If Evolution Were True

[sandy whitelinger]

Science-any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation. In general, a science involves a pursuit of knowledge covering general truths or the operations of fundamental laws.

Faith-inner attitude, conviction, or trust relating man to a supreme God or ultimate salvation. In religious traditions stressing divine grace, it is the inner certainty or attitude of love granted by God himself. In Christian theology, faith is the divinely inspired human response to God’s historical revelation through Jesus Christ and, consequently, is of crucial significance.

Just wanted to get some basic definitions here. Which of the two words are you concerned the most about in this discussion Sandy?

This discussion is basically about a few people attempting to teach my narrow-minded arse about evolution.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Thats a big step. It was preceded by several smaller steps in that time. Like the change from Bacteria to Archea to Eukaryote. Only Eukaryotes are genuinely multicellular (though some bacteria can certainly act like they want to be!).
It took the Eukaryotes time to learn to work together to form complex colonies before they could become truely multicellular.
All in all, a billion years for all that isn't that bad a time frame. They managed quite a lot in that time.
Sadly most of it is underapreciated because it just doesn't look that shiney compared to say the enormity of a Brachaeosaurs. It doesn't look like it has much to do with us, unlike the taming of fire by early human ancestors.

The poor misaligned Eukaryotes.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Thats easy, the Religious Right was interfering, much like they do today.

It's called the Religious "Right" for a reason.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

There is no one set rate for speciation.

Life span, reproductive rates and environmental factors all play key roles in shaping how quickly or slowly species arise.
Even the social structure of a species plays a role... mutations/adaptations spread faster in social species for example.

wa:do

How, then does one say that 3.5 billion years is enough time for all of life as we know to evolve?

 

[tumbleweed41]

This discussion is basically about a few people attempting to teach my narrow-minded arse about evolution.

Again, are you more interested in Science or Faith?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Again, are you more interested in Science or Faith?

First, I disagree with your definition of faith. Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen.

Now, for the purpose of me being taught about the ToE I assumed the subject would be scientific in nature yet the more I learn, I see that science, in this area, relies on a lot of faith.

 

[Autodidact]

Okay, I'll do the work for you, but please try and read my posts, This is not the first time you have missed answers.
post #246, "I see your point. I misspoke. We get new species. It is limited to that."

O.K. great, now we can move forward. You can see the confusion here. It's important to be clear about your position. So, if I understand you correctly, your position is that new species do arise, but...what? You talked a lot about what the Bible says, and that God magically poofed something into existence--apparently not species. What then? God magically poofed each genus into existence at some point (when?) and evolution takes place only within a genus, but then, for some reason stops at the genus line? Is that what you're saying? We get new species, but no new genera? Every genera has been here since its creation, and every new species that has ever appeared is in one of those genera that has always been here? Is that what you're saying now?

O.K., some questions:
How does evolution know to stop at the genus line?
How did you decide on genus as the level/limit on change?
Why does evolution stop at that point?
Did you know that most creationist psuedo-scientists do not define "kind" as genus, species, family, or any other recognized biological category? The actual definition given by the "baraminology" (lol) group at AIG is virtually incomprehensible, but it's not genera. (I can find it if you're interested.)
What is the evidence in favor of your hypothesis?
Does this include the genus Homo?

As for your question about relatedness among genera, the strongest evidence is DNA. Do you see why that is? Through DNA, we can actually calculate how closely related any two species are.
But it's important to remember that it's never just one piece of evidence. If something is truly scientificallly supported, it's always by the totality of all the evidence. So it's the DNA, and the fossils, and the homological similarity, the geographical distribution, the pattern of vestigial structures--all of these are consistent and point in the same direction. That's what makes us confident that the conclusion is correct. If you're really interested, we could pick two closely related genera and see how all the evidence all adds up to demonstrate their relatedness.

For example, take the genus Mus, typical mice, and Rattus, typical rats. Would you agree that a house mouse is more like a brown rat than it is like a redwood tree? O.K., ToE says the reason for that is that they are both descended from a common rodent ancestor--that they are more closely related, and that explains their skeletal similarity, the similar appearance, similar internal organs, modes of reproduction and, most importantly, their extremely similar DNA. The DNA of redwood trees and house mice will have some similarity, but much less than that of a mouse and a rat. ToE explains and predicts all of this. Do you have any problem with any of that?

 

[Autodidact]

Wow, for someone who preaches evidence you rely on a lot of faith.

What are you talking about? I tried to help you out by giving you names of books that address the questions you're asking. What does that have to do with faith?

 

[painted wolf]

3.5 billion years is a very long time. Most species can reproduce in massive numbers every year, or even several times a year.

The slower reproducing, longer lived species tend to evolve rather slowly, and you will notice we don't have a great number of them.
1 out of every 4 mammals is a rodent for example. They breed quick (twice or more a year) with large litters and they grow up quickly to reproduce.
Elephants on the other hand, only have three species. They reproduce and grow slowly.

Naturally life has more species like rodents than elephants.

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

I'm not an hermaphrodite.

For future reference, are you male or female?

 

[Autodidact]

Anybody?

It was addressed. Review the thread.

 

[Autodidact]

First, I disagree with your definition of faith. Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen.

Now, for the purpose of me being taught about the ToE I assumed the subject would be scientific in nature yet the more I learn, I see that science, in this area, relies on a lot of faith.

Baloney.

 

[Autodidact]

So sandy, that math you were going to give us, about why you're so confident that 3.5 billion years is NOT enough time for evolution to have produced the variety of species presently on earth? Your rationale for doubting the many scientific minds who have devoted themselves to figuring that out is ________________. (Please fill in the blank.)

 

[tumbleweed41]

Now, for the purpose of me being taught about the ToE I assumed the subject would be scientific in nature yet the more I learn, I see that science, in this area, relies on a lot of faith.

Not faith Sandy, observational hypotheses. Such as, we observe the movements of the planets and the earth, at one time these observations led us to the belief in a Geocentric Universe. Further study, contrary to biblical belief, led us to the discovery of a Solar centered system. The basis of evolution is discovery, no discovery yet has disproved evolution, only changed our understanding of it. We can no more "reproduce" evolution in a lab than we can "reproduce" the solar system. We can only observe and deduce the truth as information becomes available to us.
Of course your Faith can explain away any discoveries, or reject them altogether. Science is mutable, science changes as new discoveries are made.
If you reject the discoveries already made, no one here is going to be able to prove anything to you. You want absolute proof, there is none. Evolution is the accepted theory at this time. It would be up to you to disprove evolution using new discoveries that can be widely accepted by the scientific community.

 

[McBell]

This discussion is basically about a few people attempting to teach my narrow-minded arse about evolution.

I disagree.
Seems to me that this thread has become nothing more than a test of patience for those who would like for you to actually learn something that is outside your comfort zone.

 

[Sententia]

How, then does one say that 3.5 billion years is enough time for all of life as we know to evolve?

Because it happened. :yes:

 

[Autodidact]

You say that science uses evidence to postulate possibilities.

When did I say that?

We who believe the Bible use the same methods.

Really? You believe what the Bible says because the evidence supports it? Are you sure? Can you tell me what evidence supports the hypthesis that the sun stood still in the sky? How would that work?

Actually I haven't seen a doctor in about 25 years.

O.K. Do you fly? Do you trust the engineers who designed the plane, or do you ask to see the math? What I'm saying is, do you deny science in general, or only when it conflicts with your religious doctrine?

Let's take, say, electricity. Do you accept what the physicists tell us about how electricity works? Or do you need to do the equations yourself?

 

[fantome profane]

I think it is called "Searching For Darwin's God"

Finding Darwin’s God. It is an excellent book. I think you will enjoy it.

 

[RemnanteK]

If Evolution Were True...I'd be a monkeys uncle!

 

[Autodidact]

If Evolution Were True...I'd be a monkeys uncle!

If evolution were true, things would look exactly as they do.