ftv1975
Active Member
now i am not realy sure. i think mutations are true. what causes the mutations or why they occur i want to find out. this thread has brought up a lot more questions.
-
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!
Question for people that believe in evolution
- Thread starter ftv1975
- Start date
Alceste
Vagabond
It's helpful to think of "mutations" as minor, random genetic variations. It's not like a generation of squirrels suddenly sprouts gills and takes to the water out of the blue. If there were to be such a thing as an aqueous squirrel a few million years down the road it would be a very, very gradual change. Maybe it would start with slightly thicker hair for warmth, or more fat, a less bushy tail, and very, very gradually, due to accumulated small changes, you'd have something like a muskrat or beaver. The cause of these changes would be a change in the squirrel's habitat, like regular flooding (for example). This change would make the squirrels who were better swimmers and better heat preservers better survivors. Because they are better able to survive, they would produce more than the crappy swimmers in that habitat.
Actually, I'm just repeating everything Auto said. The point is that the "mutations" are very small and incremental. Big changes are due to countless accumulated minor mutations over a very long period of time. They are not obvious to the naked eye unless we're talking about something with a very short reproductive cycle, like bacteria or fruit flies.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
yes i think i am. (fishius ftvia) that made me laugh. i do have several Questions. i will what to ask them later after reading a few more things just incase what i read answers them for me.
You're doing great... Look, as much as I "think" I know..I'm still learning. Others here have done a wonderful job providing information that I had never seen before. Even if in the end you throw your hands up and say...you just don't want to except the theory...hey..at least you were bold enough to ask the questions, read the relevant information on the subject and approach the topic here civilly....
Last edited:
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Mutations. What happens is that when an organism reproduces, its DNA is copied. (more complicated than that, but let's make it simple.) There are millions of "bits" that need to be copied. A couple of bits get turned around, or accidentally deleted, or repeated. Each mutation, in effect, is a copying error. They're unavoidable.
Now most of these mutations have no effect at all. A few are negative. These will tend to die out. (Do you see why?) One or two are beneficial, and these will survive and reproduce.
Now most of these mutations have no effect at all. A few are negative. These will tend to die out. (Do you see why?) One or two are beneficial, and these will survive and reproduce.
Consider any method you can think of for copying something, the old mimeograph, carbon paper, photocopy machines, faxes, digital copy etc. They all leave open the possibility for errors, especially if something is copied hundreds of thousands of times (or millions or billions of times). DNA replication is actually a remarkably high fidelity copying system, but it is not absolutely perfect. What I find interesting about it is that Darwin had no conception of DNA when he published Origin of Species. But the theory he proposed required that there must be a common mechanism of inheritance for all life, that this mechanism must have a high degree of fidelity and that this mechanism must make mistakes from time to time. And that is what we have found. Now you might say that a Creator might choose to use this kind of system if he wanted to, and you would be correct to say that. But nothing in Creationism predicts this kind of system.
Just to clear something up... What you describe is not genetic drift. You're describing change in the genetic composition of a population by means of natural selection - individuals with a positive trait get to reproduce more than others, hence the name 'positive trait'. Genetic drift would be change in genetic composition simply due to random, statistical sampling error in each generation. When an individual creates gametes, the genes inside them are 50% of the individual's genes; which 50%, is random. Therefore, some DNA sequences can disappear or proliferate in the population entirely due to chance. That's genetic drift. And the smaller the population, the larger the sampling error.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Thanks. So this kind of change is actually a combination of natural selection and genetic drift, right?
Yes, I think you could generalise evolutionary change in that way.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Alright, ftv, so that's what ToE says about one of the main ways we get a new species. So what we see is that the new species branches off from an existing species, is not very different from that existing species, and comes into existence in a very understandable, not-mysterious way. You don't have to understand mutations; Darwin had no idea that DNA even existed. We all know that offspring resemble their parents, but not exactly.
So that's a huge piece of the theory. The second big piece is just the idea that another new species can arise from the new species, and another new one from that, and so on. That this is the way all new species come into existence, in a continuous, ongoing process.
So you'll never see a dramatic kind of change. Every change will be gradual and subtle, and grade gradually into a new species. Yet over a very long time, gradually, dramatic differences will emerge. Eventually Biologists have to call a new species a different family.
So ToE says that's not only how we get new species, but new genii, families, and so forth.
So that's a huge piece of the theory. The second big piece is just the idea that another new species can arise from the new species, and another new one from that, and so on. That this is the way all new species come into existence, in a continuous, ongoing process.
So you'll never see a dramatic kind of change. Every change will be gradual and subtle, and grade gradually into a new species. Yet over a very long time, gradually, dramatic differences will emerge. Eventually Biologists have to call a new species a different family.
So ToE says that's not only how we get new species, but new genii, families, and so forth.
Amill
Apikoros
It's just the only thing that makes sense with what we see. Why do creatures of today have features that make it look like their ancestors lived in different environments? Why have we found fossils that fit with the theory of evolution? Why are there all sorts of fossils of different "human" species? why do we find fossils and evidence of more simple life the deeper we dig? Why do I find ancient coral fossils here in indiana? The scientific explanations for the history of the earth and life are the only things that make sense. If you want to hear a good explanation by a scientist that is very knowledgeable and well spoken look up ken miller on youtube. He's a catholic but believes in evolution and abiogenesis.
It wouldn't have been very hard for a creator to make creation more obvious. Why did he make one of our chromosomes look like a fusiion of two? If the fusion wasn't found, and there weren't fossils that are still debated on whether or not they are birds or still just non avian dinosaurs, ect., ect., then maybe creation would be a more plausible explanation.
Scientific explanations work because they're based off what we see.
It wouldn't have been very hard for a creator to make creation more obvious. Why did he make one of our chromosomes look like a fusiion of two? If the fusion wasn't found, and there weren't fossils that are still debated on whether or not they are birds or still just non avian dinosaurs, ect., ect., then maybe creation would be a more plausible explanation.
Scientific explanations work because they're based off what we see.
lunamoth
Will to love
For me, a visit to the museum of natural history, and especially the evolution exhibits that show what we've learned so far about the development of life on earth, is a religious experience. I am so moved, and that is not nearly strong enough to express how I feel, by the wonders of evolution and the majesty of creation.
As I walk through the exhibits showing the fossils, and literally choke up as I explain evolution to my daughters. It is just so amazing! They ask, "did God do this mom?" My answer is simple because they are young, "yes, God has created everything." They hopefully will ask lots of questions as they grow so I can help them see how I see the glory of God in the wonder of evolution.
I am a biologist and a teacher.
I agree with whoever recommended Ken Miller. Finding Darwin's God is a great read.
As I walk through the exhibits showing the fossils, and literally choke up as I explain evolution to my daughters. It is just so amazing! They ask, "did God do this mom?" My answer is simple because they are young, "yes, God has created everything." They hopefully will ask lots of questions as they grow so I can help them see how I see the glory of God in the wonder of evolution.
I am a biologist and a teacher.
I agree with whoever recommended Ken Miller. Finding Darwin's God is a great read.
Out of curiosity, I'd like to know what role you think God plays in evolution. Not to be intrusive, but I'd just like to know your beliefs regarding this and the reasons you have for those beliefs. You accept evolution as a mechanism for how new species bud off from ancestral species. What do you think God does, then?
rojse
RF Addict
Can I add to this statement that I am ashamed at some of the posts on here that not only have nothing to do with evolution, but completely squander such a wonderful opportunity as presented here.
For shame.
ThereIsNoSpoon
Active Member
What i wanted to know was whether you think that some explanatory parts of evolution (natural selection, variation, etc.) are true or whether you think ALL of it is wrong?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
I'm an atheist but I agree with this. If you believe in God, you should see evolution as the absolutely brilliant way He figured out to develop the marvellous, diverse, nifty, beautiful diversity of life on earth. To say that His only role was to stick a butt-widget on a gut bug demeans His glory. Creationism-masquerading-as-science is poor theology as well as sham science.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Don't assume that ftv has an agenda. He has said that he want to learn about evolution, that's all. Let's give him a chance to do that before leaping to conclusions.
My experience has been that people who understand ToE often accept it, because it makes sense.
lunamoth
Will to love
Yes, I agree very much with this idea. I do not like the intelligent design movement at all - it does nothing to enhance either my faith or my understanding of the natural world. It is downright detrimental to both in that it puts God in a box and tries to manipulate science.
PS - Gut bugs need butt-widgets, so it is glorious to them!
lunamoth
Will to love
God sustains us in every fleeting moment. Creation is not an act that happened in the past but a process we experience continuously. God's role in my life is not to explain things that I don't understand about the physical universe. Science is a great tool for that.
As for why I have belief in God, it is a choice based upon experience. I experience my life as meaningful and my choices as important in a context greater than myself. It is meaningful (not just a matter of blind survival or deterministic fate) that I decide to try to love other people and be a good steward of the world. The only logical explanation for this, that also upholds life as inherently meaningful, is God.
Baydwin
Well-Known Member
I was exposed to selective breeding of rabbits at a young age, so I've always understood the principles behind evolution. My parents took us to the Natural History Museum in London a lot too, as I was really into dinosaurs when I was little, so I was exposed to the evidence throughout my childhood.
I've also never believed in an Architect god (my parents both being agnostic) so I just accepted the world as I saw it, with evolution as integral as gravitational pull.
From what Man_Of_Faith explained in another thread, it seems to me that the primary reason for believing in Creationism is a literalistic belief in the Bible, which is something I've never been exposed to on a personal level and so have trouble comprehending.
I've also never believed in an Architect god (my parents both being agnostic) so I just accepted the world as I saw it, with evolution as integral as gravitational pull.
From what Man_Of_Faith explained in another thread, it seems to me that the primary reason for believing in Creationism is a literalistic belief in the Bible, which is something I've never been exposed to on a personal level and so have trouble comprehending.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Yes, I agree very much with this idea. I do not like the intelligent design movement at all - it does nothing to enhance either my faith or my understanding of the natural world. It is downright detrimental to both in that it puts God in a box and tries to manipulate science.
PS - Gut bugs need butt-widgets, so it is glorious to them!
Well yes because at root it is God-of-the-gaps. This term was created by a Christian theologian in the 19th century to show what a flawed argument it is for theists. God-of-the-gaps uses God as an explanation for what science has not yet learned. The huge problem with it is that God then gets smaller and smaller, as science advances further. Eventually you end up with atheism. Bad argument; bad theology. Much better to say that God is the Grand Architect who set up the whole shebang, and the purpose of science is to tell us how He did it. Then you have a truly great and glorious God, much bigger than the measly little ID God who tinkers with miniature pliers.