Ever notice anything about this forum?

[LuisDantas]

Because evolutionists often says that we came by chance, out of the blue, not created by God.

It is certainly true that many of us believe that to be the case. We may be wrong or we may be right. I don't know that we can ever really find out.

After all, can anyone ever really prove that God did not want life to exist? I don't think so.

I never heard of this before, so thanks for the info.

You're quite welcome. :yes:

Hmmmm. You are the first one i have seen to say such a thing. Evolutionists usually would brag about the theory and hold it as a dogma against the theists dogmas. I'm really surprised!

Truth be told, I am a bit surprised myself that you have such an experience. Of course, bragging is not at all conductive to good will and receptiveness, so I guess it is our side's fault to some extent.

(...)

I don't think that's accurate. It's still a mere theory, not a fact, because they have not found the missing link yet. Am i right?

I fear not, TashaN. The concept of a missing link is popular in some circles, but it doesn't have much of a basis on reality. At this point in time we have lots of fossils already - and perhaps more significantly, we have lots of other kinds of evidence for the diferentiation of new species. Most, unfortunately, are somewhat esoteric in the biological knowledge that they use.

 

[LuisDantas]

Well, if that's the case, then if i'm not mistaken, the whole natural selection argument is invalid. Does not natural selection means the stronger will evolve and adapt and the weaker die and perish?

Generally speaking, yes. But it takes several generations for the less adapted species to become extinct, and it is not a sure thing that it ever will.

And there is no clear metric to say that a species is stronger than any other one. The environment may change and make it so that a previously succesful species becomes hindered by the very traits that made it succesful before.

For instance, carnivores generally benefit from having a more active metabolism and higher ground speed. But there is a downside to those advantages, because such a metabolism, while helpful to catch more prey, also makes the animals more demanding of food. That makes them more vulnerable in certain ways, if for instance the prey becomes more scarce. That might make competitors that have different survival strategies more succesful and lead to a shift in the numbers of the populations of those species. If the change of the environment becomes drastic enough and persists for long enough, those high-metabolism carnivores may well become extinct and end up giving way to new species that come from themselves but are more adapted to the current environment.

 

[TashaN]

It is certainly true that many of us believe that to be the case. We may be wrong or we may be right. I don't know that we can ever really find out.

After all, can anyone ever really prove that God did not want life to exist? I don't think so.

Well, that is indeed an honest approach.

You're quite welcome. :yes:

Truth be told, I am a bit surprised myself that you have such an experience. Of course, bragging is not at all conductive to good will and receptiveness, so I guess it is our side's fault to some extent.




I fear not, TashaN. The concept of a missing link is popular in some circles, but it doesn't have much of a basis on reality. At this point in time we have lots of fossils already - and perhaps more significantly, we have lots of other kinds of evidence for the diferentiation of new species. Most, unfortunately, are somewhat esoteric in the biological knowledge that they use.

What do you make of the "missing link" issue, and how crucial it is to validate Darwin's theory and verify it?

 

[LuisDantas]

What do you make of the "missing link" issue, and how crucial it is to validate Darwin's theory and verify it?

Not at all crucial. Fossils are historically important, but they have long since become redundant and unnecessary as far as evidence of evolution - or even of specifically primate evolution - goes.

Nor do I think there is a missing link proper. At this point it is an urban legend. There is a fair number of primate fossils already.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Not at all crucial. Fossils are historically important, but they have long since become redundant and unnecessary as far as evidence of evolution - or even of specifically primate evolution - goes.

Nor do I think there is a missing link proper. At this point it is an urban legend. There is a fair number of primate fossils already.

Luis if I may, I think a better way of answering Tashan is that "missing links" are very important to verifying Darwin's theory. And for over 100 years we have been collecting the fossils of missing links and verifying the evolutionary history of species. Missing links are not "missing", they have been found and they are undeniable evidence of evolution.

A link between aves (birds) and reptiles: Archaeopteryx. Without evolution, what was it? Is it a bird, but with teeth and claws? Is it a reptile, but with feathers and wings? Nothing like it exists today. No modern birds existed before it. Animals with the traits of modern birds only appear gradually in the fossil record after Archaeopteryx. That's because modern birds evolved from earlier reptiles over millions and millions of years. Here is one of many fossils:

A link between fish and amphibians: Tiktaalik. Again, what was it? It looks sort of like a fish. But it's neck could move independently of its body, and it had bones similar to shoulders, elbow, and wrist -- not at all like a fish, but not quite like a modern reptile, either. It had gills for breathing in water, but also adaptations for breathing air. There are no fossils of four-legged land animals older than Tiktaalik. Here's one of the fossils:

Many, many more examples of found links can be read about here.

The links between a modern horse with hooves, and an ancient small mammal which had 4 toes:

Fossils linking modern whales with ancient land animals:

The evidence is overwhelming. How do we explain all these fossils, without evolution? Did God create fish, then wait millions of years .... then create fish with arm and finger-like fins, then he waited millions of years ... then he created reptiles, then he waited millions of years .... then he created reptiles with wings and feathers ..... then he created birds .... and so on? And every time he created, he also destroyed, so we no longer have creatures like Archaeopteryx or Tiktaalik or Homo Erectus? In other words, did God deliberately create and destroy animals in such a way as to make it appear that evolution occurred in the fossil record? That would be a very strange thing for God to do.

We know that human beings, in a thousand years or so, have caused the European wolf to evolve into breeds as diverse as the chihuahua and the chow, simply by selecting the few offspring with desirable traits, and preventing the many others from reproducing. It would be difficult to come up with an excuse, then, why the same thing would not happen in Nature, where the pressures of the environment and some accidental chances select only a few individuals for successful reproduction, and this goes on for many millions and millions of years.

 

[painted wolf]

"Missing links" also implies that evolution is a progression in a strait line. It isn't.

Also, natural selection isn't purely random...mutations are random but what types of traits will let you survive in a desert vs. the arctic are not. It's not random that animals in the desert are good at cooling off while animals in the arctic are good at staying warm.

wa:do

 

[TashaN]

Great post Mr. Spinkles. Once i saw a documentary or an article, i don't remember. It says that it's still puzzling how could a fish be able to abandon water and live on land. Did it suddenly acquired lungs? did it occur through the years? how did it happen exactly?

 

[painted wolf]

Great post Mr. Spinkles. Once i saw a documentary or an article, i don't remember. It says that it's still puzzling how could a fish be able to abandon water and live on land. Did it suddenly acquired lungs? did it occur through the years? how did it happen exactly?

There are still fish with lungs living today... the lungfish. They use their lungs to survive in water that doesn't have a lot of oxygen. They have gills, but they don't function anymore.

Some even use their thick fleshy fins to move over land from one puddle to another.

wa:do

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Great post Mr. Spinkles. Once i saw a documentary or an article, i don't remember. It says that it's still puzzling how could a fish be able to abandon water and live on land. Did it suddenly acquired lungs? did it occur through the years? how did it happen exactly?

I'm not an expert, like painted wolf. But I do know that there are many, small, intermediate steps between "living in the water" and "living on land". Some fish die within minutes when they are out of water. Some fish can spend days out of water. The mudskipper, lungfish, and other amphibious fish are alive today and they live predominantly in the water. But these fish have adaptations which allow them to spend extended periods of time on land -- modified skin for breathing, modified fins for crawling, etc. The earliest vertebrate "land animals" in fact (animals with backbones) would have been amphibians (frogs, etc.) which can survive on land, but need to go back to the water sometimes, or at least they need a very moist environment.

So here's one plausible, though probably incorrect, scenario: you have fish living in shallow water. They have cells in their gills which absorb oxygen to allow them to breathe. Over many generations, a change in the environment occurs, depleting the oxygen content of the water. Thus, any fish with slight changes in its gill chemistry, which causes a slight increase in the efficiency of oxygen absorption when exposed to air, will have an advantage, because the air has more oxygen in it. Now suppose this fish tries to hide its eggs at the edge of the water, away from predators. The shallower and shallower the fish can hide the eggs, the better its eggs will survive predators in the water. Some fish can hide their eggs in water so shallow that they are partially exposed to the air. The jelly that normally separates eggs from water gets a little harder, and a little harder, until it can also protect the eggs when exposed to more and more air. Gradually, the fish makes excursions from shallow water, to moist areas partially covered by water, to completely dry areas away from the water. At first, it only does this to hide its eggs. But as the fish becomes better adapted to surviving longer and longer out of water, it finds other reasons to stay -- avoiding your competitors in the water, for one. The fine structures in the fish's fins, which are light and good for swimming, become heavier and stronger -- better for crawling. The eyes on the sides of its head, which provide a good field of view in open water, move a little closer to the top of the head -- better for looking out from the water. As the air becomes more inviting, due to higher oxygen content and fewer predators, the cells which absorb oxygen in the gills spread to other parts of the skin -- this means less protective scales or spines, but more efficient oxygen absorption. Every time the fish takes a gulp (maybe it's eating the eggs of another fish outside the water) the skin below its mouth expands, increasing surface area and providing greater oxygen absorption. So, any fish that has slightly more oxygen absorbing cells in this area, can get a slight boost in efficiency every time it gulps. Gulping in order to expand this skin and breathe more efficiently, becomes an advantageous trait -- fish start to gulp in order to breathe, not just to catch prey. The skin under the jaw becomes more and more stretchy, so it can expand more and more. It eventually becomes like a balloon, and the fish breathe by expanding it. **

By now the "fish" we are imagining is not really a fish, it's more like an amphibean (like a frog). If it can spend minutes, hours, days out of water, then it's not hard to imagine it can eventually spend most of its life out of water.

** edited: Err, I don't actually remember if that's how frogs breathe...

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Actually (and painted wolf can correct me if I'm wrong here) I think frogs already show us one way a "fish" can abandon water and live on land. Frogs are born as tadpoles very similar to fish. If all these changes can occur gradually, step-by-step in a single animal, in a matter of days or weeks, and the animal is able to survive at each stage, then why can't similar changes occur in an entire population of animals, over the course of millions of years? Check out the stages of a frog's life:

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Great post Mr. Spinkles. Once i saw a documentary or an article, i don't remember. It says that it's still puzzling how could a fish be able to abandon water and live on land. Did it suddenly acquired lungs? did it occur through the years? how did it happen exactly?

I hope your question was answered .... of course it would occur over many generations, not suddenly. It would be similar to breeding domestic plants and animals, the individuals with desirable traits are selected. Over many generations, you can end up with a breed of rabbits, or dogs, or cows, or crops with very specialized traits, which are very different from the ancestors.

 

[painted wolf]

Here is a good example of that transition.... Acanthostega.

It still has gills, but they were too small to be useful for breathing underwater, it has small legs with eight fingers (it would take a while for tetrapods like us to decide on five fingers) and it still had scales like a fish. The skull is definately that of a tetrapod (minus the gill basket).

It wasn't out of the water yet, but it definitely shows the trend in action.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

Here is how the limbs changed.

And the skulls

wa:do

 

[Thief]

Really. I can only assume you haven't given the matter much thought.

Poor assumption on your part.

With greater consideration you might agree with me.

Evolution is fine.

God did it.

 

[LuisDantas]

Maybe he did. It is just not possible to know.

 

[Oneatatime]

If you can take out God and it still works then it doesn't bode well for Gods involvement.

 

[Thief]

If you can take out God and it still works then it doesn't bode well for Gods involvement.

Or it means the mechanism He set in motion works quite well.

 

[LuisDantas]

Or perhaps that this is not much of a theological matter?

 

[Thief]

Or perhaps that this is not much of a theological matter?

So evolution is life unto itself?
No sense of spiritual anything?

If life is no more than chemistry....
you have nothing but the grave before you.

 

[LuisDantas]

Life and existence are what they are. We atheists lack the power to "refuse" to let God exist if it turns out that he does, and you Theists lack the power to truly create one if there is none.

You're fully entitled to believe that, as you put it, there is more to life than chemistry. I happen to agree, but not due to any belief in God. Life is also about choices, moral values, empathy and making something valid out of what is basically a chaotic existence.

Some people might see either the need for or the footprints of a God in there, and that is fine. But I fail to see the point in insisting in telling us disbelievers that no, we are wrong, there must be one.

Tell him to take a number and enter the line. We will speak with him when his turn comes. Until them, do as you please, believe or don't believe, but please understand that no one has a duty to agree with you about that matter.