Atruthseeker
Active Member
'So you're telling me there's a chance?!' Lloyd Christmas
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evolution and Theory of Evolution
- Thread starter Gabethewiking
- Start date
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Great. Well, short version, the mechanism in ToE is the same. The only difference is that instead of a dog breeder selecting, nature has the same effect: some puppies (bunnies, spiders, pine trees...) get to live long enough to breed, and some don't. The traits that "worked" get carried into the next generation; those that don't die out. So populations change over time, due to babies being each just a little different ("descent with modification") and nature selecting some to live long enough to breed, and others not. (natural selection.)
That's the short version.
That's the short version.
Atruthseeker
Active Member
Well, that wasn't so bad! Can I ask a question tho?
Gabethewiking
Active Member
Yes, We want you to ask questions, if you listen to the answer. That is, do you really ask a question at all?
Atruthseeker
Active Member
Yes, I do don't I? There's one!
Anyway, what I was wondering is, given how many different life forms there are on this planet and all that they do, wouldn't it take ages for them to have evolved to where they are now? (bet you've heard that before!)
I mean, in the video on youtube where Dawkins proves the evolution of the eye, he talks about a simple light sensitive sheet..." Light sensitivity - Simple? We're not talking about a net curtain that let's in light! There is a huge array of chemicals and electrical signals involved in letting the brain know that light is there. And the brain must be able to discern that the eye has seen the light - the brain must know that it means something, and the brain must be able to cause the organism to do something about that light. How does the first 'brain' know what do do with that information?
Gunfingers
Happiness Incarnate
Correct. In fact, it would take approximately 3.8 billion years. Wikipedia has an interesting article on the subject. Please continue to ask any other questions you have. Not only do we delight in helping someone understand the natural world, but if you ask us something we don't know we get to learn for ourselves.
Atruthseeker
Active Member
WHHHOOOA! Hold on a sec! 3.8 billion years???? The earth is only about 6000 to 10000 years old!Correct. In fact, it would take approximately 3.8 billion years. Wikipedia has an interesting article on the subject. Please continue to ask any other questions you have. Not only do we delight in helping someone understand the natural world, but if you ask us something we don't know we get to learn for ourselves.
(Just kidding, I'll read it in a minute. Did I have you then?
)
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Yes, definitely, and this is the exact question I had. How do we know there has been enough time for all this to happen?Yes, I do don't I? There's one!
Anyway, what I was wondering is, given how many different life forms there are on this planet and all that they do, wouldn't it take ages for them to have evolved to where they are now? (bet you've heard that before!)
Couple things:
I have no idea of my own. I'm not a Biologist, not very good with math, and terrible at grasping large numbers. Apparently some experts told me that if anything, biologists think there is too much time, rather than not enough.
But this does bring up a huge prediction that turned out to be right. Whatever the hugely complicated math is, it was obvious early on that 6000 years wasn't nearly long enough, and even a hundred million probably isn't. Enough time is going to be in the billions. At the time Darwin came up with the theory, no one knew how old the world was--all they had was 6000 years. They were all scratching their heads trying to figure out how to figure it out.
Then a leading scientist, Lord Kelvin, figured out a way to calculate the rate of the earth's cooling. He came up with--too lazy to Google--a few million, which isn't nearly long enough. Darwin knew that if Lord Kelvin was right, ToE had to be wrong.
But it turned out that Lord Kelvin didn't now about radiation, because it hadn't been discovered yet. He didn't know there was a source of energy (radiation) that slows the rate of cooling.
And radiation gave us a way to calculate the age of the earth, which did indeed turn out to be in the billions of years.
So ToE scored a huge, risky prediction correc.
Atruthseeker
Active Member
Cool! (pun intended) That's ok from a Biblical standpoint.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Uh where was I. Oh yeah, again, nutshell version, populations are changing over time. Going back to artificial selection, I'm guessing that although you can artificially breed them, left on their own, these two breeds could not interbreed and reproduce. (I could be wrong, but it does seem unlikely.)
If I'm right, then scientists say they are two different species of dog. It doesn't matter that a chihuahua can breed with a toy poodle that can breed with a corgi that can breed with a lab that can breed with a Great Dane (more on this interesting phenomenon later), they're not able to breed with each other, so are classified as two different species. So we can see how a new species can evolve by artificial selection. From now on, these two kinds of dogs will diverge further and further.
In nature, when two groups get separated, and each one continues to change over time in two different directions, eventually they will be of two different species.
If I'm right, then scientists say they are two different species of dog. It doesn't matter that a chihuahua can breed with a toy poodle that can breed with a corgi that can breed with a lab that can breed with a Great Dane (more on this interesting phenomenon later), they're not able to breed with each other, so are classified as two different species. So we can see how a new species can evolve by artificial selection. From now on, these two kinds of dogs will diverge further and further.
In nature, when two groups get separated, and each one continues to change over time in two different directions, eventually they will be of two different species.
Half Asleep
Crazy-go-nuts
Atruthseeker, you never really respond when someone either fully answers your question or completely disproves your argument. You mostly just reply with "Neat-o," "Sure," "Whatever," "Okay, but how about _another question_?" etc etc.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
So, truthseeker, do you understand what ToE says about how we get a new species? Any questions? Are you comfortable with that? Do you agree this happens?
Is this perhaps the reason why you are afraid to learn about the theory of evolution?
If someones faith cannot stand in the face of education that says something about that persons faith.
Gabethewiking
Active Member
"Ages" in your short lifespan, yes. Our planet is calculated to be around 4 Billion years, and most of that without any significant life (defined by us, I consider it significant life but you may not).
You seem to misunderstand the whole thing. the eye(s) got adapted to its enviroment and simple changed depending on enviroment. The eye you have today is not the final product, nor is it the "best" product, it is simple an eye suitable for the enviroment it is around. The Theory of Evolution would explain to you how it came to be by "steps" (steps We define, there is really no "steps" but simple change) and Dawkins various books should be able to help you out if you want a detailed explanation.
Last edited:
Gabethewiking
Active Member
fantôme profane;1872807 said:
This is a valid point, would you like to respond to this question by fantôme?
Could you simple be afraid of losing your faith in your god(s) and this is the reason you question scientific fact?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
My opinion:
YEC leads to atheism. YEC makes false assertions, and makes one's faith depend on believing those false assertions. When the believer learns the truth, there are two options, either he changes his beliefs, but manages to retain his faith, or he becomes an atheist. I have seen both results.
Obviously, if you set up your entire religion based on discarding scientific knowledge and progress, you've made your religion vulnerable. The believer has to reject science to continue to accept the religion. I've met some who manage it and, hilariously, announce this on their computer!
YEC leads to atheism. YEC makes false assertions, and makes one's faith depend on believing those false assertions. When the believer learns the truth, there are two options, either he changes his beliefs, but manages to retain his faith, or he becomes an atheist. I have seen both results.
Obviously, if you set up your entire religion based on discarding scientific knowledge and progress, you've made your religion vulnerable. The believer has to reject science to continue to accept the religion. I've met some who manage it and, hilariously, announce this on their computer!
I agree. And this always reminds me of the parable about a house built on sand.
Really? Why does forensic science do it then?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
It doesn't. If it were in retrospect--that is, if we knew what had happened, you wouldn't need forensic science.
The analogy would be that you had thrown the change on the grid, but not looked at it yet. The odds against any specific arrangement would still be astronomical at that point.