Jump to content


Why Evolution Is Clear To Me


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
131 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_dave247_*

Guest_dave247_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 June 2009 - 10:35 PM

I have been a Christian for like 6 years now and just last year I started researching evolution because of all the controversy, etc... and I wanted to check understand it for myself. I feel like I have learned a lot quickly and a lot of things I have seen in nature and thought about it have resurfaced to my mind and I feel like I have come to see the obvious again. With in this massive system of life, organisms really do evolve, it is a fact. Just look around you.

I have heard about the micro vs macro evolution, but these things are one in the same: change over time. The more time, the more change.

Things that are obvious to me:

Look at all the different races of people. There are so many differences in facial features (slanted eyes lids), skin color(black, red, white), and body structure. These traits have come to be as natural adaptation to one's environment over time which help them better thrive in that environment.

Other animals: consider the wide range of dogs and cats -- the differences are huge. They all share a common ancestor and over time, change has occurred withing their genetic make up and now we have many subspecies.

Then there are different species that have a lot of similar traits like mice, squirrels, rabbits and guinea pigs. Look at their teeth, eyes, fur, etc. Each species has branched out over time but they are clearly derived from the same animal.

Another thing I can think of off the top of my head is stuff like viruses. Those things change constantly in order to maintain the ability to compromise a host. Look at our drug industry: we keep having to build new antibiotics and medications to fight viruses because they change and adapt (evolve) to defend themselves and survive.

Looking back now, it is clear that all of life is constructed this way, either by God, or by this system known as the universe. But things evolve.


How should this system of life be set up so that evolution could be clearly false?
I would say that it would be clear that evolution does not occur, and that it is not the source of life, if humans and animals didn't reproduce, but instead popped into existence -- perhaps formed by God on the fly. But that is not how it works. We are products of a highly complex system of life (biological life is basically defined as a system of replication). We come from our parents and inherent genes to form something new....


is this clear to anyone else?

#2 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 25 June 2009 - 11:39 PM

You raise an interesting point here Dave. A question I'd like to pose to the creationists here:

If God created life why isn't He still creating it? Specifically why isn't He creating humans out of dirt? Why don't we just pray for babies and God delivers them? It would remove that unnecessary 9 month waiting period. But instead He invented this reproduction system to do it all. For what purpose?

Regards,

Arch.

#3 Guest_dave247_*

Guest_dave247_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 June 2009 - 11:51 PM

You raise an interesting point here Dave. A question I'd like to pose to the creationists here:

If God created life why isn't He still creating it? Specifically why isn't He creating humans out of dirt? Why don't we just pray for babies and God delivers them? It would remove that unnecessary 9 month waiting period. But instead He invented this reproduction system to do it all. For what purpose?

Regards,

Arch.

View Post


Thanks for seeing my point and helping this thread progress.

Yes, if you think about it, God supposedly set up this whole massive system of life, as well as all the other subsystems (on the earth and in space) which all work together to be self sustaining. So then why is it so hard to consider that maybe he created a system of evolution as well?

Bit if a tangent: If you look at the way things work, you will see order mixed with chaos. Many things in biology are ordered and symmetrical but if you measure closely you will see that they are no where nearly symmetrical. So its as if there is a mix of balance and imbalance -- a constant contradiction in the fundamental way that things are... To relate this to my point: God creates a perfect system of life but it is passed through the chaotic processes of the universe & world & evolution, etc. Just speculating with God in the mix.

#4 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 26 June 2009 - 12:00 AM

Many things in biology are ordered and symmetrical but if you measure closely you will see that they are no where nearly symmetrical.

View Post


On a completely random note, take a photo of yourself, put it in photoshop, cut it in half and flip the other side so the two sides of your face are symmetrical. Haven't actually done it myself but it's meant to be really creepy. :P

Cheers,

Arch.

#5 Guest_dave247_*

Guest_dave247_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 June 2009 - 12:14 AM

And here is a picture of a now extinct Tasmanian Tiger. It kind of looks like a cat but also a dog. Do you see evolution in progress here?

Posted Image

#6 falcone

falcone

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Scotland

Posted 26 June 2009 - 02:52 AM

Hi dave247. I think I can predict the general creationist response to this...

I feel like I have learned a lot quickly and a lot of things I have seen in nature and thought about it have resurfaced to my mind and I feel like I have come to see the obvious again. With in this massive system of life, organisms really do evolve, it is a fact. Just look around you.

Yes, just look around you. it's obvious they were designed

I have heard about the micro vs macro evolution, but these things are one in the same: change over time. The more time, the more change.

Live adapts over time, which is kind of like micro evolution. But no-one has observed one type of organism turning into another. Macro evolution doesn't happen.

Look at all the different races of people. There are so many differences in facial features (slanted eyes lids),  skin color(black, red, white), and body structure. These traits have come to be as natural adaptation to one's environment over time which help them better thrive in that environment.

People are designed for the environment in which they live.

Other animals: consider the wide range of dogs and cats -- the differences are huge. They all share a common ancestor and over time, change has occurred withing their genetic make up and now we have many subspecies.

Dogs are dogs and cats are cats. Have you ever seen a dog "evolve" into something else?

Then there are different species that have a lot of similar traits like mice, squirrels, rabbits and guinea pigs. Look at their teeth, eyes, fur, etc. Each species has branched out over time but they are clearly derived from the same animal.

No, this is just indicative of common design.

Another thing I can think of off the top of my head is stuff like viruses. Those things change constantly in order to maintain the ability to compromise a host. Look at our drug industry: we keep having to build new antibiotics and medications to fight viruses because they change and adapt (evolve) to defend themselves and survive.

The ability to adapt is part of the design.

#7 falcone

falcone

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Scotland

Posted 26 June 2009 - 02:53 AM

is this clear to anyone else?

Sure, it's clear to me. When I look at the natural world, it doesn't look designed - unless it was designed badly. The ToE provides the only explanation as to why that is.

#8 falcone

falcone

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Scotland

Posted 26 June 2009 - 02:56 AM

If God created life why isn't He still creating it? Specifically why isn't He creating humans out of dirt? Why don't we just pray for babies and God delivers them? It would remove that unnecessary 9 month waiting period. But instead He invented this reproduction system to do it all. For what purpose?

View Post

It's a punishment on all humanity because Eve ate an apple after being told not to.

#9 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 26 June 2009 - 02:59 AM

You raise an interesting point here Dave. A question I'd like to pose to the creationists here:

If God created life why isn't He still creating it? Specifically why isn't He creating humans out of dirt? Why don't we just pray for babies and God delivers them? It would remove that unnecessary 9 month waiting period. But instead He invented this reproduction system to do it all. For what purpose?

Regards,

Arch.

View Post


So he can sit back and laugh at fools who think they can figure out how to do it without him.

Well,you asked. :P

#10 Guest_dave247_*

Guest_dave247_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 June 2009 - 09:48 AM

It's a punishment on all humanity because Eve ate an apple after being told not to.

View Post


First, I am confused where you stand with evolution vs creation... Your first reply looks like you are against ToE and then your next reply makes it seem like you are not.


Next, you are assuming it was an apple. The Bible just says fruit.

The whole scenario of God punishing all humanity for Eve's eating the fruit doesn't even make any sense anyway. I will give you another situation so you can view it in another way in order to see the ridiculousness.

Look at it this way: imagine that you told your 7 year old child that he could play with any toy in the house except a red bouncy ball that you have sitting in the living room and that if he does play with it, you are going to kick him out of the house and make him live in the barn, make him get a job, and kill him when he turns 30. Does that not seem messed up???? That's basically the equivalent to what God has done to us in Genesis. I don't actually think it happened that way if at all.

The punishment does not seem to fit the "crime." In the Bible, it doesn't even say why they couldn't eat of the fruit -- well it kind of does but it really doesn't make any sense in comparison to how everything else works in life.

There are so many other ways to show how ridiculous this is... Like, no one else that exists was given the choice to eat of the fruit or not, so how is it fair that all of humanity except Adam and Eve were able to choose. How is it just that this world had to plunge into destruction with wars and people suffering and dying all because some supposed woman ate a fruit that God told her not to.

It really just seems like a crude attempt to explain why things are the way they are even though it clearly is wrong. Its just up to the individual to really analyze these things and be honest with themselves about it.

Edit: Another thought: I am assuming that it is basically accepted that God knew A&E were going to eat the fruit and that he was going to dramatically change his original "designed" structure of life. So then he intended for man to sin? He intended for Earth to be this way? WHy?

#11 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 26 June 2009 - 06:32 PM

So he can sit back and laugh at fools who think they can figure out how to do it without him.

Well,you asked. :blink:

View Post


Lol :blink: Yeah it's kind of sad with a whole universe to look after he's got nothing better to do ;)

#12 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 26 June 2009 - 06:38 PM

First, I am confused where you stand with evolution vs creation... Your first reply looks like you are against ToE and then your next reply makes it seem like you are not.

View Post


Same as Judy in another post, sarcasm. They're just trying to prepare you for the argument you're likely to get.

The punishment does not seem to fit the "crime." In the Bible, it doesn't even say why they couldn't eat of the fruit -- well it kind of does but it really doesn't make any sense in comparison to how everything else works in life.

View Post


I don't think it really matters. The worst thing you can do in life is to disobey God so the punishment stands. :blink:

Edit: Another thought: I am assuming that it is basically accepted that God knew A&E were going to eat the fruit and that he was going to dramatically change his original "designed" structure of life. So then he intended for man to sin? He intended for Earth to be this way? WHy?

View Post


Because God gave us free will.

So there a few more of the arguments you're likely to hear :blink:

Regards,

Arch.

#13 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 26 June 2009 - 08:11 PM

And here is a picture of a now extinct Tasmanian Tiger. It kind of looks like a cat but also a dog. Do you see evolution in progress here?

Posted Image

View Post


It is also convenient that it is now extinct so you don't have to really show the evidence, just the picture. Anyone with a little skill can photo-shop a pic.

Also, I like the thread. Giving "testimonies" for evolution reminds me of testimonies given in church. And evolution is supposed to be sooo scientific. :blink:

Example: If all your evidence fails, testify for evolution. Tell the Christians how once you were saved but then saw the light of evolution and became a follower of Darwin. How the change literally saved your life. And now you believe that instead of going to heaven or hell, you just go back to being pond scum when you die.

And that everyone at this forum is better off believing in pond scum than anything else. It's the ultimate goal of life.

But it would seem to me with all the evolving going on, that we should have evolved longer life spans. Can anyone answer as to why we did not evolve longer lifespans?

#14 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 26 June 2009 - 08:37 PM

Sure, it's clear to me. When I look at the natural world, it doesn't look designed - unless it was designed badly. The ToE provides the only explanation as to why that is.

View Post


Why is it designed badly?

#15 Guest_dave247_*

Guest_dave247_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 June 2009 - 01:12 AM

It is also convenient that it is now extinct so you don't have to really show the evidence, just the picture. Anyone with a little skill can photo-shop a pic.

Also, I like the thread. Giving "testimonies" for evolution reminds me of testimonies given in church. And evolution is supposed to be sooo scientific.  B)

Example: If all your evidence fails, testify for evolution. Tell the Christians how once you were saved but then saw the light of evolution and became a follower of Darwin. How the change literally saved your life. And now you believe that instead of going to heaven or hell, you just go back to being pond scum when you die.

And that everyone at this forum is better off believing in pond scum than anything else. It's the ultimate goal of life.

But it would seem to me with all the evolving going on, that we should have evolved longer life spans. Can anyone answer as to why we did not evolve longer lifespans?

View Post


That is a real picture and I have seen other transitional animals like that before. FWIW: I am skilled in Photoshop and graphics so I am able to spot a chop job anyways. Also, I chose a PHOTOGRAPH because I knew people would complain if I showed a drawing -- Pics are better anyway.


Also, the ToE has nothing to do with whether or not God exists. It is about the way in which this system of life works and changes on earth. It has actually already been scientifically proven a while ago and all the different fields of science that exist to further mankind are based on the understanding of it.

I do not "follow Darwin" and its funny that you would assume that since you are apparently of the mindset that one should follow other people rather than think for themselves on the big picture of life.

I actually do believe in God and I also think that there is a lot more to our history and the way life works than we know. Maybe we don't have souls in the traditional sense, but that doesn't mean that God can not reconstruct something that once existed to bring it back. Doesnt mean I am going to hell or to a puddle of scum.

Man, I wish you could realize what I have realized about my own self... there are so many deep psychological things and working of the minds that people are not able to realize or be free of, but I know that I am and I have a greater awareness of how I think, and why I think what I do, as well as others. Basically I am free of a lot of things, free to see with new eyes this world in which I live.

EDIT: Oh and here is a VIDEO of the Tasmanian Tiger to show that is was real :o


#16 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 27 June 2009 - 02:34 AM

How do you know it is a transitional animal?

1) Can you tell me what it was before it got this way?
2) Can you tell me what it was trying to change into?

And why do transitional animals always die out?

#17 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 27 June 2009 - 02:37 AM

Hi Dave,

The Thylacine is nicknamed the Tasmanian Tiger because of the stripes on it's back,which has no taxanomic relevance.

The Thylacine (pronounced /ˈθaɪləsaɪn/,[3] or in Australia /ˈθaɪləsiːn/,[4] also /ˈθaɪləsɨn/[5]) (binomial name: Thylacinus cynocephalus; Greek for "dog-headed pouched one") was the largest known carnivorous marsupial of modern times. It is commonly known as the Tasmanian Tiger (because of its striped back), the Tasmanian Wolf, and colloquially the Tassie (or Tazzy) Tiger or simply the Tiger.[6] Native to continental Australia, Tasmania and New Guinea, it is thought to have become extinct in the 20th century. It was the last extant member of its genus, Thylacinus, although several related species have been found in the fossil record dating back to the early Miocene.

The Thylacine became extinct on the Australian mainland thousands of years before European settlement of the continent, but it survived on the island state of Tasmania along with several other endemic species, including the Tasmanian Devil. Intensive hunting encouraged by bounties is generally blamed for its extinction, but other contributory factors may have been disease, the introduction of dogs, and human encroachment into its habitat. Despite its official classification as extinct, sightings are still reported.


It is neither a cat or a dog,but a marsupial.

Posted Image

Here is the skull compared to a timber wolf.I'm not aware of any taxonomist that has ever aligned it with Felines.The question that should be asked is,how did evolution produce the same design randomly in Canines and Marsupials ? Especialy,considering it's closing living relative is either the Tasmanian Devil or Numbat.

Like the tigers and wolves of the Northern Hemisphere, from which it obtained two of its common names, the Thylacine was an apex predator. As a marsupial, it was not related to these placental mammals, but because of convergent evolution it displayed the same general form and adaptations. Its closest living relative is thought to be either the Tasmanian Devil or Numbat




Enjoy.

#18 mandel

mandel

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Denmark

Posted 27 June 2009 - 05:22 AM

Hi Dave,

The Thylacine is nicknamed the Tasmanian Tiger because of the stripes on it's back,which has no taxanomic relevance.
It is neither a cat or a dog,but a marsupial.

Posted Image

Here is the skull compared to a timber wolf.I'm not aware of any taxonomist that has ever aligned it with Felines.The question that should be asked is,how did evolution produce the same design randomly in Canines and Marsupials ? Especialy,considering it's closing living relative is either the Tasmanian Devil or Numbat.
Enjoy.

View Post


Well why wouldnt you expect evolution to come up with the same adaptations in the same environments for different species?

I expect it. We even count on it when we use evolutionary algorithms to come up with solutions to, for example, optimization problems. Tell me, why wouldnt you expect it?

Just to be clear: evolution is NOT RANDOM. The inherited changes are more or less random, but selection is in no way random.

#19 Guest_dave247_*

Guest_dave247_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 June 2009 - 09:35 AM

How do you know it is a transitional animal?

1) Can you tell me what it was before it ot this way?
2) Can yo tell me what it was trying to change into?

And why do transitional animals always die out?

View Post


Actually, everything that is living is a transitional form of something else that will eventually be. Humans just group and classify life based on what we see now, and we only live a short time. I think our perception of time is part of your problem of not being able to understand evolution. A million years is a short time in geological and biological terms when related to the whole of the time that evolution and Earthly environmental processes have been going on. What I am saying is that if you were able to speed up time and view each generation of animals, you would see the full spectrum of transformation among species to subspecies to new species and so forth in a continually branching hierarchical structure.

To answer your questions:
It was something a little different before it was that way. Depends on how long you mean by before. It obviously shares a common ancestor with other marsupials, and they share common ancestors with other animals that came from animals like dogs and cats. Again, humans are the ones who classify things, but it means nothing to nature.

Hope this helps you all get one step closer to understanding.

#20 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 27 June 2009 - 11:54 AM

Well why wouldnt you expect evolution to come up with the same adaptations in the same environments for different species?

I expect it. We even count on it when we use evolutionary algorithms to come up with solutions to, for example, optimization problems. Tell me, why wouldnt you expect it?

Just to be clear: evolution is NOT RANDOM. The inherited changes are more or less random, but selection is in no way random.

View Post


How can the selection NOT BE RANDOM, when if it is not random, then it would have to need a selector. Oh, yeah... An animal dies that wants to evolve to fly... So its offspring will selectively grow wings, simply because they want to.

Um, yeah...




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users