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.
Lets say a litter of squirrels is born in the spring in the northern U.S. where it gets pretty cold in the winter. Within that litter, most of the squirrels will grow a thick fur that will keep most of them alive through the upcoming winter. But there are a few in the litter, however, that did not fare so well. They were born, by chance, without the genes that will give them a nice thick coat; instead, they have thin coats. Next winter, the ones with the thin coats will be the first to die when they can't conserve enough heat to stay warm. Along with them will go their genes for thin coats. That's natural selection in action. In this case one kind of squirrel was born with the equipment (thick fur) that allowed it to survive its environment, and the other was born with equipment (thin fur) that did not help it to survive winter.
Because the squirrels with thick fur were compatible with their environment (nature), it is attributed to selection by nature.......... and called natural selection... and, if those furry squirrels are capable of reproducing surviving offspring and keeping their species going, we like to call that "survival of the fittest."
Is evolution a process that leads to new species, according to the proponents of the theory of evolution?
If it is not a process, what is it then?
But you who deny that evolution is a process, do you know that evolution leads to new species of life, according to the proponents of the theory of evolution?
Or you also deny that? Pachomius
Whoever denied that it's a process? What's your point? Realizing that the word "process" is a definition that we men have created, yes, the "process" is remarkably uniform the world over, mostly utilizing the same natural interactions of molecules, organisms and the environment to "create" [our word] a newer, different [not necessarily "better"..] organism. It may simply be moving into a niche [our definition] that is new, or has been created by environmental forces [global warming resulting in an expansion of some type of vegetation into an area it didn't previously occupy, for example.]
Perhaps you're trying to conclude that a processrequires a processor? Nope. No sale. It can be occurring due to natural interaction. Oil separating from water when I make salad dressing does not require a processor to actively manage those molecular reactions. Apples fall DOWN from the tree, not UP (though "it's only a theory!") Did God have to manage each apple falling in Vermont last year? What a boring task for Him! The movement of each grain of sand on all the universe's beaches? Every sub-atomic particle? all from His master control panel? Impossible. And you think simple Evolution is too unlikely?
By the way, bone up, again, on what "theory" means in science, not how it's used by the folks down at the WalMart or in a Church bible study group. It's definitely not the same. The WalMart version is a simplistic, colloquial definition unrelated to the accumulation of documented and verifiable evidence, resulting in a valid principle. The WalMart nonsense is an unverifed guess, not yet tested.
Evolution is an established, proven fact. That part is unquestioned, tho' you, on your own, are free to believe whatever you wish. I do understand your quandary though; to accept Evolution is to realize that God and Genesis, Adam and Eve, Noah and, essentially, the bible, are all a fairy tale. On that basis, I can see how it's resisted and degenerated at every turn, and why Christians love to grasp at that old "It's ONLY a theory!!!" argument.
Well sorry; among those who have bothered to educate themselves about it, or study the "process", there's simply, categorically, no longer any question.
Tell you what though. I have asked several times, of dogmatic literalist Christians who dismiss Evolution:
Outline, in point form, exactlywhich key element(s) of Evolution doesn't exist, or doesn't work. You know, like, for instance, DNA, or tRNA, or transcription errors, or??? I'd LOVE to know the basis for your disbeliefs, aside from rote chanting of "It's only a theory!"
Oddly, 9or perhaps not...) I NEVER get a response to this honest and simple inquiry. Could it be that the anti's haven't a clue how Evolution actually works? Everyone I've ever met who does, all the biologists in my professional career for instance, are artheists mostly because it's so commandingly convincing, and with the recent PROOFS (I love that word now!), there'ws simply no dispute. Only within the Church, where they are coughing loudly to cover up the latest factual findings, does a childish resistance persist.
But please; prove me wrong. Show me exactly and precisely where, within the well-documented mechanism, it doesn't work as stated. And don't just come back and call me arrogant. Educated, yes, but arrogant about this topic? That's not a very good argument point.
Even if populations turned into new species right in front of our eyes, this would in no way have anything to do with the existence of a God.
People seem to be under the strange impression that if all species are related that means there's no higher power that created the universe.
In reality, the two subjects are completely different. Even if we had ancestors who were fish, there could still be a being outside the universe who put the universe here.
Even if populations turned into new species right in front of our eyes, this would in no way have anything to do with the existence of a God.
People seem to be under the strange impression that if all species are related that means there's no higher power that created the universe.
In reality, the two subjects are completely different. Even if we had ancestors who were fish, there could still be a being outside the universe who put the universe here.
I completely agree, LZ, tho' many might wonder why I would, given my usual perspective. Actually, science has not yet determined or defined where our universe originated from, only that, of course, we have arrived. We have defined many of the so-called "laws" that govern the behavior of universal components. That part's gone quite well, and a strong sense of rational thinking has not failed us.
I was approached by a devout Christian recently who suggested that "Well, God might just have other realities in place that we just don't know of or can possibly imagine. For instance, perhaps there are other elements that exist, the genesis of other suns or planets or larger molecules! Science can't know everything!!"
When pressed, I found this person hadn't the slightest knowledge of The Periodic Table of The Elements, for instance. That we know, absolutely, now, each of the elements from #1 on through #118, and beyond. We've even created some ephemeral elements that aren't stable. We understand them by their necessary internal composition.
If you look at this, there are no missing numbers between Hydrogen, in number 1 position, and # 118. By adding protons and electrons one at a time, we find there are NO MISSING ELEMENTS. No "Hydrogen and a half" hiding in there, no matter how much a "spiritual" person might wish there to be.
And by their structure, we have also determined, through countless experiments, how elements thus behave. It's all logical, not spiritual. It's, Oh. My. God... predictable!
As you say however, there should be no essential controversy about Evolution, but rather simply how it all might have started, which is open to many hypotheses for now. (Well, at least the rational ones.... let's not go nutball.)
However, in the more devout and "uncritically thinking" world, the stark realization of the Fact of Evolution threatens an uncomfortable sea change in "factology" where the entire house of cards called "organized religion" falls apart. The key elements, the supposed solid foundation on which Christianity sits requires certain inalterable facts to be held to frantically and at all costs (even an abandonment of logic and truth), and that's where the dreaded sinister aspects of science's discoveries cause a heartburn that PriloSec cannot touch.
Lets say a litter of squirrels is born in the spring in the northern U.S. where it gets pretty cold in the winter. Within that litter, most of the squirrels will grow a thick fur that will keep most of them alive through the upcoming winter. But there are a few in the litter, however, that did not fare so well. They were born, by chance, without the genes that will give them a nice thick coat; instead, they have thin coats. Next winter, the ones with the thin coats will be the first to die when they can't conserve enough heat to stay warm. Along with them will go their genes for thin coats. That's natural selection in action. In this case one kind of squirrel was born with the equipment (thick fur) that allowed it to survive its environment, and the other was born with equipment (thin fur) that did not help it to survive winter.
Because the squirrels with thick fur were compatible with their environment (nature), it is attributed to selection by nature.......... and called natural selection... and, if those furry squirrels are capable of reproducing surviving offspring and keeping their species going, we like to call that "survival of the fittest."
"Oh nezlie; that's just simple ADAPTATION, silly! It's not permanent!"(or, fill in your own alternate yet brainless dismissal...).
I have challenged Christian apologists now, let's see: three times I believe, and this will be the fourth, to tell us exactly where and how Evolution cannot operate. Which key element is a faker, doesn't operate as defined and observed, etc.
They do not ever respond because they have no essential technical understanding of it. They do, of course, rote-chant back the prescribed answers about it being "only a theory!", or "it's only simple adaptation", or "why can't I get my dog to pop out a cat overnight?", or "yeah, but that's only a bacterium!" or "If we evolved from apes [which of course no-one has ever stated...] why are there still apes?". Sheesh!
It's like asking a child to describe "the monster under the bed". They cannot, but they will tell you "It's quite frightening, and quite real! Don't go in there!".
Such blatantly simplistic thinking, and they happily put a clear demo of their limited mind right here, in print, for all eternity and future reference!
Thomas Jefferson said that "few are ever convinced in an open argument." He made a specific exception in the case of scientists, who are trained to be open-minded and skeptical about all existing knowledge. Apparently scientists are also unafraid of disrupting their own comfort zone in search of a potentially more comfortable zone. Yah think?
You insist on that because you don't want to bring in God the first processor of everything that is in process and is the result of a process.
I've given the following logic to explain, without supernatural entities, how this is possible.
1 Cause is movement or change.
2 Everything requires a cause.
3 If everything requires a cause, necessarily there must have been a "first cause."
4 Something cannot come from nothing.
5 Necessarily, there was always "something."
6 If there was always something, and everything needs a cause,
7 Necessarily, something was always being "caused," i.e., always moving or changing.
8. Therefor, something always changing requires no causing entities to cause.
"If we evolved from apes [which of course no-one has ever stated...] why are there still apes?". Sheesh!
I just can't let this slip by.
Most believers in evolution, to this day, say we evolved from apes.
Classroom walls used to be adorned with the chart showing the progression from monkey to man.
In Darwin's own writings he made the case that we evolved from the great apes.
Ask just about anyone that believes in evolution what the "missing link" is and they will tell you it's the missing link between monkey and man.
Just for the record, to get all the christian name calling out of the way, I am not a Christian, so please, let's not go there.
I stand corrected. My apologies. I meant to say "modern up-to-date evolutionary theory, not the 1950s out of date stuff, no longer states that we evolved directly from apes". In fact, we and they both evolved from a common lemur-like pre-ancestor.
It's just that, even back when I took introductory biology in 1973, the "from apes" line of reasoning had already been abandoned. Remember, the only source of information and paleontological info back then was a bunch of mostly British scientists hovering around Africa looking for "The Missing Link", some imaginary ape-man hybrid. DNA was only discovered in the early '50s, and even at that, they surely didn't understand it's workings, means of mutation or relationship to all the cellular mechanisms even in the late '60s and early '70s. Even my undergrad degree, acquired in 1978, left a lot to be desired, but at least we knew that DNA was responsible No oddball hybrids required. It's sadly ironic to hear modern Christians still quoting 1960s thinking as a rebuttal against the facts of Evolution. Sorta like calling a 1965 Camaro "the ultimate sportscar" in 2010.
Unfortunately, I / we bio-scientists who were taught post- 1965, and who have also kept up, know this is a really tired old story. It's like putting up a drawing of the earth as the center of the universe, and then saying...
"You scientists are ALWAYS changing your mind! We can't trust you!"
That only holds if you insist that our knowledge remain static, that we remain a stationary target for your relentless critiques. Sorry; ain't gonna happen! I've recently been reading my son's 2009 intro biology text and there's a whole lot of new and elegantly confirmed information there. And, given such spectacular new methodologies as DNA genome mapping, such antiques as "The Missing Link" are no longer necessary to show transition. We're all transitionals, in fact, every organism on the planet, given that mutations and genetic drift don't stop, ever. So absolutely NO, we don't have to find one now that we can map and show DNA changes and lineage over time. It's the coup de gras against time-worn and improbable theistic explanations against Evolution.
Don't hold advancements in knowledge against science however. That's just silly.
But then again, if that's how you choose to see it, then go for it.
Last edited by rifleman; 04-01-2010 at 05:59 PM..
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.
The Truth Shall Set You Free!
Yah think?
