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.
And if you assume that the critters are standing in line single file, and allow an average of say 3 feet per critter, you would have a line stretching from New York City to Chicago. So, 2-1/4 years standing a line almost 700 miles long....utter chaos. I can just see the opossum asking the jackal to hold his place for him so he can take a potty break. Of course tensions would be high and the urge to "line jump" overwhelming, creating total havoc.
Sense he insist on an appeal to authority, I would like to know this as well.
You misunderstand me, Boxcar . . . I make no appeal to authority. I seek (vainly it would seem) to short circuit the ad hominems created by the typical atheist assumption that anyone believing in God is some intellectual throwback to primordial man. I also seek to protect my anonymity by not revealing too much about myself on a public board. Seems to have failed in its purpose, though. C'est la vie.
By the way, Mystic; this may be of use to you as regards my particular thinking:
I'm a "lefty" in every respect; hands, eye dominance, perhaps thinking?
I agree that we are exposed to all manner of inputs, of thoughts, intuitions, etc. different people utilize such information differently; some, obviously, not at all.
I just cannot bring myself to assigning those wonder-inducing feelings, that inner peace, those "ah-hah" moments, to a single untiary "sentity" (I like it. Can I claim it?). Rather, I find true amazement in the fact (to me, at any rate) that the chance occurrence of DNA and it's necessary assistants (tRNA, for example)* came along. I have seen with my own eyes (much as you did with yours, or with your inner mind) that this was all that was required for the Universe of living organisms to arise. The rest has, by the "design" of DNA etc., thus assembled itself unfailingly into the sea of life about us. I found no need to go on a vision quest to explain it in some spiritual terms. I found the rationality of logical science sufficient for my inner happiness and fulfillment.
The wonder of that has led me to a great sense of inner peace, of having arrived at an epiphany and a confluence of logic and some more enveloping knowledge that glues the logic and my observations together.
But no lingering white beared guys (sorry; that's "bearded". Maybe he is "beered"..). No voices in my head, ever.
So, to say there are fatal flaws in the theory of Evolution is, to my interpretation, to say that it, having accomplished so much, will now fail in some way, leading to some regressive state. Like an inherited fatal genetic codon.
By the same means that you "know" of your spiritual entity, I "know" that Evolution is exactly how we all got here. (BTW, That's what this thread's about, right?) There is ample evidence for it, you know that, and probably even agree on the process. We do disagree on the originator or designer or whatever, but the arguments of some of the posters here? Against simple logical discovery and conclusions? God help us all from this level of counter-productive, dis-inquisitive hostile & combative thought!
And so, we press on....
We are intellectual brothers, rifleman . . . with different conclusions about the ultimate reality and source of the universal field that enables us to investigate and understand our reality with our logical minds.
Slashsdfz, you make the fatal logic error of confusing complex events that are of man's own desires & design with the accumulation of DNA mutations. Let's see if I can possibly make this relatively brief yet comprehendable. Perhaps it will spur your further education?
1. We can prove, right now, that DNA does, in fact, mutate in situ. (which means, dear readers, "in place". Inside the beast, so to speak. No lab required). Do you refute this part?
2. An organism's outward appearance, or it's inner functionality, are a direct result of it's DNA. Do you disagree with this?
3. The environment has always offered a wide array of "niches", as in "opportunity locations or situations". These have changed over time. Do you discount this?
4. An unpainted room in no way is an ecological niche. It's a desire. Ecologically, this would be like a lion wishing that an endless supply of lambs were made permanently available about 25 years away. Ditto, we wish we could have a nice baby-blue den, with a new TV, etc.
The lion has adapted to the existing conditions. He can't go down to Lowes and buy a new lamb-filled environment. Only man has developed the abstract ability to revise his environment to his desires. Hardly disproves much of anything. Do you disagree?
5. Different niches demand different skills (being able to catch salmon in a stream (Kodiak Island grizzly bears); sip sugar nectar from a flower (hummingbirds); catch ants out of a hole (anteaters)... and on and on.
By the example commonly quoted by Xtians, the very existance of diversely capable species, right there on National Geographic's documentary shows, is proof that the simpler, original organisms evolved to fill the wide diversity of niches (some of which continue to change as our world ages).
6. The niches presented themselves, and organisms constantly "tested" the environment for "fit". Given the fact of it's constantly changing DNA genome (through mutation), succeeding generations with slightly changed capabilities automatically "tested" the environment for enhanced suitability. The organism could thus take advantage of any mutation that affords it some opportunity. Do you disagree with this?
7. Only an idiot (not you, I'm sure...) would ever claim that evolution demands that a dog change itself into a cat, or that such changes, possible through true evolution, would occur in 1, 5, a hundred, or even a thousand generations. But, of course, when focused by man's direct intervention, a dog "breed" (i.e.: different outward charateristics reflecting specific changes to it's DNA) can be created. This is evolution as well, but it's just being artificially directed, with rather harsh consequences for dogs born with innapropriate features....
That's Evolution. Capital "E" on purpose. A simple concept, yet so misunderstood by millions of Christians, no doubt because their teachers, their priests and ministers, and Creationist websites such as AiG, etc. purposefully mis-inform, or go for cutsy (but inaccurate) little phrases that represent silly situations, and thus they then claim Evolution to be equally silly.
But.... since your analogy is so off-base, I'm sure you'll thoughtfully consider my points, and show me where you think my errors are. I'm patient, and also a professional biologist and an honest educator of children. I will be only too happy to explain in detail the errors in your understanding of Evolution that you might have been hobbled with to date.
Actually, Boxcar, I looked up the best recent estimates as to the number of organisms (species) on Earth right now, including soil- and airborne organisms, oceanic and fresh-water invertebrates, and the more common upright walkers/crawlers/flyers, etc. It came to a conservative 25 - 30 million, with of course, perhaps an additional 10 million, minimum, that are as yet undiscovered. That's species type, not male + female. Just "type"
"Undiscovered?" you ask incredulously. Yep. Let's imagine what might be down in the bottom of the Marianas Trench, or in some dripping-water cave or under fifteen generations of leaf litter in a dark corner of The Amazon Jungle. Easy to imagine quite a few, as yet undiscovered.
Since we'd never see them absent our scientific pursuit of knowledge, why, then, did God make them to being with? Why, some eye-less pressure resistant cartilaginous species that can operate at 15 miles of oceanic depth & pressure? Why indeed: because the niche existed, and through the constantly ongoing process of DNA mutation and expression of those changes, an organism became capable of operating there, with it's previously untapped source of food and protection from other predators.
And, voila, a new species evolved through constant micro-adaptation, absent the hand of God or man's curiosity.
But to your point about simple numbers to house on the Ark, ecologists have also realized that having only two of any species will ensure their ultimate extinction. Else, for a common example, why would The State of Califorina be so concerned when the condor population fell to less than 50? Why? Because you need, typically, about 50 to 150 of a species, depending on it's ecological sensitivities, for it's survival, and even then it's a cr@pshoot and pretty dodgy.
So, with only two of each as per the fable? No way they'd disembark from the Ark onto a sullied and sterile landscape, and then easily repopulate the world. Such are the musings of the ecologically uneducated and scientifically illiterate mind.
If we grant good old Noah, "The First Ecologist", say, ten of each type (5 male, 5 female), how many organisms would be originally boarding that austere wooden vessel, exactly? Discounting those oceanic species, those airborne single-celled organisms (the soil-borne ones, necessary for all decomposition on this planet ,would all have been drowned out of course...) and a bunch of others, he'd still have to find a LOT of on-board accomodation to organise (And food. And water. And the exact right temp ranges, vastly different for so so many of them; penguins versus parrots just for one obvious example...).
So, your line-up extends about twice around the planet, eh? A mere, oh let's say, 200 million organisms, and I note he's always depicted with a clipboard. Got it from Office Depot, did he? Hope he brought lots of paper too!
Honestly now. That nonsense version, or the simple "evolution into niches" model. You choose. What some people's children will believe without question.... What's worse, they continue to insist on it even when shown it's obvious flaws.
Last edited by rifleman; 04-15-2009 at 10:01 AM..
Reason: clarity
We are intellectual brothers, rifleman . . . with different conclusions about the ultimate reality and source of the universal field that enables us to investigate and understand our reality with our logical minds.
You always have to throw in your unscientific and absolutely unfounded presumptions, don't you. Talk about instransigent and fundamentalist!
Wait now... are you now saying that micro-adaptations, which most Christians now grudgingly accept and mention, (since they can easily be seen in any high-school science lab), now, as of today, require "the hand of God", which is to say metaphorically, require some unseen but also inexplicable (possibly super-natural?) input just to happen? Nope. Just put the ingredients into a petri dish, stir, wait, and "bingo"! A bacterium adapts to it's new temp, it's new oxygen level, etc.
Micro-adaptation, a sub-set of Evolution, is too too obvious, and is widely accepted. By all but, say, Campbell34/5.
I thought it was quite an innocent statement, and that it would be accepted by the Xtian community here! It doesn't require intransigence or fundamentalism.
Perhaps you just haven't had your coffee yet....
(I'm off to work. Don't confuse "no response" for accession. Just yet!)
When was the last time you had a conversation with the non-physical parts of digestion? Concrete thinkers bore me . . . they are stuck in the illusion of physicality and can't get out.
As recently as you've had a conversation with the spiritual parts of the mind. In other words, never. Unless you're playing some sort of word-games here, conversations occur strictly in the physical world.
Wait now... are you now saying that micro-adaptations, which most Christians now grudgingly accept and mention, (since they can easily be seen in any high-school science lab), now, as of today, require "the hand of God", which is to say metaphorically, require some unseen but also inexplicable (possibly super-natural?) input just to happen? Nope. Just put the ingredients into a petri dish, stir, wait, and "bingo"! A bacterium adapts to it's new temp, it's new oxygen level, etc.
Micro-adaptation, a sub-set of Evolution, is too too obvious, and is widely accepted. By all but, say, Campbell34/5.
I thought it was quite an innocent statement, and that it would be accepted by the Xtian community here! It doesn't require intransigence or fundamentalism.
Perhaps you just haven't had your coffee yet....
(I'm off to work. Don't confuse "no response" for accession. Just yet!)
Nah! . . . it was just a gratuitous nod to your totally unscientific and unjustified presumption of "no God involved" . . . and it annoys just as much as the literalists "the bible says."
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.
And so we evolve our understanding....
Species count versus common sense.
