Creation vs. Evolution

[MikeFerrara]

_The Blind Watchmaker_ by Richard Dawkins is still pretty much required reading.

I don't know if it addresses the issues that you're most concerned about directly, though. What you'd probably need would be a statistical analysis of the number of "stable" organisms vs. the number of "transitional" organisms and the chances of them being discovered in the fossil record, along with an underlying statistical basis of genetic mutation which could predict time periods for species to evolve into other species. I don't know of any book that has that kind of information, short of just doing graduate work in genetics...

LOL, the graduate work is out for me at this point.

My current questions at this point might deal with how we identify a transitional organism. For example we seem to see one stage existing for a long time and many fossils found. All of a sudden, they seem to be gone and there's another "stage". In that x number of years we have time for y number of generations yet we have two "stages". To make matters worse, it seems that sometimes the evidence is something like a single tooth or a piece of a skull or whatever. Fossils are hard to make but if we have such solid fossil evidence of two, why none inbetween? In some cases those stages might exist at the same time according to the interpretation of the fossil record. In that case the only apparent explanaition is that they have a common ancestor but in those cases, the fossil record seems even thinner...the ancestor just disappears and the two supposed descendants show up sometimes millions of years later. If it really is understandable that the fossil record have that many holes that are that big, at this point, it looks to me like we need more than fossils. Lacking a direct verifyable connection, it looks to me like a situation where we need to say that we just don't know

I know I'm being kind of general here but that's where my looking is at this point. Maybe I need to pick one single critter and only research that one supposed evolutionary path?

 

[lamont]

LOL, the graduate work is out for me at this point.

My current questions at this point might deal with how we identify a transitional organism. For example we seem to see one stage existing for a long time and many fossils found. All of a sudden, they seem to be gone and there's another "stage". In that x number of years we have time for y number of generations yet we have two "stages". To make matters worse, it seems that sometimes the evidence is something like a single tooth or a piece of a skull or whatever. Fossils are hard to make but if we have such solid fossil evidence of two, why none inbetween? In some cases those stages might exist at the same time according to the interpretation of the fossil record. In that case the only apparent explanaition is that they have a common ancestor but in those cases, the fossil record seems even thinner...the ancestor just disappears and the two supposed descendants show up sometimes millions of years later. If it really is understandable that the fossil record have that many holes that are that big, at this point, it looks to me like we need more than fossils. Lacking a direct verifyable connection, it looks to me like a situation where we need to say that we just don't know

I know I'm being kind of general here but that's where my looking is at this point. Maybe I need to pick one single critter and only research that one supposed evolutionary path?

Yeah, you probably need to really dive in and look at something in depth if you want to get a good answer to this.

I can think of several different issues off the top of my head, though. If you're looking for truely transitional fossils that will be difficult because the organisms that succeeded them will have had many more successful individuals. Once an organism has evolved into a 'niche' in the ecosystem then it becomes prolific and you get a lot of it. The individuals that were evolving towards that niche did better than their predecessors, but were nowhere near as good and prolific as their immediate successors that they evolved into. Therefore you expect to only find reasonably evolutionarily stable organisms in the fossil record. There must be some way to arrive at some kind of swag for how many organisms have existed on the Earth vs. how many organisms are in the fossil record, there also should be some way to come up with a swag of how many tranisitional organisms have existed vs. how many stable organisms. You can then reduce that to an equivalent problem of throwing a dart blindfolded at a dartboard and seeing if you can hit a transitional fossil or not -- and I expect the area on the dartboard covered by transitional fossils is exceptionally tiny.

If you are looking for any evidence of transitional stages in evolution than the Dawkins book is reasonably good. He takes on the argument about how an eye could evolve entirely by chance and looks at existing organisms that display transitional stages in the evolution of an eye. Of course these are 'quantized' stages since there would be truely transitional phases that are simply not stable and evolve towards one of the stable states. This many or may not address some of your issues.

The other problem I can think of is that the fossil record is going to have gaps based on when conditions were favorable for forming fossils. So what you've got in the fossil record is probably not a continuous "movie camera" of history in a given area but more a series of still shots that you have to piece together what happened in between...

 

[The Chairman]

It does list some things that God created each according to their kind. It doesn not say that each, or any, was unchangeable

Mike,

It actually doesn't tell HOW God created it either. I do consider evolution the mechanism of his creativity here on earth. He designed it and has let it run it's course. Remember the audience first intended for Genesis was highly superstitious and completely ignorant of terms such as epochs and genes. Even if they weren't could you imagine how tedious scriptures would be if they notated the entire evolutional process from primordial amino acids to a human being? And the Amoeba beget the protozoa, and the protozoa cleaved into the hydroid... ad ridiculous.

Are you suggesting that if one interprets the scriptures to discount evolution then it is reasonable to ignore the evidence you site and reject evolution?

I am suggesting that there is no way to "interpret" the scriptures to to reject evolution without adding to them significantly.

 

[Thalassamania]

Just because you are insensitive to the bigotry, does not make it less so.

And when you call it bigotry, that does make it bigotry? I think not. Let's not paint each other into corners that we don't belong in. I am no more a bigot than you are a fundamentalist religious zealot, so let's not style each other in those fashions.

Sorry, but I find his ideas patently absurd, and still have no compunction to lump "People of no faith" together in one teaming mass. This is at the crux of bigotry, whether it be about race, gender or religion.

If what you say is true, then there can never be any rational discussion of religion and the only choice will be, by extension of your argument, atheism or religiosity, rationality or irrationality. I’m not sure I buy that.

So did Stalin. That doesn't make him any less wrong.

I suspect, that if Stalin were alive today, he’d agree that two plus two (in base ten) is four, and he’d be right. This is a Red <G> Herring not worthy of further comment.

Neither you, I or Mr. Harris are competent to determine WHY a person believes what they believe and whether or not they are "allowed" their beliefs. We might as well start burning people at the stake for being witches. His pseudo intellectual approach is nothing more than religious fascism designed to eliminate freedom of thought.

Neither I (nor Harris, as far as I can tell) are trying to determine why someone believes something (in fact I’m sure that Harris and I would agree that there is no "why" to such an irrational act), nor are either of us arguing for not permitting anyone to believe whatever they want to. What we’d like to see is the discussion put on a basis of fact, rather than belief. You can believe anything that you want, but to harm others because they do not share your belief should be, in my opinion, impermissible. Harris is carrying it one step further, he is saying that we’ve backed ourselves into a corner by becoming so PC that we no longer permit even criticism of war due to differences in mythology.

Your premise is way off. If this were true, then we would have had NO atrocities coming out of communist Russia, where atheism was the state religion.

No one said that atheism would solve all the words problems or that all atheists were good people, or that all who have religious views are bad people.

In his efforts to defame religious beliefs, he has drawn the wrong conclusion from a biased set of facts. I would suggest that GREED, HATE and FEAR have been the ultimate roots of these atrocities, and that man has simply used God (or his hate of God) to justify these actions. If you disagree, please present one or two situations where GREED, HATE or FEAR were not present in the execution of the atrocity.

If the shoe fits, wear it. All the excuses and all the “ultimate roots” analysis does not change either the facts or the real issues. Greed, hate and fear are usually part of the equation, as is a religious difference. They have, throughout history, gone hand-in-hand most of the time.

 

[sandjeep]

NetDoc said,

Even if they weren't could you imagine how tedious scriptures would be if they notated the entire evolutional process from primordial amino acids to a human being?

Actually, I would be interested in how this works, or rather how current scientific thinking (believes) it works.

What you are suggesting, based on your other posts, is that God started this process with primordial soup and left it to run on its own? And that all future steps in the process were based on natural selection?

As far as scripture and evolution is concerned, how are you determining which part supports it, because something must be there or its being read into it.

 

[The Chairman]

As far as scripture and evolution is concerned, how are you determining which part supports it, because something must be there or its being read into it.

One should never suggest that scripture supports or condemns something unless it specifically does. While I believe that God created evolution, I would never claim that the scriptures support evolution. The fact is that they don't condemn it and that allows us to believe anything about evolution we want to believe. There is nothing in the OT or NT which condemns the belief of evolution, so you won't find me doing that either.

 

[The Chairman]

And when you call it bigotry, that does make it bigotry? I think not. Let's not paint each other into corners that we don't belong in.

Well Thas, this was probably on topic a thousand posts or so ago. I stand by my statements. His views are incredibly bigoted. As you suggest if you believe the shoe fits, then by all means join in with his bigotry. I won't stop you! As for CALLING you a bigot, I have completely refrained from that. Don't put words in my mouth.

 

[sandjeep]

One should never suggest that scripture supports or condemns something unless it specifically does. While I believe that God created evolution, I would never claim that the scriptures support evolution. The fact is that they don't condemn it and that allows us to believe anything about evolution we want to believe. There is nothing in the OT or NT which condemns the belief of evolution, so you won't find me doing that either.

NetDoc,
I'm sorry, but I'm having a hard time seeing things from your perspective. You have stated, please correct me if I'm wrong, in older posts, that evolution is not incompatible with Biblical scripture. That nothing in the OT or NT condemns the belief of evolution, but I submit to you that the entire Bible screams out against evolution in its entirety.

True, I have never read Thou shall not believe in ToE in the Bible, however if I were to follow this thinking, I would soon come to the conclusion that the Bible must be false. In coming to that conclusion, I would have needed to grapple with the idea of the 'Fall of Man' getting kicked out of the garden, so to speak. Of course, one could say that we evolved in the garden and then ate the fruit of knowledge of Good and Evil. However, that would presuppose, that we were not going to stay in the garden anyway and really had no free will at all.

Although not specific to evolution, Jesus said in Mat 19:4

"Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female"

The beginning of what? This verse suggests, although not specific, that Mankind was created in the Beginning. This, at the very least, suggests that Jesus knew what had been written by Moses and accepted it as truth.

Jesus? I really don't see the need for Him if theistic evolution is true.

No offense meant, but can you see where I'm coming from?

 

[The Chairman]

NetDoc,
I'm sorry, but I'm having a hard time seeing things from your perspective. You have stated, please correct me if I'm wrong, in older posts, that evolution is not incompatible with Biblical scripture. That nothing in the OT or NT condemns the belief of evolution, but I submit to you that the entire Bible screams out against evolution in its entirety.

Do you have a referent scripture? This just sounds as if your bias is speaking for God. I don't think God likes that.

True, I have never read Thou shall not believe in ToE in the Bible, however if I were to follow this thinking, I would soon come to the conclusion that the Bible must be false.

So you are saying that God screwed up by not making this clear?

In coming to that conclusion, I would have needed to grapple with the idea of the 'Fall of Man' getting kicked out of the garden, so to speak. Of course, one could say that we evolved in the garden and then ate the fruit of knowledge of Good and Evil. However, that would presuppose, that we were not going to stay in the garden anyway and really had no free will at all.

Ah, the age of sentience. Hopefully, my kids will never tell me that I don't exist because I let them believe in Santa Claus. The point of Genesis was not to act as a history book or a science book. Much of the Bible is in allegory and in parables. It was handed down verbally for generations before it was put down permanently. Much of the information was simplified to present the main point: GOD EXISTS!

No offense meant, but can you see where I'm coming from?

No offense intended, but I can see where you are coming from and I simply don't agree with it. God is incredibly complex and has tried to make things simple for us. That doesn't negate any truth we might happen across, if just gives us a basis from which to start.

 

[H2Andy]

Yes, I've seen lots of those Florida fossils myself. It is more than clear that some spiecies have gone extinct. What I'm not seeing is much evidence that they actually "morphed" into or out of something else entirely.

for millions of years, there are no mammal fossils. nowhere in the world do you find mammal fossils.

suddently, you start finding mammal fossils on the shallower layers.

where did those mammals come from? from non-mammals that lived before them

then, for millions of years, you find primates for the first time. where did those primates come from? from non-primates that came before them.

then, after millions and millions and millions of years with nothing human-like, suddenly we get a series of species that are more and more human-like as they progress.

over a period of about five million years, we can trace how from a non-humanlike species, several more human-like species evolved, until finally, about 200,000 years ago, we find humans at last.

if evolution was not true, that is not what you would find. if you can find a mammal fossil in the earliest layers, you've debunked evolution.

good luck.

(this is a qood -- though boring as sand -- critique of the adequacy of the fossil record: http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Evolution/Fossil Record/quality_of_the_fossil_record_thr.htm)

it appeared in Nature, written by two recognized experts in the field

also, go through this search in Nature:

http://www.nature.com/search/execut...ject|ujournal&sp_x_1=ujournal&sp-x-1=ujournal

and browse whatever articles seem relevant. the first one looks good.