[_ Old Earth _] A new start [Topic:Evolution]

[Blazin Bones]

Hi I'm Brutus and as you can see I'm new here. I would like to discuss this topic with you all, but for most of the topics, it would take too long for me to catch up. So for those who are interested, please feel free to begin the discussion.

 

[cubedbee]

Both. God created life on this Earth through the process of evolution.

 

[Blazin Bones]

Both. God created life on this Earth through the process of evolution.

If you don't mind me asking, Why do you feel this way? Evolution is a completely diffferent theory than creation, at least the way I look at it. Please explain your point further.

 

[keebs]

Evolution is a completely diffferent theory than creation, at least the way I look at it.

That is exactly the point. The reason that evolution and creation can coincide is because they are not related. Evolution describes how a species changes after it has been created, creation describes how the species is created. God could have created man using evolution, or he could have just created us close to the way we are now, and just implemented evolution as a side theory.

 

[Blazin Bones]

How are we defining Creation and Evolution. I want to ask you, is It possible for the theory of evolution to really just be the process of adaptation? What I want to know Is why do You believe in evolution? I believe that God, infinite in power, is able to create us as we are are now. I believe, as time past we adapted, not evolved, into what we are today.

 

[keebs]

I want to ask you, is It possible for the theory of evolution to really just be the process of adaptation?

Evolution is pretty much natural selection, genetic mutation, migration, and genetic drift. We know genetic mutations happens (not even a anti-evolutionist should say otherwise), migration is also obvious, and genetic drift is a direct consequence of the fact that we pass alleles on to our offspring. Add in natural selection (which is just adaptation), and you have evolution. I don't see how people can argue against it.

 

[Blazin Bones]

What I want to know Is why do You believe in evolution?

You didn't answer my second question. I believe in the creation theory(although I believe it as fact, not theory) because I take the word of God to be Truth. I just curious as to why you feel the theory of evolution is more reasonable to you?

 

[keebs]

I've never seen any proof for God...but I see proof in modern science

 

[Blazin Bones]

Could you site an example of this Modern proof for Me. I will grant Your point, God may not be real in your life, But he talks with me. Can I prove it to you, beyond a shadow of a doubt, no. That's where the issue of faith comes in, I faith in a God, just as you have faith in a theory that does not have one relevant, proven fact. Since faith is not the issue, I will leave this as It is. Please cite your example.

 

[keebs]

One of the more famous examples of evolution in a species is the English moth. Before the start of the industrial revolution, only about 2% of these moths were dark, and the rest where light colored. But, 50 years later, after the industrial revolution had started, the 95% of the moth population in the highly industrialized cities were now of dark color.

 

[Blazin Bones]

Two Questions to your point:

1. Is This adaptation or evolution?

2. Can you prove that the change in their enviroment did not cause a change in their diet, or the object's in their current enviroment?

 

[keebs]

1. Evolution is defined as a change in a populations allele frequency through the generations. Therefore, it is evolution, because the the dark color allele frequency changed dramatically. But, it is also adaptation via natural selection.

2. It does not matter how the allele frequency changed, be it diet or current enviroment. What matters is that the frequency did change, thus, evolution happened.

 

[ThinkerMan]

[quote="Brutus/HisCatalyst":e515b] What I want to know Is why do You believe in evolution?

You didn't answer my second question. I believe in the creation theory(although I believe it as fact, not theory) because I take the word of God to be Truth. I just curious as to why you feel the theory of evolution is more reasonable to you?[/quote:e515b]

For my 2 cents.

keebs is quite correct is saying that evolution and "God" are not mutually exclusive. Cubed-B is no less a deist, nor a Christian (though some might disagree on that) because he believes in evolution.

Also, evolution describes the diversity, history, and future of life on earth. It does not address the spark of life, nor the age of the universe. These are separate issues, too often discussed in the context of evolution. All three deserve completely seperate threads as the depend on different scientific (and even theological) positions.

Cubed B for example (sorry to keep bringing you up BBB), would likely agree with evolution as a process, but perhaps not how the spark of life was begun. That is not inconsistant in the least, since they are two separate processes.

The major reasons why evolution is valid is because it is repeatable and observable. Unlike the bible, you may travel the the Galapogos (or look it up in books) and observe EXACTLY what Darwin observed.

You can investigate fossil records, and age dating techniques. Through the scientific process, you are able to individually assess each argument.

You present creation/evolution as an either/or proposition, which it is NOT (unless you are a young earth creationist).

The VAST majority of scientists, and the VAST majority of scientific data point to evolution through genetic mutation as the best explanation of the diversity of life on earth.

Consequently, humans, as members of the kingdom of life, are products of this evolution. This does not conflict with God either, because if God could produce the spark that begat life, he could have produced the spark the begat higher intellegence and morality.

Now as an atheist, I disagree with those ideas. However, it is irrelevant to the validity of the evolutionary theory.

One of the major issues we (evolutionists) run up against on this forum is that many creationists distort the evolutionary theory, and present strawman arguments, confusing the issue of "evolution" with other topics such as morality, theology, abiogenesis, the age of the universe, etc.

I appreciate your thoughtful posts, and hope you learn and bit, and teach a bit, on this forum.

Welcome.

 

[cubedbee]

Both. God created life on this Earth through the process of evolution.

If you don't mind me asking, Why do you feel this way? Evolution is a completely diffferent theory than creation, at least the way I look at it. Please explain your point further.

God has given us two ways to know about him. He inspired men to compose the Bible and he has left his finger on the created world, which bears witness to his existence. We must take the testimonies of these two witnesses together to form an accurate picture of God.

We know from Genesis that God is the Creator of everything. There's no question about that. We also know that the firsts several chapters of Genesis address essential spiritual matters regarding man's relationship to God, and that they have the same feel of other mythological stories of ancient people. We could accept the stories as literal fact, but before we do so, we must consult the created world.

However, when we explore the world around us, we can see clearly that it is more than 6000 years old. There is an abundance of evidence from all fields of science that point to a very old age for the Earth. And there is also overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution. Once again, a variety of scientific discplines support the TOE, and literally millions of knowledgable scientists accept evolution as true. Studying the facts honestly and without preconceptions leads me only to believe in the truth of the TOE.

So, taking the Bible and the natural world into consideration, I can only conclude that God created the universe, and that he did so consistent with the accepted views of science. While science assumes the process was random, it was of course guided by God the whole time, with humanity as his end goal. And I believe that it was only our physical bodies which evolved, and that it was the special creation of our spiritual selves, which truly set us apart from other animals, which the account of Genesis potrays.

 

[Blazin Bones]

I appreciate your fairness. When I do present reasons to support the Christian's creation, I will remember the concerns you addressed and try to be as logical as I can with the Information presented. Please, as I am new to these forums, give me a full definition of evolution for which I may base my future points. Also, I still want to develope your veiws as well as I can before I make an attempt at defending creation. Please continue.

 

[keebs]

Evolution (the real theory, not the strawman), is usually definied by the change in a species allele frequency over time.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

I appreciate your fairness. When I do present reasons to support the Christian's creation, I will remember the concerns you addressed and try to be as logical as I can with the Information presented. Please, as I am new to these forums, give me a full definition of evolution for which I may base my future points. Also, I still want to develope your veiws as well as I can before I make an attempt at defending creation. Please continue.

I want to make sure I'm clear on what you mean. Do you mean you are attempting to support a literal interpretation of Genesis? If so you are opening yourself up to debate.
If you're just here to debate metaphysics and so on from Genesis, that's a different matter.

 

[ThinkerMan]

Please, as I am new to these forums, give me a full definition of evolution for which I may base my future points

Let me take a stab...and please, my fellow evolutionists, correct me where I may err since I am not a scientist by profession.

1. A life form exists (as I said, how it came to exist is irrelevant to evolution).

2. The life form contains DNA.

3. The life form is able to reproduce to make a copy of itself. This is the first step where "natural selection" comes into being. If the lifeform were unable to reproduce, it would die, and we would never see it again. Thus, only life forms able to reproduce, reproduce. Makes sense.

4. Over the course of time, genetic mutation occurs as a life form reproduces through the generations. This occurs for many reasons, if you are curious what they are, let us know.

5. As a result of genetic mutation, the subsequent generations of the species show different characteristics.

STOP - This is the point that all creationists agree to. Even Young Earth Creationists. They have not issue with what they call "microevolution". The example of the moth is a good one, whereas different characteristics "float to the top" because of:

A. Genetic mutation

B. Natural Selection

Another good example is dog breeds. Dogs have been breed to have different characteristics over time.

A dog has a genetic mutation that gives it very short legs. Breed it out for a few generations and you have a "corgie".

This is "genetic drift", which means that over generations changing dominate traits will give the species different characterisics.

Now at this point creationists and evolutionists agree completely.

Here is where we diverge.

6. At some point, one population of a species becomes geographically seperated from another population. Say, one group of monkeys moves far enough away from other monkeys where they cannot interbred.

7. Over time, the very same genetic drift that gives different subsets of a population different characteristics becomes widened. Over time, the genetic differences, due to mutation, become significant. At some point, the genetic differences are so significant that the two species are unable to interbred and produce VIABLE offspring.

Think of a donkey and a horse. They are close enough genetically to have babies (mules), but they are sterile. They are considered different species, not just different breeds.

8. The genetic drift becomes so large that any interbreeding is impossible. Thus, you have two separate species. This is what Darwin observed on the Galapogos. Because it is many different islands, geographically separated, a vast diversity of species emerged from island to island as drift and natural selection took the animals in different directions.

The same diversity, however, it not noticable in the plains. Buffalo were Buffalo. They moved and interbred with eachother. Because they were not separated by water or canyons or oceans, they continued to interbred and remained one species.

Wow, I've never written that out...but I hope it explains. Creationists get 90% there, they are simply unwilling to accept the next logical step.

 

[Blazin Bones]

[to SyntaxVorlon]I'm not here to debate at all. I'm sorry if i came off as one looking for a debate. If this becomes such, I will no longer post in this topic. I'm a college student, I wish to learn why so many people believe in evoultion.

[to keebs] If this will be the definition, we really are discussing adaptation. The Merriam Websters online dictionary defines adaptation as "1 : the act or process of adapting : the state of being adapted
2 : adjustment to environmental conditions: as a : adjustment of a sense organ to the intensity or quality of stimulation b : modification of an organism or its parts that makes it more fit for existence under the conditions of its environment"

Look at definition sub-section #2 part b. Is not the allele a part of the organism. Therefore would that not fall under the definition of adaptation. Your definition does not allow for the natural selection that you stated is the difference of evolution. Can you explain this for me?

 

[keebs]

The change in allele frequency is not adaptation. An allele is a specific variant of a gene that is located on a certain chromosome. The allele frequency of a specific allele is just the percentage of people in the population that have that allele. For example, assume that everyone on earth has either blue or brown eye color, and that the same number of people have blue eyes as brown eyes. Therefore, the allele frequency for blue eyes will be .5, and the same for red eyes. Now, let's say that after a few generations, the allele frequency of blue eyes changes to .25, and the brown eye allele frequency changes to .75. That is evolution. It is not necessarily adaptation, as the change in allele frequency can also be caused by other factors, such as genetic drift and migration (say a new form of humans are found that have red eyes, and these red eyed humans reproduce with our population, adding a red eye allele--that would be migration), and then there is mutation--a random change in your genetic makeup. The moth population example was adaptation, but adaptation is part of evolution (but not all of it).

Natural selection weeds out the organisms of a population that are not "fit", thereby reducing the chances of the unfit allele to be passed on, and lowering that specific allele's frequency. That is how natural selection fits into the definition.