Posted: 3/3/2011 6:20:44 AM EDT
|
So the way evolution works is that individuals don't evolve, populations do. The way it works is a group of a particular species is living just fine and one day someone is born with a genetic mutation of some sort. And it turns out that geneitic mutation is a competetive advantage somehow. This individual will survive longer and pass those genes on and pretty soon the population is a bunch of mutants but since the mutation is "normal" they are not considered mutations.
Anyways, I'm fine with all that. It makes sense. I was wondering though, what about evolution that takes place that is not a competetive advantage? Let's say a pre-cheetah like creature has four legs like a tiger and runs as fast as a tiger. One day one is born a mutant with hind legs that are longer and structured differently allowing it to get up to speeds of 65 mph. Yes I can see how that would be a competetive advantage. The modern cheetah we know today is evolved. But lets say humans used to have a large appendix. They are 3 inches long instead of 1 inch long one we have today. In order for a human to sustain itself it needs 50 pounds of food a year. A person with a 1 inch appendix needs 49.9 pounds of food a year. Slightly less because of the appendix being smaller. How is it that humans with big appendixes died off? Is that .1 pound of food really that much of a game changer? What about that hole in your eye that drains tears to your nose? How did that come about? What about eye brows? Are you telling me that species without eye brows were being eaten up and dying off while eye browed critters have a huge competitive advantage? Not trying to start a creation vs evolution debate. Just never understood this about evolution. I can see why whales have no legs, why zebras have stripes, why fish have gills, but why do lions have maines? |
|
Quoted: The adaptations you cited take a looooong time to develop and take hold. You're picturing people without tear ducts instantly collapsing of jealousy or something. Think loooooong spans of time. This, also for the eyebrow one, think about two males fighting over something, alpha males, food, females, whatever. It hot out and it's summer time and you are both naked because there are no clothes. Do you want to be the guy who's sweat drips straight into your eyes or do you want to be the guy with a built in sweat band that gives you an extra couple of seconds before you sweat in your own eyes. |
| You have eye bows to keep debris out of your eyes. It's an advantage. Not a life or death one, but it does help. In the wild, any leg up you have on the competition will help. In the wild, you don't get a trophy just for showing up. It's literally life or death, and your trophy is seeing the next day while the loser doesn't. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
The adaptations you cited take a looooong time to develop and take hold. You're picturing people without tear ducts instantly collapsing of jealousy or something. Think loooooong spans of time. This, also for the eyebrow one, think about two males fighting over something, alpha males, food, females, whatever. It hot out and it's summer time and you are both naked because there are no clothes. Do you want to be the guy who's sweat drips straight into your eyes or do you want to be the guy with a built in sweat band that gives you an extra couple of seconds before you sweat in your own eyes. Neither, I wanna be the guy who figured out how to skin animals and make some fucking pants. |
|
Yeah, the time and sheer numbers are so vast it's hard to comprehend the change that occurs in complex organisms.
But in the case of bacteria and viruses, they evolve right before your eyes because they're so simple, so many and their life cycle is so quick. The lion's mane likely has to do with male dominance and attractiveness to females. Sort of like when guy's puff up their chest to intimidate their opponent, or when birds show their plumage. |
|
Quoted:
So the way evolution works is that individuals don't evolve, populations do. The way it works is a group of a particular species is living just fine and one day someone is born with a genetic mutation of some sort. And it turns out that geneitic mutation is a competetive advantage somehow. This individual will survive longer and pass those genes on and pretty soon the population is a bunch of mutants but since the mutation is "normal" they are not considered mutations. correct. Anyways, I'm fine with all that. It makes sense. I was wondering though, what about evolution that takes place that is not a competetive advantage? Let's say a pre-cheetah like creature has four legs like a tiger and runs as fast as a tiger. One day one is born a mutant with hind legs that are longer and structured differently allowing it to get up to speeds of 65 mph. Yes I can see how that would be a competetive advantage. The modern cheetah we know today is evolved. yeah. But lets say humans used to have a large appendix. They are 3 inches long instead of 1 inch long one we have today. In order for a human to sustain itself it needs 50 pounds of food a year. A person with a 1 inch appendix needs 49.9 pounds of food a year. Slightly less because of the appendix being smaller. How is it that humans with big appendixes died off? Is that .1 pound of food really that much of a game changer? A smaller appendix would also decrease the weight of the body, meaning that the individual could run slightly faster, jump slightly higher, climb slightly easier, etc. Then consider the case of an infection - a 1-inch appendix that gets infected and ruptures releases much, much less infection into the body cavity and bloodstream than a 3-inch appendix. A 1-inch appendix bursting may be survivable 75% of the time without medical intervention, but a 3-inch appendix may be survivable only 5% of the time. However, the appendix serves an important immune system function, especially for people in less-hygienic environments than modern First World peoples. The 1-inch appendix would only be a competitive advantage in a relatively clean world... say, the kind of world where people are advanced enough to cut open a cadaver and measure how long the appendix is? What about that hole in your eye that drains tears to your nose? How did that come about? When water is scarce, why waste it by letting it run out of your face-holes, when it could drain back into your body? I'm sure there's more and more compelling reasons, but science may take years to tell us. New papers are published every year, speculating on the competitive advantage of various traits that we can't explain why they are the way they are. What about eye brows? Are you telling me that species without eye brows were being eaten up and dying off while eye browed critters have a huge competitive advantage? Eyebrows would certainly be useful for determining if a bug was about to crawl into your eye. Or keeping rain/sweat out of your eyes better than having no eyebrows. And for communicating with others of the same species. Not trying to start a creation vs evolution debate. Just never understood this about evolution. I can see why whales have no legs, why zebras have stripes, why fish have gills, good. but why do lions have maines? Because female lions like it? Remember, it's not all about survivability, it's about number of offspring. Of course, if you die young, you won't reproduce... but if you are 10x more sexy than any of the other males, you may impregnate 90% of the females before you're killed off... and you still come out on top of the genetic game. Peacock plumage has no competitive advantage for survival, only mating, and only in an environment where the long feathers don't make them too easy prey. |
|
Quoted: Go to the New England hometown forum first 2 threadsQuoted: Quoted: In!!! ETA: MAGNETS EVOLVED FROM GRAVITY! OMG LMAO!!!!!!! Also where is the symbol of Anubis? http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a32/magurgle/1239767540522.jpg |
|
Just because we don't understand what advantage a change would have given a species doesn't mean it didn't happen. Environments change so fast, there's no way we can know what was going on around these species at most given times. There are hypotheses on the appendix on google, all you need to do is look. The lion's mane is just like a fighting dog's scruff. Neck protection for fighting rivals in the same species.
Survival (food, protection) isn't the only driving force either... procreation is right there too. Lots of mutations probably have been sexually advantageous yet hindering in other ways. Look at a lot of birds and their courting rituals. An example; the extremely long and colorful feathers of the peacock have probably helped get it caught by predators more than once, but help get them laid every time. |
|
OP, evolution makes a lot more sense if you look at it as operating on populations of genes, not on populations of organisms which are the product of their genes.
Quoted:
Because female lions like it? Remember, it's not all about survivability, it's about number of offspring. Of course, if you die young, you won't reproduce... but if you are 10x more sexy than any of the other males, you may impregnate 90% of the females before you're killed off... and you still come out on top of the genetic game. Peacock plumage has no competitive advantage for survival, only mating, and only in an environment where the long feathers don't make them too easy prey. There it is. People (and animals) are involved, to some degree, in determining what is 'fittest', so expect plenty of stupidity to be selected for, unless it makes you completely unable to reproduce, or at least aid those you share genes with. |
|
Quoted: You have the support of the man with the .45 over thereQuoted: Go to the New England hometown forum first 2 threadsQuoted: Quoted: In!!! ETA: MAGNETS EVOLVED FROM GRAVITY! OMG LMAO!!!!!!! Also where is the symbol of Anubis? http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a32/magurgle/1239767540522.jpg <––––––- |
|
thats my car!!! |
|
Quoted: evolutionists like to use words like: if, but, maybe, might, could have, may have etc to explain and justify their religious beliefs and convictions. it's all based on suppositions but they'll say it's "science" and "fact." I assume that you have examples? In reality, evolution is one of the most tested theories in biology. It's based on decades of experience, observation and validated predictions. |
|
Quoted: evolutionists like to use words like: if, but, maybe, might, could have, may have etc to explain and justify their religious beliefs and convictions. it's all based on suppositions but they'll say it's "science" and "fact." You mean six days of miraculous creation is more plausible? |
|
Quoted: On a serious question is human blood types a result of evolution? If so, what was the evolutionary benefit of different types. Some blood types convey resistance to certain diseases. Some are also concentrated in certain populations. It's possible that diseases existed in the past that interacted with blood glycoproteins, providing selective pressure. It's also possible that there's a genetic drift component- without any distinct advantage granted to a blood type, it can spread through the population without consequence. I'm not sure about the true origins, but I would bet that more information is available somewhere. |
|
This Evo is faster:  |
|
I'm not big on civvie planes but that looks sharp. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
evolutionists like to use words like: if, but, maybe, might, could have, may have etc to explain and justify their religious beliefs and convictions. it's all based on suppositions but they'll say it's "science" and "fact." You mean six days of miraculous creation is more plausible? The belief in six days of miraculous creation is secondary to belief in an Almighty God, capable of literally anything. When the belief in the God of the Bible (this belief assumes God's omnipotence) comes first, the belief of six days of miraculous creation is certainly plausible. |
|
Quoted:
How is it that humans with big appendixes died off? Is that .1 pound of food really that much of a game changer? What about that hole in your eye that drains tears to your nose? How did that come about? What about eye brows? Are you telling me that species without eye brows were being eaten up and dying off while eye browed critters have a huge competitive advantage? Dawkins has a good analogy to explain how this works in Selfish Gene. If you've not read the book, and you're interested in science, biology, and evolution, you should like it. The analogy: Say you have a college rowing team of 10 men and 2 boats. Everyday the coach randomly draws up two teams of five men to man the boats and has them race each other. He records who is on which team each day, and which team wins. After some number of days, he can look back at his notes and tell who the best individual rowers were, since they should be on the most winning teams. Similarly, when a gene (rower) in one animal (boat) competes (races) against a corresponding allele of that gene in another animal, if it is the better allele (it lets you consume .1 lb less food/year) then after enough competitions, it will have more victories. The way it plays out in animals is that the animals who have to eat less will breed very slightly more because of it, and over many generations their offspring with this gene will displace the offspring of animals with the other allele of that gene. It isn't that suddenly the eat-less gene evolves and all of the members of the species without it drop dead because they don't have it. It takes time for the gene to first spread in the population, and then compete and slowly displace the competing allele. And sometimes your better, eat-less gene my get stuck on a losing team with a gene that maybe impairs the animal's eyesight, and it loses that race. But overall, it should expect to win more in the long run. To go back to the analogy, the animal has thousands of genes who are all "rowing" and helping him breed more or less based on how well they "row." With a populations of millions of animals and over the course of thousands of generations, the best genes will win the most races and be the most common. I know I fumbled that analogy some, but I hope it helps answer your question. The fact that you pose that question means you're thinking intelligently about the subject, and I would really encourage you to read The Selfish Gene. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: evolutionists like to use words like: if, but, maybe, might, could have, may have etc to explain and justify their religious beliefs and convictions. it's all based on suppositions but they'll say it's "science" and "fact." You mean six days of miraculous creation is more plausible? The belief in six days of miraculous creation is secondary to belief in an Almighty God, capable of literally anything. When the belief in the God of the Bible (this belief assumes God's omnipotence) comes first, the belief of six days of miraculous creation is certainly plausible. Is there any scientific or objective evidence of this? And I don't mean I prayed hard and it happened, or I felt the touch and so it was. I'm not opposed to the idea, but I find it hard to believe in something of which no proof exists. It's like believing in the Easter Bunny, IMO. Show me the Easter Bunny and he's real, but until then, it's just a fairy tale. |
|
Quoted:
So the way evolution works is that individuals don't evolve, populations do. The way it works is a group of a particular species is living just fine and one day someone is born with a genetic mutation of some sort. And it turns out that geneitic mutation is a competetive advantage somehow. This individual will survive longer and pass those genes on and pretty soon the population is a bunch of mutants but since the mutation is "normal" they are not considered mutations. Anyways, I'm fine with all that. It makes sense. I was wondering though, what about evolution that takes place that is not a competetive advantage? Let's say a pre-cheetah like creature has four legs like a tiger and runs as fast as a tiger. One day one is born a mutant with hind legs that are longer and structured differently allowing it to get up to speeds of 65 mph. Yes I can see how that would be a competetive advantage. The modern cheetah we know today is evolved. But lets say humans used to have a large appendix. They are 3 inches long instead of 1 inch long one we have today. In order for a human to sustain itself it needs 50 pounds of food a year. A person with a 1 inch appendix needs 49.9 pounds of food a year. Slightly less because of the appendix being smaller. How is it that humans with big appendixes died off? Is that .1 pound of food really that much of a game changer? YES! Any feature that confers even a minimal selective advantage has a statistically higher probability of becoming prevalent in a given population. What about that hole in your eye that drains tears to your nose? How did that come about? What about eye brows? Are you telling me that species without eye brows were being eaten up and dying off while eye browed critters have a huge competitive advantage? Eye brows play a small role in protecting the eyes from particulate debris. Enough to confer a major advantage over non-eyebrowed individuals? Probably not. But then, keep in mind that evolution is not perfect. There are and will always be evolutionary "flukes" in nature (i.e., apparent cases of altruism). Not trying to start a creation vs evolution debate. Just never understood this about evolution. I can see why whales have no legs, why zebras have stripes, why fish have gills, but why do lions have maines? Also, remember that there are many variables to consider when talking about features that may or may not confer selective advantages. The goal isn't just to survive; it's also to pass on your genes. For example, some features we observe in certain animals don't really play into brute "survival" (like, say, natural camoflauge), but may serve in more "superfluous" roles such as sex appeal (i.e., bird plumages). Yet other features may become dominant simply because the genes that code for them are dominant (i.e., brown eyes). Of course, in the case of brown eyes, you also have to consider their role in sexual selection. In some societies, brown eyes are selected against simply due to cultural variables. So yeah, lots of variables to consider, and many (if not most of them) interrelate on some level or another. Just an FYI, my degree is in environmental biology, but it's just an undergrad; nothing special. |
|
Quoted: I'm not big on civvie planes but that looks sharp. You and 3 friends at FL280 doing 338 KTAS sipping Jet A at 265 pounds per hour...it carries over 1000 pounds of Jet A with the 800 pounds of friends. The ultimate middle finger to TSA groping  if you have 1.2 million, 1500 hours of free time and a high performance, IFR SEL. Unlike previous designs, it has benign stall characteristics and doesn't drop like a brick with power off. I would say it is quite an Evolution. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: I'm not big on civvie planes but that looks sharp. You and 3 friends at FL280 doing 338 KTAS sipping Jet A at 265 pounds per hour...it carries over 1000 pounds of Jet A with the 800 pounds of friends. The ultimate middle finger to TSA groping if you have 1.2 million, 1500 hours of free time and a high performance, IFR SEL. Unlike previous designs, it has benign stall characteristics and doesn't drop like a brick with power off. I would say it is quite an Evolution.I'll stick with mine. It's much cheaper.  |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm not big on civvie planes but that looks sharp. You and 3 friends at FL280 doing 338 KTAS sipping Jet A at 265 pounds per hour...it carries over 1000 pounds of Jet A with the 800 pounds of friends. The ultimate middle finger to TSA groping if you have 1.2 million, 1500 hours of free time and a high performance, IFR SEL. Unlike previous designs, it has benign stall characteristics and doesn't drop like a brick with power off. I would say it is quite an Evolution.
1.2M. Whoa. 
I'll stick with my Mustang fantasies. |
|
Quoted:
evolutionists like to use words like: if, but, maybe, might, could have, may have etc to explain and justify their religious beliefs and convictions. it's all based on suppositions but they'll say it's "science" and "fact." Kirk Cameron is that you? Don't rule out mating. A lot of species have developed traits to attract a mate. Bright colors, manes, calls, etc. Also, a lot of structures end up being co-opted for other tasks. Eyebrows and eyelashes serve to keep shit out of your eyes. Look at the lashes on a camel. It takes energy to maintain organs and tissue, those that reduce those unused parts can be more successful. Vestigial eyes on blind fish for example. |
|
Quoted: If all these theories of evolution were true (females selecting attractive males, etc.), we'd all look like supermodels by now. Just sayin...  If we did all look like supermodels, don't you think we'd adjust our standards and still try to find the best looking among them?
|
|
Quoted:
If all these theories of evolution were true (females selecting attractive males, etc.), we'd all look like supermodels by now. Just sayin... True that. Humans are evolutionary anomalies. Every time a child with a heart defect undergoes surgery to repair the defect, we thumb our noses at evolution; we have effectually retained defective genes in the population. Evolution can have some downright nasty implications if taken to its logical extremes 
|
|
Your question was "why do traits that offer no competitive advantage stick around or die off?" When genes are recombined during meiosis chunks of the DNA are swapped around. Genes that are physically close to each other on the DNA molecule tend to be moved around together. If the gene that offers no competitive advantage sits right next to the gene that allows us to see a lion coming from a mile away then the people with the lion-seeing gene will have a higher rate of survival and carry the gene with no competitive advantage along. When they pass on their genetic information it is highly likely that their offspring who get the lion-seeing gene will also get the gene with no competitive advantage. Now, if the gene with no competitive advantage sits far away from the lion-seeing gene on the DNA molecule then it is much more likely it will not be passed down to the offspring that have the biological advantage of seeing lions coming from a mile away. At that point it is almost luck as to whether genetic recombination will cause that gene to be passed down along with the genes that will allow offspring to survive. Then there is the random luck of individuals carrying certain genes being eaten, getting hit by a meteor, earthquakes causing a building to fall on them, etc. Evolution (natural selection) is a crap shoot with random advantages. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
evolutionists like to use words like: if, but, maybe, might, could have, may have etc to explain and justify their religious beliefs and convictions. it's all based on suppositions but they'll say it's "science" and "fact." You mean six days of miraculous creation is more plausible? The belief in six days of miraculous creation is secondary to belief in an Almighty God, capable of literally anything. When the belief in the God of the Bible (this belief assumes God's omnipotence) comes first, the belief of six days of miraculous creation is certainly plausible. Is there any scientific or objective evidence of this? And I don't mean I prayed hard and it happened, or I felt the touch and so it was. I'm not opposed to the idea, but I find it hard to believe in something of which no proof exists. It's like believing in the Easter Bunny, IMO. Show me the Easter Bunny and he's real, but until then, it's just a fairy tale. To be as fair as I can to both sides (and yes, to some folks admitting that there is even a creationist "side" is heresy), this is how science works: There is evidence. There are lots of different kinds of rocks, there are fossils in some rocks, and there are lots of living things today which we can see change in certain ways in our lifetimes and since science first started recording them. The issue is how to interpret the evidence. Where someone who believes in naturalistic, atheistic evolution will see rock strata deposited over billions of years, a young-earth creationist will see layers of sediment laid down in Noah's flood several thousand years ago. Where one sees layers of creatures fossilized in order of chronological evolution (that was since disturbed by earthquakes, etc. and moved radically out of order), another sees layers of creatures fossilized in order of how they landed and sloshed about at the bottom of a worldwide flood. I have read from both camps, and I don't know that I'm qualified to judge - I got my PhD in rocks, but the kind of rocks I made myself, from a powder labeled "ZrO2, 99.99% pure" and a furnace that goes up to 1500 C. Geology isn't my strong point. The fact is that we can observe evolution occur on a small scale - in single-celled organisms that reproduce in minutes we can see evolution occur in hours, and in short-lived small vertebrates we can document the evolution of new species within a single human's career. Most creationists I know embrace this fact (it is the only way to fit enough animals on Noah's ark - you only need 2 canines, which have since evolved into all species of dogs, wolves, foxes, etc.; and only 2 ungulates, which have since evolved into all modern species of horse, deer, zebra, cattle, antelope, etc.). And again the issue is, what happened before recorded history? Those who believe in naturalistic, atheistic evolution paint a fairly rigid picture of genetic trees, family hierarchies of descendancy, etc. but they didn't personally witness those things, and much of what is published in evolutionary biology journals is "well-reasoned speculation." The evidence from before recorded history is open to interpretation, at least according to the young-earth creationists. The biblical evidence for a <10ka earth is lacking, in my opinion. It stems from an overly literal interpretation of the Bible (adding up the years of genealogy), without regard to, or understanding of, the genre of the text - genealogy is a genre of literature that would have been very important to people in the Ancient Near East, but nearly meaningless to us today. Things the ANE people would have considered central points, today we gloss over as meaningless, and what we would consider very important information would have been dismissed by them as incidental. If God had handed Avram a science textbook about the creation of Earth, how rock strata were formed, why fossils were where they were, and how populations of creatures change (or not) over time... then he would have said "what the hell is this crap?" and thrown it away and gone back to worshiping Tiamat and Apshu. That said, I don't believe that any radioactive dating techniques can work. For that, you would have to know how much of what radioactive substance an object started, how much leached into or out of that object, how much incidental radiation that object received, and what affected the rate of radioactive decay (no, it isn't constant). I know people have built careers on it, entire scientific journals, and major businesses doing that kind of testing... but the same can be said for global warming and eugenics. I guess I just don't trust anybody's opinion of what happened before recorded history. And after all of that, you know what? It just isn't that important. Belief in young-earth creationism is second to a belief in a specific omnipotent Creator-God. If you don't believe in that God, you have absolutely no reason to believe in a divinely-created young earth. And apart from the odd 2 or 3 examples, nobody has been converted by whatever "scientific evidence" may exist for creationism - after all, it is the same "scientific evidence" that "proves" naturalistic atheistic evolution. And I am amazed at the number of people who claim to be Christians, but don't have any personal experience with God. If you've never personally experienced God, why would you believe at all? I know I certainly wouldn't have believed in God after I watched my infant son die in my arms, if I hadn't personally experienced multiple miracles in the past year. Well, there's my little rant. Don't worry about creation/evolution if you don't believe in God, and don't say you believe in God if he hasn't made a difference in your life. If God has made a difference in your life, don't worry about silly things like creation/evolution because you know God is real, just do the things he says - love people. Period. /rant |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
evolutionists like to use words like: if, but, maybe, might, could have, may have etc to explain and justify their religious beliefs and convictions. it's all based on suppositions but they'll say it's "science" and "fact." You mean six days of miraculous creation is more plausible? The belief in six days of miraculous creation is secondary to belief in an Almighty God, capable of literally anything. When the belief in the God of the Bible (this belief assumes God's omnipotence) comes first, the belief of six days of miraculous creation is certainly plausible. Is there any scientific or objective evidence of this? And I don't mean I prayed hard and it happened, or I felt the touch and so it was. I'm not opposed to the idea, but I find it hard to believe in something of which no proof exists. It's like believing in the Easter Bunny, IMO. Show me the Easter Bunny and he's real, but until then, it's just a fairy tale. To be as fair as I can to both sides (and yes, to some folks admitting that there is even a creationist "side" is heresy), this is how science works: There is evidence. There are lots of different kinds of rocks, there are fossils in some rocks, and there are lots of living things today which we can see change in certain ways in our lifetimes and since science first started recording them. The issue is how to interpret the evidence. Where someone who believes in naturalistic, atheistic evolution will see rock strata deposited over billions of years, a young-earth creationist will see layers of sediment laid down in Noah's flood several thousand years ago. Where one sees layers of creatures fossilized in order of chronological evolution (that was since disturbed by earthquakes, etc. and moved radically out of order), another sees layers of creatures fossilized in order of how they landed and sloshed about at the bottom of a worldwide flood. I have read from both camps, and I don't know that I'm qualified to judge - I got my PhD in rocks, but the kind of rocks I made myself, from a powder labeled "ZrO2, 99.99% pure" and a furnace that goes up to 1500 C. Geology isn't my strong point. The observed geologic processes point to an old earth. Flood geology is pretty well understood and it doesn't form distinct layers of strata. The fact is that we can observe evolution occur on a small scale - in single-celled organisms that reproduce in minutes we can see evolution occur in hours, and in short-lived small vertebrates we can document the evolution of new species within a single human's career. Most creationists I know embrace this fact (it is the only way to fit enough animals on Noah's ark - you only need 2 canines, which have since evolved into all species of dogs, wolves, foxes, etc.; and only 2 ungulates, which have since evolved into all modern species of horse, deer, zebra, cattle, antelope, etc.). The problem with this is that animals are diploid. Starting from 2 animals would mean your pool for a given gene is 4 alleles. The rate of mutation required to explain current diversity would be lethal. And again the issue is, what happened before recorded history? Those who believe in naturalistic, atheistic evolution paint a fairly rigid picture of genetic trees, family hierarchies of descendancy, etc. but they didn't personally witness those things, and much of what is published in evolutionary biology journals is "well-reasoned speculation." The evidence from before recorded history is open to interpretation, at least according to the young-earth creationists. The biblical evidence for a <10ka earth is lacking, in my opinion. It stems from an overly literal interpretation of the Bible (adding up the years of genealogy), without regard to, or understanding of, the genre of the text - genealogy is a genre of literature that would have been very important to people in the Ancient Near East, but nearly meaningless to us today. Things the ANE people would have considered central points, today we gloss over as meaningless, and what we would consider very important information would have been dismissed by them as incidental. If God had handed Avram a science textbook about the creation of Earth, how rock strata were formed, why fossils were where they were, and how populations of creatures change (or not) over time... then he would have said "what the hell is this crap?" and thrown it away and gone back to worshiping Tiamat and Apshu. That said, I don't believe that any radioactive dating techniques can work. For that, you would have to know how much of what radioactive substance an object started, how much leached into or out of that object, how much incidental radiation that object received, and what affected the rate of radioactive decay (no, it isn't constant). I know people have built careers on it, entire scientific journals, and major businesses doing that kind of testing... but the same can be said for global warming and eugenics. I guess I just don't trust anybody's opinion of what happened before recorded history. Of course it works. Measures are taken to reduce contamination such as testing many samples using as many applicable techniques. Decay is not constant but the fluctuations are negligible. And after all of that, you know what? It just isn't that important. Belief in young-earth creationism is second to a belief in a specific omnipotent Creator-God. If you don't believe in that God, you have absolutely no reason to believe in a divinely-created young earth. And apart from the odd 2 or 3 examples, nobody has been converted by whatever "scientific evidence" may exist for creationism - after all, it is the same "scientific evidence" that "proves" naturalistic atheistic evolution. And I am amazed at the number of people who claim to be Christians, but don't have any personal experience with God. If you've never personally experienced God, why would you believe at all? I know I certainly wouldn't have believed in God after I watched my infant son die in my arms, if I hadn't personally experienced multiple miracles in the past year. Well, there's my little rant. Don't worry about creation/evolution if you don't believe in God, and don't say you believe in God if he hasn't made a difference in your life. If God has made a difference in your life, don't worry about silly things like creation/evolution because you know God is real, just do the things he says - love people. Period. /rant While you try to make it seem as if it just comes down to "what you believe", sorry but there are indisputable facts that can be readily observed. Simply being incredulous is hardly a strong position. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
evolutionists like to use words like: if, but, maybe, might, could have, may have etc to explain and justify their religious beliefs and convictions. it's all based on suppositions but they'll say it's "science" and "fact." You mean six days of miraculous creation is more plausible? The belief in six days of miraculous creation is secondary to belief in an Almighty God, capable of literally anything. When the belief in the God of the Bible (this belief assumes God's omnipotence) comes first, the belief of six days of miraculous creation is certainly plausible. Is there any scientific or objective evidence of this? And I don't mean I prayed hard and it happened, or I felt the touch and so it was. I'm not opposed to the idea, but I find it hard to believe in something of which no proof exists. It's like believing in the Easter Bunny, IMO. Show me the Easter Bunny and he's real, but until then, it's just a fairy tale. To be as fair as I can to both sides (and yes, to some folks admitting that there is even a creationist "side" is heresy), this is how science works: There is evidence. There are lots of different kinds of rocks, there are fossils in some rocks, and there are lots of living things today which we can see change in certain ways in our lifetimes and since science first started recording them. The issue is how to interpret the evidence. Where someone who believes in naturalistic, atheistic evolution will see rock strata deposited over billions of years, a young-earth creationist will see layers of sediment laid down in Noah's flood several thousand years ago. Where one sees layers of creatures fossilized in order of chronological evolution (that was since disturbed by earthquakes, etc. and moved radically out of order), another sees layers of creatures fossilized in order of how they landed and sloshed about at the bottom of a worldwide flood. I have read from both camps, and I don't know that I'm qualified to judge - I got my PhD in rocks, but the kind of rocks I made myself, from a powder labeled "ZrO2, 99.99% pure" and a furnace that goes up to 1500 C. Geology isn't my strong point. The fact is that we can observe evolution occur on a small scale - in single-celled organisms that reproduce in minutes we can see evolution occur in hours, and in short-lived small vertebrates we can document the evolution of new species within a single human's career. Most creationists I know embrace this fact (it is the only way to fit enough animals on Noah's ark - you only need 2 canines, which have since evolved into all species of dogs, wolves, foxes, etc.; and only 2 ungulates, which have since evolved into all modern species of horse, deer, zebra, cattle, antelope, etc.). And again the issue is, what happened before recorded history? Those who believe in naturalistic, atheistic evolution paint a fairly rigid picture of genetic trees, family hierarchies of descendancy, etc. but they didn't personally witness those things, and much of what is published in evolutionary biology journals is "well-reasoned speculation." The evidence from before recorded history is open to interpretation, at least according to the young-earth creationists. The biblical evidence for a <10ka earth is lacking, in my opinion. It stems from an overly literal interpretation of the Bible (adding up the years of genealogy), without regard to, or understanding of, the genre of the text - genealogy is a genre of literature that would have been very important to people in the Ancient Near East, but nearly meaningless to us today. Things the ANE people would have considered central points, today we gloss over as meaningless, and what we would consider very important information would have been dismissed by them as incidental. If God had handed Avram a science textbook about the creation of Earth, how rock strata were formed, why fossils were where they were, and how populations of creatures change (or not) over time... then he would have said "what the hell is this crap?" and thrown it away and gone back to worshiping Tiamat and Apshu. That said, I don't believe that any radioactive dating techniques can work. For that, you would have to know how much of what radioactive substance an object started, how much leached into or out of that object, how much incidental radiation that object received, and what affected the rate of radioactive decay (no, it isn't constant). I know people have built careers on it, entire scientific journals, and major businesses doing that kind of testing... but the same can be said for global warming and eugenics. I guess I just don't trust anybody's opinion of what happened before recorded history. And after all of that, you know what? It just isn't that important. Belief in young-earth creationism is second to a belief in a specific omnipotent Creator-God. If you don't believe in that God, you have absolutely no reason to believe in a divinely-created young earth. And apart from the odd 2 or 3 examples, nobody has been converted by whatever "scientific evidence" may exist for creationism - after all, it is the same "scientific evidence" that "proves" naturalistic atheistic evolution. And I am amazed at the number of people who claim to be Christians, but don't have any personal experience with God. If you've never personally experienced God, why would you believe at all? I know I certainly wouldn't have believed in God after I watched my infant son die in my arms, if I hadn't personally experienced multiple miracles in the past year. Well, there's my little rant. Don't worry about creation/evolution if you don't believe in God, and don't say you believe in God if he hasn't made a difference in your life. If God has made a difference in your life, don't worry about silly things like creation/evolution because you know God is real, just do the things he says - love people. Period. /rant Allow me to paraphrase the inevitable rebuttal: *Ahem* "Nuh-uhhhhhhhh" |