
Evolution requires there to be selective pressures. The more we counter those pressures using intelligence and technology, the slower evolution will be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug S. 123
Evolution says that birds evolved from reptiles so why then, are there still reptiles in the same places on earth as birds? Do they not inhabit the very same envirments?
This is one of the most common errors the lay man makes regarding evolution. The "If X evolved from Y, why is there still X" error. There are two answers for this...
Firstly it is very rare that X evolved from Y. What you will find is that X and Y both evolved from an earlier Z which is now gone. That is how evolution mostly works. So when you hear people say "If humans evolved from apes, why is there still apes?" they are 100% wrong. Humans did not evolve from Apes. Both humans and apes evolved from an earlier ape like creature now extinct.
Secondly in the cases where X DID evolve from Y, there is no requirement anyway for Y to go away. Look at things like "Ring Species". What happens is that some part of Y gets seperated from the rest of Y. For now geographic seperation is enough to think about, but there are other forms of sepreation possible even when all of Y are in the same PLACE, but we need not go into that now.
So now you have two groups Y1 and Y2. A mutation arises in Y1, but not Y2. A different one might happen in Y2 and not Y1, or maybe Y2 remains unchanged. It does not matter. What matters is that over time a series of small changes occurs, to the point where Y1 is so different to Y2 that it is now a different species. Even if the separation between Y1 and Y2 now goes away, they are still separate species, they still keep changing and evolving, and over many 1000s of years they end up being very different... like your birds and your lizards.
A wonderful wonderful example of this recently is the lizard population of Podarcis sicula. In 1971 scientists started an experiment and took 10 of this species from one island to another. The latter island was populated by another species Podarcis melisellensis.
The Croatian war of independence forced them to abandon this experiment however which means aside from moving 10 samples of the population there was NO HUMAN INFLUENCE on the rest of the experiment. Ideal!
It was only recently that scientists got to return and take up the experiment again. 36 years passed. It does not sound like a long time but what evolution did in that time is remarkable.
P. sicula were still present but P. melisellensis had gone extinct. P. sicula however had evolved, and in no small way either. They had also multiplied and swarmed over the island.
The original P. sicula were insectivores who occasionally ate leaf when pushed to it. At most 7% of their diet was leaf.
Now however 34% of their diet was leaf in winter and up to 65% in summer.
To adapt to this new high cellulose diet the lizards skull had widened and become deeper and longer. Their bite strength had significantly increased. Their legs had become shorter and slower to adapt to the stationary eating rather than their ancestral insect chasing. Population density had increased and territorial defense behaviour almost gone.
Massive changes in physical and behaviour aspects, enough to rubbish any claims that we never observe evolution in action... yet this is not even the biggest and most interesting change…
The lizards had evolved cecal valves… muscular ridges in the gut that allow the animal to close off sections of the tube to slow the progress of food through them and so acting as fermentation chambers where plant material can be broken down by bacteria and nematodes. The guts were swarming with such nematodes… which were entirely absent in the lizard in the original population where the 10 lizards were sourced.
Let me put this in plane non science terms: The cecal valves are an evolutionary novelty. A brand new feature nowhere present in the ancerstor population and entirely newly evolved in this lizard. This is not a quantitative change but an observed qualitative change in a population.
Evolution created something new. It did it relatively efficiently (Not much more than 30 generations). It did so exactly and precisely within what we would expect from observed Natural Selection and Evolution. It is an amazing example of exactly what we mean by evolution, exactly the kind of evidence we seek to support evolution and it happened within the life time of one human generation. Amazing stuff.
References:
Herrel A, Huyghe K, Vanhooydonck B, Backeljau T, Breugelmans K, Grbac I, Van Damme R, Irschick DJ. (2008) Rapid large-scale evolutionary divergence in morphology and performance associated with exploitation of a different dietary resource.
For those of you who dont know, Deism is the beleif in a creator God. Thats it. No Bible, no Jesus, heaven, hell or any dogma of any kind. Really, I consider myself an agnostic, but more recently a Deist. Lately Ive been watching the documentary series "Planet Earth". Its a very good series and before you answer my question I would recommend watchind it. When you emaine some wildlife, you begin to realize that thses animals, insects,plants and so forth are so specificly designed { a term I use loosely } that it seems impossible it could have evolved that way. For example, I recently read an article about this flower in geneva that put off the scent of rotting flesh to attract insect into it to eat them. This to me dosnt sound like part of an evolutionary pattern, its not somthing the plant could just pick up over the centuries. Its somthing that takes reasoning and observation to say hey, flies are attracted to this smell. There are countless other examples as well. Everyone wants a sign for the existance of God or proof, but look around people, the proof is everywhere, you just have to be willing to see it, then accept it.
No, we cannot. Just accept the truth that there is no god, no heaven, no hell, no angels, deviles, satens, lucifers, luciagainsts at all.
No, we cannot. Just accept the truth that there is no god,
What proof do you have to support your theory of there being no God? You have no more proof { actual proof, not speculation and conclusions } than I do to support my theory of there being one. So again I ask, can we as a human race ever claim to know enough about our Universe to completely rule out the mere possibility of a God?
Quote:
no heaven, no hell, no angels, deviles, satens, lucifers, luciagainsts at all.
You will notice when you read the title of this thread that I worded it in a way as not to debate the merits of Christianity or any other major religion. I am not debating wether there is a hell, heaven, angels, or a satan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluesmama
I believe that God and Evolution go hand in hand.
.
Not avoiding your question here, but I just want to be 100% sure of what you are asking. Are you asking literally about the first flower.... as in the colorful bit at the top of a plant that attracts insects.... or do you actually mean.... as a lot of people do when they say "flower".... the first PLANT of any kind?
Good questions in your post here. It shows you are genuinely interested now, unlike many who throw these questions out as accusations rather than inquiry. Well done.
Evolution is continuing in humans, but remember evolution is a slow slow process. You are not going to see massive evolution in your life time. Evolution does not stop as long as the environment does not stop changing. Each feeds the other remember.
What direction we will evolve in is open to question however. Evolution can not be predicted better than simple guess work. This is why the film "Idiocracy"... although a very poor film on every level... is actually quite disturbing as it shows a very plausible possibility for our future.
Many scientists agree that most of the evolution we will see in our species will be in and around our immune systems. Evolution is notable in many other places however. We here in the west use a lot of milk from cows. The chinese do not for example. As a consequence they have lost their ability to break down cows milks successfully and so much of their race is lactose intolerant. This is an example of relatively recent evolution in our species.
However having said all that, evolution in our species has definitely been slowed. The reason for this is our ability to counter selection criteria. Those who genetically have bad eyesight, such as myself, are no longer at selection disadvantage because we invented glasses. Those with genetic deficiencies such as diabetes do not die, because we have discovered insulin. People like Stephen Hawking survive and contribute to society, and successfully reproduce because our technology accounts for the massive disadvantages the man faces. Those in cold climates have clothing.
Evolution requires there to be selective pressures. The more we counter those pressures using intelligence and technology, the slower evolution will be.
This is one of the most common errors the lay man makes regarding evolution. The "If X evolved from Y, why is there still X" error. There are two answers for this...
Firstly it is very rare that X evolved from Y. What you will find is that X and Y both evolved from an earlier Z which is now gone. That is how evolution mostly works. So when you hear people say "If humans evolved from apes, why is there still apes?" they are 100% wrong. Humans did not evolve from Apes. Both humans and apes evolved from an earlier ape like creature now extinct.
Secondly in the cases where X DID evolve from Y, there is no requirement anyway for Y to go away. Look at things like "Ring Species". What happens is that some part of Y gets seperated from the rest of Y. For now geographic seperation is enough to think about, but there are other forms of sepreation possible even when all of Y are in the same PLACE, but we need not go into that now.
So now you have two groups Y1 and Y2. A mutation arises in Y1, but not Y2. A different one might happen in Y2 and not Y1, or maybe Y2 remains unchanged. It does not matter. What matters is that over time a series of small changes occurs, to the point where Y1 is so different to Y2 that it is now a different species. Even if the separation between Y1 and Y2 now goes away, they are still separate species, they still keep changing and evolving, and over many 1000s of years they end up being very different... like your birds and your lizards.
A wonderful wonderful example of this recently is the lizard population of Podarcis sicula. In 1971 scientists started an experiment and took 10 of this species from one island to another. The latter island was populated by another species Podarcis melisellensis.
The Croatian war of independence forced them to abandon this experiment however which means aside from moving 10 samples of the population there was NO HUMAN INFLUENCE on the rest of the experiment. Ideal!
It was only recently that scientists got to return and take up the experiment again. 36 years passed. It does not sound like a long time but what evolution did in that time is remarkable.
P. sicula were still present but P. melisellensis had gone extinct. P. sicula however had evolved, and in no small way either. They had also multiplied and swarmed over the island.
The original P. sicula were insectivores who occasionally ate leaf when pushed to it. At most 7% of their diet was leaf.
Now however 34% of their diet was leaf in winter and up to 65% in summer.
To adapt to this new high cellulose diet the lizards skull had widened and become deeper and longer. Their bite strength had significantly increased. Their legs had become shorter and slower to adapt to the stationary eating rather than their ancestral insect chasing. Population density had increased and territorial defense behaviour almost gone.
Massive changes in physical and behaviour aspects, enough to rubbish any claims that we never observe evolution in action... yet this is not even the biggest and most interesting change…
The lizards had evolved cecal valves… muscular ridges in the gut that allow the animal to close off sections of the tube to slow the progress of food through them and so acting as fermentation chambers where plant material can be broken down by bacteria and nematodes. The guts were swarming with such nematodes… which were entirely absent in the lizard in the original population where the 10 lizards were sourced.
Let me put this in plane non science terms: The cecal valves are an evolutionary novelty. A brand new feature nowhere present in the ancerstor population and entirely newly evolved in this lizard. This is not a quantitative change but an observed qualitative change in a population.
Evolution created something new. It did it relatively efficiently (Not much more than 30 generations). It did so exactly and precisely within what we would expect from observed Natural Selection and Evolution. It is an amazing example of exactly what we mean by evolution, exactly the kind of evidence we seek to support evolution and it happened within the life time of one human generation. Amazing stuff.
References:
Herrel A, Huyghe K, Vanhooydonck B, Backeljau T, Breugelmans K, Grbac I, Van Damme R, Irschick DJ. (2008) Rapid large-scale evolutionary divergence in morphology and performance associated with exploitation of a different dietary resource.
First, I want to thank you for coming back everyday and replying to my posts. The things you have said on this thread have not fallen on deaf ears. You have helped me to understand that "complexity" is measured only by the observers ability to understand what it is they are observing.
Second, that last posting of yours has by far been the best, and I dont realy have anything about it to question. For the record, I was talking about the first flower with peddals but for aruments sake you can explain both the first flower and the first plant if you wish.
Finally, we can debate evolution and creation all we want to but thats not going back far enough in my opinion. You told me to feel free to take your challenge of ptresenting an argument again so that is what I am going to do. I am sure it's an argument you have heard many times before and I am interested in how you might go about disputing it. Its the "somthing-from-nothing" argument.
Lets try this agan:
1} there is a Creator God
2} the earth, the universe, and everything in between is in existence.
3} you cannot get something from nothing
Its beleived that before the "big bang" there was nothing in existence including time and space. If nothing was in existence, than what created all that is here? What exactly caused that "bang". Now, Ive heard the argument that natural forces could have caused this but this argument falls flat on its face because if nothing was in existence, then that would include the laws of nature would it not?
Lastly, I would like you to answer a question for me. Can you, regardless of what you beleive to be true, atleast admitt the possibility of a creator God no matter how unlikely it may be, or that a God may not be needed to explain the creation of the Universe? After all, this is the topic of debate, all personal beliefs and conclusions aside.
Lets try this agan:
1} there is a Creator God
2} the earth, the universe, and everything in between is in existence.
3} you cannot get something from nothing
You're missing a couple of very important points.
First, if you are trying to prove the existence of a god, you cannot start out with the major premise of your argument that your god exists. To do this commits the logical fallacy of petitio principii, or begging the question. Your argument will never be valid if you rely on the truth of the conclusion in order to prove your conclusion.
Second, you commit the fundamental error that all theists who use the "something-from-nothing" argument. If you cannot get something from nothing, then where did this god of yours come from? If your real-life problem is that you can't understand how anything can exist that was not caused by something that existed first, how does it advance your understanding of anything to posit just one more uncaused entity?
And if your argument is just that god doesn't need a cause because it is the nature of god to have existed before anything else, how is that any better than simply saying it is the nature of the universe that it exists?
It is unfortunate that you seem to be going through the motions of debate, but not truly engaging with any of the points that are being raised. As long as this is your approach you are doomed to failure.
it was said "Evolution is continuing in humans, but remember evolution is a slow slow process."
Well that depends on who you are speaking to... Stephen Jay Gould says that the reason we do not see evidence in the fossil record of myriads of transitional forms is that actually, "evolution" happens relatively very quickly. (relatively as opposed to millions and millions of years) His view (and for those who don't know, Gould was not a Christian) is called Punctuated Equilibrium.
Secondly, "evolution" needs to be defined, and can be understood differently. I personally have no problem (ie I see the evidence supports) the idea that there are small adaptive changes within species. This is often referred to as micro evolution. However, I don't see the evidence supporting macroevolution, changes from species to species.
Thirdly , to Jack in particular, atheists also beg the question when and if they presuppose the propsoition "God does not exist" in THEIR argumentation. Atheists do this all the time. So if they postulate the non-existence of God, and then say something like "prove God exists to me, but until I determine whether or not I feel God exists, I am going to not just suspend belief (agnosticism) but I am going to say that God does not exist, then the Christian has grounds for presupposing God does exist until or unless something comes along which is a defeater for that belief. Or as Alvin Plantinga puts it, belief in God is "properly basic", and is rightly a part of my paradigm of beliefs which I am entitled to believe, just as I believe int he reality of the past, and the existence of other minds.
RE the point about ex nihil, nihil fit (out of nothing, nothing comes) you are not understanding the argument if you raise the question "where did this God of yours come from" if everything needs a cause? The argument goes like this... being can't come form non-being, all contingent things (rocks, living forms, stars, solar systems, etc) need a cause, ie they are not and it would be impossible for them to cause their own existence, they would have to "be" before they were. However, these issues do not pertain to a self existent eternal God. The question "who made God" or "what caused God to exist" is like asking "what does the color green smell like?" ie its an informal fallacy, a category error. Asking who made an eternal self existing God just doesn't make any sense.
So when you ask " how is that any better than simply saying it is the nature of the universe that it exists?" The answer is likewise simple. It is not the nature of the universe to exist. The universe is contingent. It did not always exist, nor is it the case that it was impossible for the universe to NOT exist. On the other hand, God is a necessary being, for whom it is impossible not to exist. Sp that is how it is "better" if by that you mean, more rational or cogent than to say that God is on par with the universe in terms of ontology.
Secondly, "evolution" needs to be defined, and can be understood differently. I personally have no problem (ie I see the evidence supports) the idea that there are small adaptive changes within species. This is often referred to as micro evolution. However, I don't see the evidence supporting macroevolution, changes from species to species.
We hear this all the time. The fact is, there is no difference between what you call microevolution and macroevolution. I'm really not that concerned about where you "see the evidence", the evidence is all around you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by epistemaniac
Thirdly , to Jack in particular, atheists also beg the question when and if they presuppose the propsoition "God does not exist" in THEIR argumentation. Atheists do this all the time. So if they postulate the non-existence of God, and then say something like "prove God exists to me, but until I determine whether or not I feel God exists, I am going to not just suspend belief (agnosticism) but I am going to say that God does not exist, then the Christian has grounds for presupposing God does exist until or unless something comes along which is a defeater for that belief. Or as Alvin Plantinga puts it, belief in God is "properly basic", and is rightly a part of my paradigm of beliefs which I am entitled to believe, just as I believe int he reality of the past, and the existence of other minds.
The only thing you are doing here is wilfully misconstruing what we say. When I ask you for evidence that you have a green unicorn in your garage, I am not presupposing that the green unicorn is not in your garage, I'm just stating my unwillingness to believe you have a green unicorn in your garage until you can provide evidence that would justify my belief in that proposition.
Similarly, when a theist attempts to use logic to prove the existence of a god, if the argument starts out by assuming the existence of a god, the problem is not in whether I believe a god exists, but in using an inherently invalid line of reasoning to support the assertion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by epistemaniac
RE the point about ex nihil, nihil fit (out of nothing, nothing comes) you are not understanding the argument if you raise the question "where did this God of yours come from" if everything needs a cause? The argument goes like this... being can't come form non-being, all contingent things (rocks, living forms, stars, solar systems, etc) need a cause, ie they are not and it would be impossible for them to cause their own existence, they would have to "be" before they were. However, these issues do not pertain to a self existent eternal God. The question "who made God" or "what caused God to exist" is like asking "what does the color green smell like?" ie its an informal fallacy, a category error. Asking who made an eternal self existing God just doesn't make any sense.
So when you ask " how is that any better than simply saying it is the nature of the universe that it exists?" The answer is likewise simple. It is not the nature of the universe to exist. The universe is contingent. It did not always exist, nor is it the case that it was impossible for the universe to NOT exist. On the other hand, God is a necessary being, for whom it is impossible not to exist. Sp that is how it is "better" if by that you mean, more rational or cogent than to say that God is on par with the universe in terms of ontology.
blessings,
ken
You're making a different kind of argument, one that has nothing to do with logic. You simply invent a proposition ("God is a necessary being") and then assert that it is self-evidently true without regard to evidence, logic, or any other form of argumentation. It's certainly convenient for you because it means that you never have to respond to argumentation or any type of challenge.
The only drawback, however, is that it is only persuasive to people who are unconcerned with evidence or logic.
In other words, it works for believers, but atheists, since we are committed to rationality, have a higher standard so you can make no progress in persuading someone who doesn't already believe in what you're saying.
This can all be summed up in three words: NO ONE KNOWS. As a result, I am an agnostic atheist. I don't believe in any deities, but since I cannot prove that there aren't any, I am agnostic.
No one can possibly know what came before the Big Bang, if anything. Some people just have to "know", so they decide they "know". But they can't really know.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
