[_ Old Earth _] Evolution

[Featherbop]

What is your definition of evolution when it comes to living things?

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

You are full of questions aren't you?
Evolution is change in allele frequency over time, through generations, due to environmental pressures on those with or without the specific trait. Natural selection is the process by which certain traits which have a more beneficial effect on reproduction, or have no effect, are favored by nature over those that don't. If you can't get a mate, you probably won't pass on your genes. This can happen several ways, you can be genetically flawed in some way or you can be too stupid not to know that gasoline + fire = you dying. Then we read about the second group in the Darwin awards and have a good laugh.

 

[wesley]

Micro evolution is evolution within species examples are moths changing color to blend in better with their surrondings.

Macro evolution is evolution from one species to another example apes into humans, this time useually takes millions of years...there is no fossil evidence directly connecting evolutionary species but still is a possibility.

Punctuated Equilibrium - the newest evolutionary theory that evolution happens in great leaps the best example for this is if you have seen the X-Men movies, that is punctuated equilibrium

God will use what he will it is up to us to find out how he did it

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

There is PLENTY of fossil evidence, since all species are in a constant state of micro evolution, EVERY living thing is transitional.

Punctuated equilibrium still takes many thousands of years IIRC.

 

[wesley]

Yes there is alot of evidence for micro evolution I don't disagree here, however for macro evolution there is still not enough evidence to say without a doubt it is real. In other words what I am saying is that no Intermediate forms have been discoverd therefor we cannot be completely certain that macro evolution is a certainty.

And yes there may be thousands of years between Punctuated Equilibrium.

 

[M82A1]

Yes there is alot of evidence for micro evolution I don't disagree here, however for macro evolution there is still not enough evidence to say without a doubt it is real. In other words what I am saying is that no Intermediate forms have been discoverd therefor we cannot be completely certain that macro evolution is a certainty.

And yes there may be thousands of years between Punctuated Equilibrium.

Macro Evolution is basically millions of years of constant Micro Evolution.

If you do not believe that, then explain how Micro and Macro Evolution are different.

 

[wesley]

The main difference between micro and macro evolution is that one is readily observable (micro) macro is something that no one has seen as complete, and there is no direct evidence. As such it is a little more improbable. I am not saying it is impossible.

The problem with saying that macro is the result of micro is that there are still no intermediate forms (no fossil between species). Even if micro to macro is the case there must be intermediate forms.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

The main difference between micro and macro evolution is that one is readily observable (micro) macro is something that no one has seen as complete, and there is no direct evidence. As such it is a little more improbable. I am not saying it is impossible.

The problem with saying that macro is the result of micro is that there are still no intermediate forms (no fossil between species). Even if micro to macro is the case there must be intermediate forms.

Now stop playing the old "Lets move the goal posts" game. Fossil evidence can give a relatively picture of the progression of evolution. In order to satisfy your requirements, paleontologists would have to dig up the skeleton of EVERY single generation of animal EVER. This is neither feasible nor is it necessary.
If someone had pictures of your grand parents and a picture of you, then they would be inclined to assume relationship, even without proof that your parents existed, or that you weren't adopted. This can be infered because of visible similarities. And do NOT pull that silly pig's tooth argument out of your hat, even SNOPES has debunked that one.

 

[wesley]

I don't mean to be playing the move the goal post game, however I do think that there should be more evidence than what we currently have. We don't have any Intermediate forms and why not? An entire step in our evolutionary process is missing. Just seems odd. I do agree with the picture sinario, and I'm not saying that evolution is wrong. What I am saying is we need even more evidence than we currently have (I'm not brining up the pigs tooth issue - this is the second time that issue has been sprung on me in two different websites :-? )

I agree with you, I just think there needs to be more evidence :D

 

[M82A1]

I don't mean to be playing the move the goal post game, however I do think that there should be more evidence than what we currently have. We don't have any Intermediate forms and why not? An entire step in our evolutionary process is missing. Just seems odd. I do agree with the picture sinario, and I'm not saying that evolution is wrong. What I am saying is we need even more evidence than we currently have (I'm not brining up the pigs tooth issue - this is the second time that issue has been sprung on me in two different websites :-? )

I agree with you, I just think there needs to be more evidence :D

Did anybody see the evolution of three-toed horsed to single-toed horses? No, But we all know it happened.

 

[cubedbee]

There's more than just fossil evidence for evolution. Here's a good article on genetic evidence for common ancestry. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/

The gist of the article is that there are many nonfunctional DNA sequences that arise through various mechanisms, mostly some sort of transcription error. These sequences can be found in different species with the exact same error at the exact same location. The probability of this happening indepedently in different species is virtually zero.

 

[legamus]

the only real issue when it comes to evolution and christianity is whether or not humans developed from something other than what we are today. as for 'apes' - i think we are classified as apes now, are we not?

 

[saved]

the only real issue when it comes to evolution and christianity is whether or not humans developed from something other than what we are today. as for 'apes' - i think we are classified as apes now, are we not?

I know of people who should be classified as apes, but only because how they live, not because of any genetic relationship. Beyond that there is no such thing as evolution.

Sometimes we hear how mathematically it is possible and then someone gives some figure that has so many zeros that it cancels out our ability to understand the number. However the actual number for the possibility is "0" They can forget all the rest of them.
The possibility for evolution is the same as it is for a tornado to blow through a junk yard and assemble a 747.

 

[legamus]

the only real issue when it comes to evolution and christianity is whether or not humans developed from something other than what we are today. as for 'apes' - i think we are classified as apes now, are we not?

I know of people who should be classified as apes, but only because how they live, not because of any genetic relationship. Beyond that there is no such thing as evolution.

Sometimes we hear how mathematically it is possible and then someone gives some figure that has so many zeros that it cancels out our ability to understand the number. However the actual number for the possibility is "0" They can forget all the rest of them.
The possibility for evolution is the same as it is for a tornado to blow through a junk yard and assemble a 747.

i meant taxonimically. you saying there is no such thing as evolution clearly shows you do not know what it is. you think the entire world is the same now as it was when it was first created? no, it has changed ie. evolved and it's organisms have evolved with it. this does not create any theological problems except in the minds of christians who think they now what perfection is and think that change indicates imperfection. i do not think that is the case. (but i could be wrong.) again, the only issue with evolution is as it pertains to humans.

 

[saved]

There is no evolution of any kind.

 

[legamus]

There is no evolution of any kind.

i see. perhaps you should look at the variety of people there are around you and then tell me we've never changed since God created our species.

 

[M82A1]

Beyond that there is no such thing as evolution.

Try telling that to my little friend, Mr. E-Coli.

The possibility for evolution is the same as it is for a tornado to blow through a junk yard and assemble a 747.

Stop quote-mining, okay? I don't think you are Fred Hoyle, he was the first one to say that. And when he said that, he was refering to Abiogenesis. :evil:

 

[Featherbop]

it still all depends on how evolution is defined. Evolution is like churches, its got many demonations it could be.

If you define evolution as "change" in any form. Then I evolve every day.

If evoltuion is defined as variation within knids of creatures, then thats true too, that happens.

If you define evolution as radical changes of creatures into radicaly different cretures, such as ape to man, fish to lizard, lizard to ape, whatever, then that isn't real.

I think its all in the definition.

 

[M82A1]

lizard to ape, whatever, then that isn't real.

You're right, that isn't real. If a lizard ever turned into an ape, that would be very strong evidence against evolution! But it did not happen that way.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

it still all depends on how evolution is defined. Evolution is like churches, its got many demonations it could be.

False analogy, it's a scientifically defined process which happens on a genetic level that we're discussing.