Debate discussion
Religion
>
If you don't believe in evolution
message 1:
by
Angelica(JonasBro's Fan!)
(new)
Jun 11, 2009 12:09PM
Well, i know that evolution did not happen because God created everything but i have to get off the computer right now. When i get back on i will show you.
reply
|
flag
Oh ok i maby can try!
We also know that whales evolved from land mammals because they have a pelvis (it's very small, but it's there) and the only purpose of the pelvis is for legs to fit into so the organism can walk. And I don't think whales do much walking in the oceans.
I'm not sure what specific mistakes you are hinting at. But i am under the impression that evolution exists. Science has proven this by physical means.Creationism, Christianity's explanation for evolution and adaption, has been outdated by these scientific discoveries. The Bible was written before any explanation of evolution could be comprehensible to us humans. As it was written from the words of God, there have undoubtedly been translations, adaptations, modifications, and changes (not to mention the countless versions)to the same scriptures that were used for centuries. The explanation for evolution which we have maintained for just these past few decades bears some evidence to consider.
What science must admit thus far, is the possibility of the existence of a supreme being for the lack of a repeatable process of 'creating' life. Evolution has been proven by science, but the actual first reproducing organisms have not been accounted for.
The point where science must credit God is in this point of the actual beginning process of reproducing organisms. What must change is religions view of evolution.
Mod
"
The first organism has been duplicated in labs, without God.
Mod
"
I simplified it.
The 'Knocking on the Door of Life' article linked to us does account for a possibility of how self replicating RNA configurations may have occured. But it is just and only that: a possiblity of how. They, themselves, admit that it is not life, it is a nonliving foundation for cellular life. It still does not account for how the life process began, only that evolution occurs on all levels, even non-living self-replicating strands of RNA.The RNA mentioned in that artical is, firstly, more of a manifestation of evolution; which then leads into theory of the origine of life. The mutations that the replicating RNA configurations were a highlight. They say, in the RNA world hypothesis, that RNA would have provided the supporting environment for life. It still does not account for a specific method initiating cellular life.
Mod
My major conflict with evolution presents itself in the intermediate transitional stage between the branching of one organism to another. Let me explain... Organisms do not adapt or change in their physical state in their physical lifetimes. Like one small fish cannot suddenly grow a wing (for the sake of example). Rather it is through natural selection that the effects of a mutation or variations of genes become favorable and thus passed on from generation to generation till it becomes in a sense "permanent".
So that means for a trait to be passed on it must be FAVORABLE to the animal in its environment, it must BENEFIT the animal. Thus for a species to branch off and develop a wing...means that the intermediate, transitional phases of wing development...the formation of first a small stub, then a bigger stub, and later a limb and then a feathered limb...must all be favorable in their separate environments. Unfortunately, no gene mutation(at least I don't think so)could suddenly give a creature two wings. And also as unfortunate is the fact that Earth has not gone through such drastic changes and constant shifts in environmental conditions to make it, again, FAVORABLE for all those obscure intermediate stages of development.
I think natural selection has been proven but evolution has not.
Mod
We have intermediate stages of development right before our very eyes. Flying squirrels have the first wings. We have cells with no light sensitive patches, cells with light sensitive patches, cells with curved patches, cells with curved patches and fluid to focus them, we have dog eyes with are colorblind, human eyes, and hawk eyes, which are more advanced then out own.
Mod
Lauren wrote: ""We have intermediate stages of development right before our very eyes. Flying squirrels have the first wings. We have cells with no light sensitive patches, cells with light sensitive patches, cells with curved patches, cells with curved patches and fluid to focus them, we have dog eyes with are colorblind, human eyes, and hawk eyes, which are more advanced then out own." So how does a squirrel go from a normal squirrel to a squirrel with wings? Does the normal squirrel gene sequence develop a mutation that suddenly gives it wings or do squirrel genes already code for wings but they are just turned "off"? By using the words "intermediate stage" I mean the stage between squirrel and the development of a wing for a "winged squirrel". And then again, as far as the whole evolutionary hierarchy, birds did not branch off from winged squirrels so that development seems irrelevant to the whole process of evolution.
As far as the example of photosensitive cells or lack of light-sensitive patches...the question again arises: how does a cell obtain a light-sensitive patch? or a patch with fluid? Is it all the effects of consecutive mutations that over millions of years basically stacked up? If that is the case - then shouldn't every organism be the most ADVANCED it could be for its specific environment?
Sorry this is extremely interesting- and I want to really dig up some deep analysis.
Mod
The same way a dinosaur can be a bird. MANY small changes, accumulating over millions of years. And there is no such thing as an "intermediate stage" as there is no start and finish for evolution. It is always progressing. There is no goal, no start.
"As far as the example of photosensitive cells or lack of light-sensitive patches...the question again arises: how does a cell obtain a light-sensitive patch? or a patch with fluid? Is it all the effects of consecutive mutations that over millions of years basically stacked up? If that is the case - then shouldn't every organism be the most ADVANCED it could be for its specific environment?"
The first light sensitive patch was probably a mutation in the DNA base pair sequence, which caused the proteins produced by translation of the mRNA to be different. If the change benefited the organism, it was kept. If the change was bad, it would die, and not pass on the bad gene. The reason not all organism of a species evolve at the same rate is a question of geography. Populations within a species get separated. They need different adaptation. Sometimes, they need no adaptations, so they stay where they are. So, a bacteria may seem primitive compared to us, but for it's purpose and life style, it's the best it's ever been. No organism can live in a habitat as well as one that has evolved in it.
Koe wrote: "However that doesn't mean the trait always had the same function. Let's look at the development of the wing in birds. So what you're saying is that these limbs changed their function...you see that change would make it increasingly hard to be "favorable". Let us continue with the example of the winged squirrel- for the wings to be an advantage, they would have to provide the squirrel with a benefit. That means there would need to be some drastic changes in the habitat and thus force the squirrel to, through "natural selection", adapt.
My problem with that is that the world, Earth has not gone through such drastic changes- so that a limb may need a total change of function... and for a limb to totally undergo a change of function means that the other limbs must also undergo mutations of their own ( over the generations of course) to comply- to compensate and provide the creature with its basic needs. Because for a wing to become a protowing- means you've lost the ability to fly, now you only glide, which means that your arms, or beak needs to be more adapt to finding food in the proximal vicinity, without migration and flight.
You see for all these mutations to come together in, a sense, "harmonial" correspondance...it would take generations and generations...But that means that the slight mutation that gave it a protowing in the first place would not be FAVORABLE, thus would not be passed on...because the creature does not yet have the other mutations to compensate. I find that their have to be many abrupt and many,sudden changes that comply with each other for a creature to be able to jump that gap and have a limb change its function. This is the intermediate stage ambiguity that I'm talking about.
Mod
It doesn't need to be dramatic for the whole Earth. The hippo's ancestors are also the whale's ancestors. Somehow, a population of pre-hippos found they could survive better in the water, through a mutation they picked up. So, they moved into the water. Each mutation that benefited water living was kept, and they added up over time to produce whales.
THERE IS NO INTERMEDIATE STAGE as there is no beginning and end for evolution, no goal in mind. We are all in the process of evolving.
Lauren wrote: "And, despite what you think, evolution has been proven. It is the base of modern biology. "Evolution is still a "theory". What do you mean by "it is the base of modern biology"? I don't find evolution to be the basis of modern biology as say the laws of physics are the basis of physics. Biology is based on, if anything, the scientific method of inquiry and observation. Biology is based on the observations of life from the 1500's till now- and it is still expanding. Could you explain to me what you mean by evolution is the basis of modern biology when evolution is still a theory?
Mod
BY SCIENTIFIC DEFINITION a theory is a collection of ideas that have been PROVEN over and over again. Hence, Germ Theory, Theory of Gravity.
If evolution is not true, then nothing in biology makes sense. The dinosaurs to not make sense, mammals don't make sense. Eyes don't make sense. Don't you see it?
Lauren wrote: "BY SCIENTIFIC DEFINITION a theory is a collection of ideas that have been PROVEN over and over again. Hence, Germ Theory, Theory of Gravity. "
Exactly... a theory is:
a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
They have been accepted with testing but there are still pointers against it thus it is not YET law...it is not set in stone...it is just a set of statements that someone proposed to explain something and then did a bunch of experiments or in this case- dug up a bunch of bones- to support it BUT there are still major holes in this yet incomplete THEORY... many ppl still disagree with it and it is still not as universally accepted as LAWS are...
I shy away from saying evolution is the basis of biology because that is implying that everything that is learned about biology is based off that- based off a THEORY! which means if the theory fails - Biology falls (which of course is not the case)
Mod
There is no way to make a theory a law. A theory is made up of laws. If theories could become laws, why would we still call it the THEORY of gravity. It's not the same thing, and whoever told you that is trying to mislead you.
"I shy away from saying evolution is the basis of biology because that is implying that everything that is learned about biology is based off that- based off a THEORY! which means if the theory fails - Biology falls (which of course is not the case) "
Biology doesn't fail. Because evolution is true? Not exactly. But Geometry is based off of three ideas that don't and can't exist. Does that make it wrong, because there is no such thing a point, segment or plane?
Lauren wrote: "THERE IS NO INTERMEDIATE STAGE as there is no beginning and end for evolution, no goal in mind. We are all in the process of evolving. "
How can there be no intermediate stage? The genes in a creature do not code for every single possibility...the accumulation of mutations causes changes right? Hippos don't just move into and live in the water...
Let us think about it for a sec. If hippos were truly descendant from whales, then that means that the hippos had to develop a mutation that made it beneficial to live and thrive in water...but you see the intermediate stage comes in the fact that most mutations are negative and the mutations that do help are so small scale that they do not change any of the original functions of the limbs of the hippo. You have to realize that these mutations are just misplacements of one or another codon- or a misfit of A,C,G,T bases- for a change (like the hippo developing paddles or something- increasing its ability to swim). For that change to be large scale, it has to be again a perfect, "harmonic correspondence" of mutations where one mutation changes the hippo's lung capacity while another gives it paddles... thus the intermediate stage is when the hippo has a changed lung capacity but no paddles... Why an intermediate stage- why couldn't it just mutatively develop both simultaneously?
Because it is highly improbable (statistically) that two mutations perfectly fit to change the hippos habits with that precision. You also have to remember that during replication and DNA division, the DNA code is checked twice for errors by this same mRNA that you mentioned...so chance of mutation: very slim.
The highest rate of mutations is in bacteria and the more complex the organism the less mutations...so hippo to whale? not very likely...
Mod
But there is no goal of evolution. It's always shifting, changing. There can't be a middle because there is no end.
It's WHALES and HIPPOS are descendant from the same common ancestor.
And it's not one big jump. There wasn't just feet to flippers, there was webbed feet first. Which work on both land and water, but the hippos stayed on land, an the whales went to water. It's a divergence of one species, not one species changing into another one.
And what exactly is this harmonic correspondence of which you speak?
Koe wrote: "Malaz this is going to be a long post because there are a number of different things you've got wrong about how biology, evolution, and science work.0) In scientific terms laws & theories are t..."
You are awesome
yep. you are. that takes time and smarts to do.
Koe wrote: "Malaz this is going to be a long post because there are a number of different things you've got wrong about how biology, evolution, and science work. 0) In scientific terms laws & theories are t..."
:D of course I'll reply...(I'm learning...lol)
1)
The current consensus among philosophers of science seems to be this:
Laws are generalizations about what has happened, from which we can generalize about what we expect to happen. They pertain to observational data. The ability of the ancients to predict eclipses had nothing to do with whether they knew just how they happened; they had a law but not a theory.
Theories are explanations of observations (or of laws). The fact that we have a pretty good understanding of how stars explode doesn't necessarily mean we could predict the next supernova; we have a theory but not a law.
1)...Okay that makes perfect sense...so the theory of Evolution is an explanation of the observations of physical similarities or other between species; but nonetheless it is a theory that can be replaced if disproven. Okay- makes sense.
2) Explain: because my understanding was that natural selection provided for the accumulation of favorable traits that helped the organism>>furthermore making the organism more complex and more adapted to its environment. How does natural selection make an organism less complex? Can natural selection make an organism lose traits? but how would that be beneficial for it if it lived fine with its traits before- how does losing them...becoming simpler help the individual?
3) Okay...you all still don't understand my notion of intermediate stages. I think that you are looking at from a hierarchical point of view, while I'm looking at it from an observational, couple generations, point of view. How does the organism develop wings in the first place? and go slow...mutation to mutation. If you go back and look at my first post - where I explained the whole stub to bigger stub to wing deal...it will help explain my confusion a bit more.
4) I still counter-argue with the same notion of intermediate stages in # 3.
5) I know what mutations are...but you didn't respond to the increasingly slim possibility of mutation as the organism becomes more complex. How does that affect evolution?
6) Okay, but the problem still persists...say a population moves to a new habitat, the ones with the favorable traits (mutations) live and the others die...but the ones with the favorable mutation had to already have that mutation when they were in their original habitat, right? Then how come they survived and did not die out? ( I know this is pretty weak...and that I could probably explain it to myself but I want you to see where I'm coming from )
7) there persists the mathematical improbabilities of evolution being true...especially as the theory of origin.
8)What do you guys think about the controversy around the Darwinian theory of evolution- that he proposed it, while unsure of it himself, to go against the church?
9)What about the refuted fossil evidence- it always seems like they find this fossil and it is sure evidence of the evolutionary link between say... ape and humans and then like three years later, its refuted saying that it was not real but had been implanted into the soil for commercial purposes.* I will work on getting information ( specific evidence)about that - because I am not sure about it myself.
Mod
When has natural selection made and organism less complex?
"Okay...you all still don't understand my notion of intermediate stages. I think that you are looking at from a hierarchical point of view, while I'm looking at it from an observational, couple generations, point of view. How does the organism develop wings in the first place? and go slow...mutation to mutation. If you go back and look at my first post - where I explained the whole stub to bigger stub to wing deal...it will help explain my confusion a bit more."
Because there is no such thing. Everything is constantly changing. There is no point to where it just stops and is good enough. Everything is an intermediate stage, therefore nothing is.
"I know what mutations are...but you didn't respond to the increasingly slim possibility of mutation as the organism becomes more complex. How does that affect evolution?"
The more complex it is, the more likely there will occur a mutation, on simple odds. Plus, the fact that things like cosmic radiation are always fueling mutations.
"Okay, but the problem still persists...say a population moves to a new habitat, the ones with the favorable traits (mutations) live and the others die...but the ones with the favorable mutation had to already have that mutation when they were in their original habitat, right? Then how come they survived and did not die out? ( I know this is pretty weak...and that I could probably explain it to myself but I want you to see where I'm coming from )"
Because there is a difference between being able to survive, simply, and being good at it. Humans could live in unfavorable conditions if they had to, but over millions of years, the best ones would be most likely to pass their genes. Survival isn't on and off like a switch. It has shades of ability.
"there persists the mathematical improbabilities of evolution being true...especially as the theory of origin. "
Wrong on two counts. One, if even life had odds of a billion billion to one, then we could still have a billion planets in the universe that have life. Two, evolution has NOTHING TO DO with origins, so that is nt a valid point.
"What do you guys think about the controversy around the Darwinian theory of evolution- that he proposed it, while unsure of it himself, to go against the church?"
It matters not his intentions or ideas. Science does not take into account the feelings of discoverers, only what they find and it's validity.
"What about the refuted fossil evidence- it always seems like they find this fossil and it is sure evidence of the evolutionary link between say... ape and humans and then like three years later, its refuted saying that it was not real but had been implanted into the soil for commercial purposes.* I will work on getting information ( specific evidence)about that - because I am not sure about it myself."
There has never been a valid fossil that has been refuted. However, several fake fossils have been planted. But they have always been found out.
Mod
yeah. if new evidence came along that totally disproved evolution i would believe the new theory. not hold on to the lie and force myself to believe it because it would be nicer if their was a happy afterlife.
I don't see what the problem may be with believing in evolution AND God. Sure, a part of evoltuion is proven. That doesn't mean it disproves God.
hahaha yes we do. but it seems like a bunch of people seem to bring God into almost every topic!?
Anyone with the slightest bit of sense has to lol.
Koe wrote: "Oh and Malaz I can only assume at this point that you have accepted evolution is a fact."Sorry...Koe I don't give up that easily.
I was just busy with life and couldn't get on!
Lol...
Anyway- I have couple more questions/points.
In the process of major branching over the generations and through natural selection, the information in the genome becomes more complex and accumulates...in other words, the information in the genome increases. So how does that happen? What mutations can increase the complexity of the genome, when mutations can only happen to pre-existing data?
If Evolution through natural selection could change things- make mutations (specific variations of a trait) more favorable...how does it increase the availability of traits?
Mod
There are three types of mutations. ADDITIONS, deletions and switches. There can be additions.
"If Evolution through natural selection could change things- make mutations (specific variations of a trait) more favorable...how does it increase the availability of traits? "
Evolution doesn't make traits for favorable, it simply keeps already favorable ones. And there is also a certain amount of mutations that keep coming into the gene pool.
Lauren wrote: ""What mutations can increase the complexity of the genome, when mutations can only happen to pre-existing data? "There are three types of mutations. ADDITIONS, deletions and switches. There can b..."
The problem with the whole ADDITIONS, or insertions, deal is that these are the worst kinds of mutations: framshift.
So with that insertion of new bases, the whole DNA sequence shifts...
doesn't that like mean death?? because if your whole DNA sequence after a specific point gets disturbed- how does your DNA code for anything familiar? how does it code for the necessary functions? And to prevent that doesn't the "revision and check" process during DNA replication catch such a big change? Doesn't that make the possibility of a mutation like that happening effectively very, very, very, very slim?
My question is: how does the body deal with and what are the effects of framshift mutations on the DNA and the organism as a whole?
Mod
That's why we only have positive effects of additions left, because any negatives were immediately lost from the gene pool.
"Doesn't that make the possibility of a mutation like that happening effectively very, very, very, very slim? "
Consider millions of animals over millions of years.
"My question is: how does the body deal with and what are the effects of framshift mutations on the DNA and the organism as a whole?
"
It produces different proteins then what it normally would have produced.
Lauren wrote:That's why we only have positive effects of additions left, because any negatives were immediately lost from the gene pool. No but what I'm saying is that, it'll never have positive effects.
Give me one example in the wonderful hierarchy of evolution and the diversion of the animal kingdom that an addition (hence a framshift mutation) changed the organism as drastically as analysis of that process implies.
Mod
Humans. Obviously we added more DNA, as we evolved from cells using simple RNA. Our very existence is proof.
Lauren wrote: ""Humans. Obviously we added more DNA, as we evolved from cells using simple RNA. Our very existence is proof. "NO but there isn't just a short, direct link between uni-cellular cells (I'm assuming that's what you mean) and humans...there is a whole bunch of stuff between.
I want, if your able to provide it, evidence of a framshift mutation that positively benefited the organism in its new environment- where it became to say in a sense "permanent" and lead to the development of more complex organisms..
Like in the advancement of uni-cellular organisms to multi-cellular organisms...there is a theory (the official name of it is not coming to mind right now) that suggests that uni-cellular organisms "engulfed" other uni-cellular organisms to become multi-cellular.
Is that the view evolution holds? if so...plz elaborate.
And if not: what does evolution say...I assume using the frameshift mutation concept to justify transition from uni-cellularity to multi-cellularity?
Mod
Small mutations built up over time.
"I want, if your able to provide it, evidence of a framshift mutation that positively benefited the organism in its new environment- where it became to say in a sense "permanent" and lead to the development of more complex organisms.. "
Such as, mutations like wings, which benefited birds? Or something smaller and more specific?
