McBell
Unbound
Why do so many theists think Pokemon has anything to do with the theory of evolution?
-
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 My ToE
- Thread starter nPeace
- Start date
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I don't think it's offensive, in fact I never thought the concept of shared ancestry with other primates as offensive. I don't understand it, and in contrast, I believe that God, not evolution, made the heavens and the earth, Genesis explains according to their kinds.
I can't say. And then I heard that the question as to what constitutes a kind is open to interpretation. But I'm not sure about that. Now you're sure that cats and fish share a common ancestor that lived about 440-460 million years ago?
Is that what you think the theory of evolution says happens?
Agreed. What would be an example that *is* what you think of as evolution?
Do you think it requires lions changing into camels? That is what one of your posts suggests.
Audie
Veteran Member
"GOING OUT OF YOUR WAY" not to undestand.
Of course.
What else could happen when someone KNOWS evolution
is a buncha hooey?
You like analygories, so try this-
Mommy has nannycam vid of johnny stealing cookies.
For whatever reason she listens as his tale
of what he says "really happened"is told.
Amused? Waiting till he trips himself up?
Bottom line though-
No matter how much or little she understands
his story, or cares about understanding it,
She will never ever believe it.
The only study our creofriends will ever do is
to look for fatal flaws, gotchas. Of course,
the science is a bit challenging and worse,
it will never give them their gotcha.
(Besides, it is all phony / lies )
So its easier to cut n paste bs from creosites,
or even easier, make up random nonsense,
all on the assumption that then evo's words are
as facile and sballow as theirs, but further handicapped
by being wrong.
You do know all of that-?
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Again, I believe I understand the scientific concept of biological gradualism regarding evolution of the plant and animal organisms. I can also understand that languages or societies evolve. But if you're going to compare that to biological evolution, and tell me it's like that, that's up to you. I don't accept it as an apt comparison, except in the sense of, perhaps, accents changing gradually, and forming new words that another population of humans may not understand. I am not discussing that now, although an interesting discussion in itself. Which reminds me of what the Bible says when the language spoken by those building the tower of Babel was confused. The history of language is another rather detailed discussion.
Audie
Veteran Member
Hey, ToE is all just made up, so why isnt it just as
valid for him to make things up?
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I'm not yet prepared to discuss what is or could be (a better term) an example of evolution biologically speaking. The finches of Darwin's study remained finches.
OK, how would we go about determining if two species are of the same 'kind'? Even if we don't know, what would be a process by which we could figure it out?
Yes, cats an fish share an ancestor that lived about that time. That was when vertebrates first appeared and both cats and fish are types of vertebrates.
And yet they *are* evolution.
It seems to me that you want to deny evolution without knowing what it even is.
Let me give a few examples. I am talking in all of these of *biological evolution*.
Evolution is NOT a dog giving birth to a cat.
Evolution is NOT a person suddenly getting new powers.
Evolution is NOT changing your hair color by chemical treatments.
Evolution is NOT a lion changing into a camel.
Evolution is NOT having a half-duck, half-crocodile.
Evolution is NOT growing a new leg.
Evolution is NOT a lizard changing into a horse.
Evolution is NOT a bacterium changing into a human.
On the other hand,
Evolution IS the diversification of finches in the Galapagos.
Evolution IS the splitting of a species of lizard into two species of lizard.
Evolution IS the members of a population getting hairier because the climate gets colder (or less hairy if the climate gets warmer).
Evolution IS a population becoming larger over the course of several generations because smaller individuals keep getting killed.
Evolution IS a species of feathered dinosaurs splitting into two species of feathered dinosaurs.
Evolution IS a species of carnivourous mammal shifting into a species of felines over millions of years.
Evolution IS a species of mammal like a otter spending more and more time in the water and adapting to the water environment. That may include more finned hands and feet, or a broader tail.
Evolution IS a species of apes that walks upright and uses tools also developing language and becoming what we recognize as human.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I don't believe that evolution is a species of apes that walks upright, uses tools, develops language, and becomes human. It's almost like saying the species did it by themselves by biologic magic. Really a b-i-g leap from the accomplishments of bonobos and chimpanzees to those of humans. I don't accept that in any event. I do believe that God made man in His image. Not the ape's image, ok, better said, a chimpanzee's or the last common ancestor's image. There are differences between animals of the various kinds. And a vast difference between humans and other beings. To hear the arguments against that is astounding, and I mention reading and writing as a key element of difference.
I saw a youtube of a cockatiel that literally bounced to a music beat, tapping its legs and moving its head in time to the music. Does that mean eventually the cockatiel as a species will evolve to produce offspring that are going to read and write music? I don't think so. One reason is that it has not been noted that birds of any kind, species, or sort, have learned to read and write music - ever. I hope I won't get the answer that there's not enough time to see if they do.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
OK, thank you for your answer. So starting from 'a' beginning, because there are many, I will quote wikipedia's definition of evolution.
Allow me to see if you agree with this, from the article on evolution: (This is only the beginning of the article.)
Evolution - Wikipedia
"Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] These characteristics are the expressions of genes that are passed on from parent to offspring during reproduction. Different characteristics tend to exist within any given population as a result of mutation, genetic recombination and other sources of genetic variation.[3] Evolution occurs when evolutionary processes such as natural selection (including sexual selection) and genetic drift act on this variation, resulting in certain characteristics becoming more common or rare within a population.[4] It is this process of evolution that has given rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms and molecules.[5][6]"
So, I comprehend sentence #1. ""Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1]"
The next sentence states: "These characteristics are the expressions of genes that are passed on from parent to offspring during reproduction."
OK, I understand that, too. Not entirely, but somewhat. A male and female usually need to get together to produce in general, a biologically offspring, either male or female, that can produce offspring as well.
Now for #3: "Different characteristics tend to exist within any given population as a result of mutation, genetic recombination and other sources of genetic variation."
I'm stuck there on that one, don't know what it means and how it can be shown historically or demonstrated presently.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
According to the theory, there are branches stemming from one originating organism, aren't there, thus enabling different types or kinds to evolve, us that right?
Well, the individuals in a population are not identical. For example, some people have blond hair, others have red hair, and still others black hair. Similarly for eye color, or height, or ability to digest lactose, or any number of characteristics that are carried by the genes. And there are many such characteristics.
These characteristics are because the genes for, say, eye color, are not the same between people. Differences in the genes are called genetic variation.
Furthermore, there are a number of things that can cause genes to change from one generation to the next. Radiation, exposure to chemicals, mistakes in gene replication, etc, can all mean that the genes for a child need not be exactly identical to the gene in either parent. Most will be, of course, but not all. In fact, each child has something like 100 such mutations.
So, in the statement above, there are different characteristics (eye color, hair color, genes for digesting lactose) and those are the result of differences in the genes. And differences in the genes are caused by mutations as well as ;genetic recombination' (which is a fancy way of saying we get genes from both parents, but the combination is different than for either parent).
So, really, the statement is easily enough understood and is clearly true if you understand genetics and reproduction.
Last edited:
Not one originating organism. One population of organisms. And it was quite a long time ago, with a LOT of changes in between.
That *isn't* central to the concept of evolution, though. It is something we have *concluded* based on masses of evidence, but it isn't central to the notion of evolution.
So, for now, let's focus on the basics of what evolution is and then look at the evidence for the history of life on this planet in more detail. And there *are* questions about much of the very early stages (which happened billions of years ago, so evidence is scarce).
Instead, let's first limit ourselves to the last 600 million years. After we get the basics down, we can go further back. But the main concepts of evolution can be grasped from what has happened in that time and the evidence is much, much clearer as to the details.
So, by 600 million years ago, we had multicellular organisms. None of the life at that time had skeletons. None had hard shells. All were pretty soft and squishy things, like worms, or jellyfish, etc.
Can we, for simplicity sake, start then? And then carry the story forward before we attempt to go back further?
OK, let's be clear. You don't believe that is what we mean when we talk about evolution? Or do you mean that you mean that is not what you believe happened? Do you see the difference?
Because we can go into the evidence that this is what happened as long as we have our terminology right.
There are certainly big differences. But we have also found out that many we think of as huge differences are not, in reality, so different as you might think.
But, can you go from what we see in chimps and bonobos to an ape that is able to make a crude stone tool?
Can you go from an ape that is able to make a crude stone tool to one that can make a less crude stone tool?
First, we are trying to look at what the evidence actually shows. You can believe what you want, but you should at least understand what the evidence is, whether or not you think it says what everyone else seems to think.
Second, your focus on writing seems a bit strained for many people. The human species has only had writing for around 5 thousand years. But there have been anatomically modern humans for over 100 thousand years. So, for the vast majority of time humans have been around, we have not had writing.
That is why NOBODY claims that the development of writing is related to evolution. There is NOTHING biologically that changed that lead to writing. It is a cultural change and NOT a biological change.
Also, the fact that humans have not had writing for most of the time we have existed shows that writing is not a central issue defining what it means to be human. So, no it is *not* a key element of the difference.
Now, one thing that *may* be a key element is that humans seem to have a much greater ability to abstract thought than any other species. We make more tools and more varied tools than any other species. And we do so spontaneously from an early age. That *is* a difference. But other species *do* use tools and make tools. So it is an extension of abilities other animals have, not something wildly new.
And I don't either. A bird enjoying music isn't going to lead to the types of biological changes required for complex tool use and the types of social binds that lead to music production with those tools.
On the other hand, from our study of birds, we know that *some* species seem to sing their songs, with variations, for no reason other than that they enjoy doing so. Whales have long 'songs' that are taught to their young.
One reason is that it has not been noted that birds of any kind, species, or sort, have learned to read and write music - ever. I hope I won't get the answer that there's not enough time to see if they do.
Reading and writing music is incredibly recent even for humans. The *production* of music is, however, much more ancient and there *are* species of birds that seem to create new songs and pass them to others.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
OK, so I did a little research on this. It is thought that dogs and cats have a common ancestor from which they descended, but of course, dogs and cats do not mate. Thus dogs do not (and likely cannot) give birth to cats. Of course, humans with blond hair can mate with humans of dark hair, and of course, it's up for grabs genetically as to what is produced, but so far they produce humans, similar to forced breeding, but not always the same. And yes, cats of sorts produce cats.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
When you say incredibly recent, I, too, find it astounding that reading and writing of music and other works of literature is a somewhat recent discovery. Yes, when I took music history it is an interesting invention. Yet the biology of humans permits them, unlike gorillas (or birds) to do this. That little percent difference.
Yes, birds can bounce up and down to music, to me it demonstrates the glories, wonders, and abilities of creation. That includes whales teaching songs to their young. Obviously they have the physical and instinctive capacity to do so. Humans in many societies are taught to eat with knives and forks rather than like dogs going to a bowl. I believe If humans were created as entirely different from animals, we would not know how to deal with them. Or take care of them. In fact, now that I'm thinking about it, Adam and Eve were supposed to eat fruit, and it was not until Noah that the authority to eat meat was given.
I am still interested in learning about species and kinds and the idea of common ancestors.
What is the point here?
No animal breeder or scientist expects dogs to reproduce cats or vice versa. No one expects other than humans from human reproduction. I have no idea where you intend to go with this other as some evidence against evolution somehow.
What is a cat of sorts?
Speciation occurs when a subset of a population diverges from the original population to the point that gene flow ceases. Numerous and various mutations and selection mechanisms drive the divergence. In some cases, especially where radical changes to the local environment open multiple niches, evolution can progress at a geologically rapid pace resulting in a flock of new species. The cichlid superflock of Africa's Lake Victoria is a well-known example. Nearly 700 species and a number of genera evolved over period starting about 15,000 years ago.
What you seem to think is that somewhere in that chain of speciation there was a point where one species shifted to another in a single generation of that there was a few generations that were half one species and half another. These would be the so called missing links as envisioned by creationists. Neither of those scenarios is predicted, claimed, or observed in any population. Observations of change like that would demand the theory be scrapped and a new theory would need to be formulated to account for such observations.
If you consider persons life from birth to death as a metaphor of speciation, you will have a better understanding of speciation. On what day is the person no longer a baby? On what day is the person no longer a child? On what day are they an adult? On what day are they old?
Or is it more that over time they gradually go from one life stage to the next by tiny steps. That one cannot show a specific point to say they are no longer this age but the next. See the photos of the Brown sisters to get a rough idea of small changes over time.
Last edited:
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
You kind of did, yes. 2 posts ago, you said this:
...but this is because of the inherent chemical and biologic processes enabled by their makeup. To me this is not evolution
If that isn't what you meant, then I have no idea what you meant
Breeding demonstrates the biological processes that make evolution happen.
You refusing to call those "evolution", doesn't change the fact that it is those processes that make evolution happen.
You can either deal with that or continue sticking your head in the ground.
And you forgot to answer my question: Then what "evolution type thing", would you accept as an example of evolutionary processes in action?