How many fossils would it take to "prove" the theory of evolution beyond a reasonable doubt?

[TagliatelliMonster]

I understand the logic of the theory of evolution,

Not to be argumentative for the sake of it or anything, but pretty much every post you make on the subject suggests otherwise.

 

[metis]

Jesus more than questions it if you read and believe what he said in the Bible. We all have a right to question. It would be untenable to imagine that a person in one religion thinks someone else in a different religion is right. Otherwise an honest person imo would join the religion be thinks is right.

Since you cannot stay on topic but prefer to proselytize, I'm putting you on my ignore list as I have better things to do.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Why would that even matter?

I think the answer is throw everything against the wall and desperately hope against hope that something, anything, clings.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

An aside that I'd like your opinion on.

It seems to me that "natural" selection is not that different from "human" selection, in principle at least. We are part of nature at least. As an example, ants "farm" aphids to their mutual benefit. Aphids secret a sweet substance when stroked that ants feed on. Ants move aphids around to different plants, to the benefit of aphids. What came first, the aphids' secretions or the ant behavior? I have no idea, but it doesn't seem to be all that different from a human farmer selecting between different animals to get some desired feature, and from an evolutionary viewpoint the animals "benefit" by surviving better. Nobody would suggest the ants and aphids are not part of "nature", so why exclude humans?

Human or artificial selection mimics natural selection where we decide the traits that render the population most fit in our eyes and select for those traits. I've read these posts a bit out of order, but I believe @Subduction Zone mentioned that artificial selection is a model of natural selection or something to that effect. It is another piece of evidence that supports the theory of evolution and one that Darwin recognized in formulating the theory of natural selection.

We tend to categorize things as of nature and of man considering that we do many things and create many things that do not normally occur in nature outside of our influence, but we are a part of nature and our products could be seen as natural in that sense. Given the impact of the interactions and compatibilities of what we create and that impact on nature, I find it a practical dichotomy, but not an entirely accurate one from a philosophical view.

I propose that the production of honeydew by aphids and related insects occurred first and this new environment attracted ants and was the selection that favored the relationship. The physiology of aphid feeding produces the honeydew as the volumes of plant juices they feed on are withdrawn from the plants. It is likely that the evolving symbiosis may have had some selection on the host specificity of the aphids and feeding physiology as well, but I've not read any reports on research in that area. It would include behavioral changes in both aphids and ants as well so that the farmer didn't eat her milk cows.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

All you are doing is rambling while throwing in a sermon as if I didn't believe in Jesus in the first place. Between us, it's not whether God created all but how it was done? "Evolution" is simply change over time, and it's obvious that this is and has happened, so to deny that is to deny the reality that we even see day to day.

The Creation accounts probably were written as a teaching "myth" to counter the Babylonian polytheistic creation narratives that were in wide circulation back then. No serious Christian theologian today would believe that it's literal history because it simply doesn't add up as history.

Finally, for you to question another's Christianity is unethical, as just because someone may disagree with some details doesn't mean that they ain't a "true Christian". If you are so willing to judge others, then I'm simply going to ignore you from that point on as you would also be disobeying Jesus' command that we "judge ye not...".

I've seen this happen a lot. I don't consider if very good witness, but don't find it all that unexpected either.

 

[YoursTrue]

Since you cannot stay on topic but prefer to proselytize, I'm putting you on my ignore list as I have better things to do.

Well, that's ok. We all determine what's right and wrong for ourselves SOMETIMES (sometimes we adhere to God's commandments, that is, IF a person believes these commandments are from God), and to think one is a teacher about various religious things is a form of proselytizing for or against something. Have a nice day.

 

[YoursTrue]

I've seen this happen a lot. I don't consider if very good witness, but don't find it all that unexpected either.

If someone is going to be like JESUS, HE certainly questioned the religiosity of those around him, especially those who considered themselves as teachers. But I'm sure you remember that from the Bible.

 

[YoursTrue]

I've seen this happen a lot. I don't consider if very good witness, but don't find it all that unexpected either.

Now do remember, if you will, that many claim to be Christian OR another religion that is supposedly based on the Bible, yet then say it's a lot of mythical reports. Hey! Have a good one.

 

[YoursTrue]

Not to be argumentative for the sake of it or anything, but pretty much every post you make on the subject suggests otherwise.

I understand how a person would arrive at that conclusion. You may say otherwise, we have that right, don't we, so far right now, to disagree. It's like saiying I know there are oceans but I don't know exactly how they got there. Or I know there are planets, but I don't know really how they got there except by conjecture using what some may think are infallible restrictions.

 

[Alien826]

I propose that the production of honeydew by aphids and related insects occurred first and this new environment attracted ants and was the selection that favored the relationship. The physiology of aphid feeding produces the honeydew as the volumes of plant juices they feed on are withdrawn from the plants. It is likely that the evolving symbiosis may have had some selection on the host specificity of the aphids and feeding physiology as well, but I've not read any reports on research in that area. It would include behavioral changes in both aphids and ants as well so that the farmer didn't eat her milk cows.

Hmmm. Why would the proto-aphids waste the nutrition present in the honeydew rather than simply excrete excess water? It could be that originally only traces were present which were enough to attract the ants and the rest followed. Aphids would increase the nutrition, ants that didn't eat the aphids would increase in the populations. Ants that moved aphids around would do better than others, and so on.

 

[YoursTrue]

I think the answer is throw everything against the wall and desperately hope against hope that something, anything, clings.

Maybe -- you think Jesus never called some religious leaders hypocrites. ?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Hmmm. Why would the proto-aphids waste the nutrition present in the honeydew rather than simply excrete excess water? It could be that originally only traces were present which were enough to attract the ants and the rest followed. Aphids would increase the nutrition, ants that didn't eat the aphids would increase in the populations. Ants that moved aphids around would do better than others, and so on.

Whether aphid or proto-aphid, the problem encountered in this type of feeding on plants is that the sap, while high in sugars, is low in protein, so large volumes have to be ingested, filtered and passed out to get that protein.

It could be that the evolution of the symbiosis was that simple and straight forward.

Not only does the feeding damage the plant, but the accumulation of honeydew acts as a media for microbial growth that could further harm or even kill the plants. For farmers, it effects crop yield in both quality and quantity for much the same reasons.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Whether aphid or proto-aphid, the problem encountered in this type of feeding on plants is that the sap, while high in sugars, is low in protein, so large volumes have to be ingested, filtered and passed out to get that protein.

It could be that the evolution of the symbiosis was that simple and straight forward.

Not only does the feeding damage the plant, but the accumulation of honeydew acts as a media for microbial growth that could further harm or even kill the plants. For farmers, it effects crop yield in both quality and quantity for much the same reasons.

I can appreciate that. I do not like honeydew myself very much. I prefer cantaloupe.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I can appreciate that. I do not like honeydew myself very much. I prefer cantaloupe.

For religious reasons, I can't aloupe. It's a church wedding with family and friends or nothing.

 

[Alien826]

For religious reasons, I can't aloupe. It's a church wedding with family and friends or nothing.

<groan>

 

[YoursTrue]

How truly sad...no wonder...

 

[gnostic]

Another little lol. Thinking is part of the process of the theory of evolution, isn't it? Or is it? You tell me, I'd certainly be interested in hearing what people believe about religion and human thinking and evolution in the mix.

You are forgetting that Evolution involved genetics, so any biological traits must be passed down through DNA.

You don’t get to choose your parents are, or your grandparents, great-grandparents, etc, your ancestors stretching back generations.

A lot of the thing, one person do with his or her life, don’t get pass on descendants, because it is a physical and biological traits. Your DNA won’t passed down anything like what religion you like, what jobs you do, what music or art or literature you like, etc, because these stuffs won’t be contained on the base molecules of your DNA.

All these things that I have mentioned, have to be nurtured and learned.

There are nature and there nurture.

For instance, Mozart was a musician and composer, as his father was. Mozart has been exposed and hearing music since he was a child. Yes, he has taken for music, but it was still nurtured, it is not nature. But even, if it was nurtured, there are no denying of his prodigy and of his genius, for music compositions. His father Leopold, who acquired his music composer career, through Leopold being influence by the music from the church choir, not from his father Johann Georg Mozart, who was a bookbinder by trade. Johann’s father, Franz Mozart, was a mason, not a music composer, and Franz’s father David was a bricklayer. As you can see, other than Mozart’s own father, his ancestors weren’t all music composers.

it is the same as with any other arts, and yes, people who were exposed to arts, can join either parents who gifted in that areas. But not necessary true in every cases.

And it is the same with every other careers. It is nurtured and learned, and sometimes a child may choose a different path and profession.

but following a religion isnt a career, nor does it require talent. But nevertheless, it is still nurtured, or chosen by choice. It is not nature. What religion you follow isn’t in the DNA. Sure, your children may follow you, and choose jw, but then again, they may not.

 

[YoursTrue]

You are forgetting that Evolution involved genetics, so any biological traits must be passed down through DNA.

You don’t get to choose your parents are, or your grandparents, great-grandparents, etc, your ancestors stretching back generations.

A lot of the thing, one person do with his or her life, don’t get pass on descendants, because it is a physical and biological traits. Your DNA won’t passed down anything like what religion you like, what jobs you do, what music or art or literature you like, etc, because these stuffs won’t be contained on the base molecules of your DNA.

All these things that I have mentioned, have to be nurtured and learned.

There are nature and there nurture.

For instance, Mozart was a musician and composer, as his father was. Mozart has been exposed and hearing music since he was a child. Yes, he has taken for music, but it was still nurtured, it is not nature. But even, if it was nurtured, there are no denying of his prodigy and of his genius, for music compositions. His father Leopold, who acquired his music composer career, through Leopold being influence by the music from the church choir, not from his father Johann Georg Mozart, who was a bookbinder by trade. Johann’s father, Franz Mozart, was a mason, not a music composer, and Franz’s father David was a bricklayer. As you can see, other than Mozart’s own father, his ancestors weren’t all music composers.

it is the same as with any other arts, and yes, people who were exposed to arts, can join either parents who gifted in that areas. But not necessary true in every cases.

And it is the same with every other careers. It is nurtured and learned, and sometimes a child may choose a different path and profession.

but following a religion isnt a career, nor does it require talent. But nevertheless, it is still nurtured, or chosen by choice. It is not nature. What religion you follow isn’t in the DNA. Sure, your children may follow you, and choose jw, but then again, they may not.

Evolution as perceived as well as the Bible account of creation happened over a long period of time. That means that no human or others on earth saw how it happened biologically within the body and/or over time of generation. The passage from fish to humans, for instance, is conjecture based on what scientists feel is evidence backing up the theory. I am not going along with that any more Ijust to say, I used to go along with it) for at least two reasons. One is that there is no evidence beyond conjecture of scientists placed by fossils which do not show the genetic development within or without, and the other is that there is nothing, absolutely nothing to confirm that plants and animals came from a common ancestor. Similarly, going further, there is no basis to think that genetics ensured that humans developed the ability to write their history, and after so many purported years burgeoned off from some Unknown Common Ancestor making their behavior brain-wise so very different in function from gorillas and chimpanzees. Despite their purported descent from a couple of "Common Ancestors." Nope. Sorry. Doesn't add up to me. Obviously it does to others. I'll go with what the Bible says about many things. Makes more sense at this point.

 

[YoursTrue]

You are forgetting that Evolution involved genetics, so any biological traits must be passed down through DNA.

You don’t get to choose your parents are, or your grandparents, great-grandparents, etc, your ancestors stretching back generations.

A lot of the thing, one person do with his or her life, don’t get pass on descendants, because it is a physical and biological traits. Your DNA won’t passed down anything like what religion you like, what jobs you do, what music or art or literature you like, etc, because these stuffs won’t be contained on the base molecules of your DNA.

All these things that I have mentioned, have to be nurtured and learned.

There are nature and there nurture.

For instance, Mozart was a musician and composer, as his father was. Mozart has been exposed and hearing music since he was a child. Yes, he has taken for music, but it was still nurtured, it is not nature. But even, if it was nurtured, there are no denying of his prodigy and of his genius, for music compositions. His father Leopold, who acquired his music composer career, through Leopold being influence by the music from the church choir, not from his father Johann Georg Mozart, who was a bookbinder by trade. Johann’s father, Franz Mozart, was a mason, not a music composer, and Franz’s father David was a bricklayer. As you can see, other than Mozart’s own father, his ancestors weren’t all music composers.

it is the same as with any other arts, and yes, people who were exposed to arts, can join either parents who gifted in that areas. But not necessary true in every cases.

And it is the same with every other careers. It is nurtured and learned, and sometimes a child may choose a different path and profession.

but following a religion isnt a career, nor does it require talent. But nevertheless, it is still nurtured, or chosen by choice. It is not nature. What religion you follow isn’t in the DNA. Sure, your children may follow you, and choose jw, but then again, they may not.

First of all I'm not necessarily talking about Jehovah's Witnesses as a religion. I am speaking primarily of my understanding and comprehension according to my conscience and ability. Remember though that the Babylonians or Assyrians did not have the same type of worship that the Israelites had. That means their children were indoctrinated according to the prevailing teachings of their nation.

 

[shunyadragon]

Another little lol. Thinking is part of the process of the theory of evolution, isn't it? Or is it? You tell me, I'd certainly be interested in hearing what people believe about religion and human thinking and evolution in the mix.

I believe live and humanity spiritually and physically evolves. It ha been fairly well documented that the brain and mind of humans in recent geologic history.