Question About Evolution

Post Reply New Topic

Her definition is relevant because she is the one who has to be convinced. The fact is, those bacteria are not a group of organisms that has gone from a state of being able to interbreed within a wider circle of closely related organisms to a more restrictive circle.

The problem isn't that evolution doesn't occur, the problem is that the YEer has heard some dodgy arguments against evolution and those are affecting her world view. Speciesation (or whatever the word is) occuring in asexual organisms doesn't undermine her argument, so shouldn't be used as a rebuttal.

I was discussing evolution with someone who buys into young earth creationism, and they asked me the usual "well if we came from Chimpanzees, why are there still Chimpanzees". I explained that we didn't come from Chimps, but rather a common ancestor we share with Bonobos and Chimpanzees that lived 6 million years ago. I also explained that physiologically, it probably would have resembled a chimp more than a human, but this is because the Chimp never left the trees, the original environment of the shared progenitor, so there were less physiologically apparent adaptations needed than the human ancestral line that split off and filled a new niche in the retreating forests that were being displaced by grasslands through climate change.

However, they hit me with a hard question I couldn't answer, and that's "why in recorded history hasn't a new species developed". They defined a species as a boundary in which a group of organisms can interbreed. The question was, more or less "why hasn't any group of organisms gone from a state of being able to interbreed within a wider circle of closely related organisms to a more restrictive circle?"I mentioned mules, but that doesn't really apply since they can't reproduce at all. I imagine that in the event that a new species does form, it probably would happen through the kind of intercourse that a donkey and horse (close enough to produce offspring but different enough to produce a freak or oddity) provide, but I don't know of any real world examples. If someone could fill me in on this, let me know.

They argued that a kind of meta-consciousness brought all the different life forms into being through intention and that, while different species can change form to a limited extent (Saber tooth tigers to Siberian Tigers/ Woolly Mammoths to Elephants), there is no organic based, common line of descension that all life shares, only commonality shared through a meta-physical intelligence.

First time I understood evolution 5-6 years ago when I found some forgotten potatoes which have had worms. At that moment, I thought the worms evolved from bacteria inside the potatoes, which most probably were maggots, but that actually helped me to understand the theory of evolution that made no sense to me before in spite of all the proofs and documentaries. Even now I wonder how some people can understand things without making associations.

Also for the record, I am a Christian and I do have pretty strong spiritual beliefs. But I personally don't see the Bible as antagonistic with respect to evolution. Rather, I see it as a supporting argument for evolution. But that's just how I feel and a topic for another day .

Most creationists are too stupid and ignorant when it comes to earths history and the origins of life because they are too afraid of picking up a science book and learn the truth.Their response would be oh snap the bible is incorrect about the planets history! They don realize that the earth is by far older than some 4000 year old book written by a bunch of desert bums!

Well, they are intelligent people. Its just they cling to their assumptions, because the familiarity those assumptions offer provides them comfort.

That's an easy one. Recorded history is very recent. We really don't have any documents past what, 3000 years ago? Evolution doesn't typically happen overnight, it takes tens of thousands of years to occur. So you aren't going to see new species popping up every day. That said, there have been new species develop in our lifetime. Mostly it's just microorganisms like bacteria (they reproduce so fast that you can notice evolution much easier with them), but also with some other animals. And while species typically refers to two organisms that can't physically reproduce that isn't always the case (see: lions and tigers). Here's a link describing a few new species:

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/ ... 820949.htm

Also a little basis on how evolution occurs is helpful. Typically what causes large changes in a species is a set of genetic mutations that turn out to be beneficial to survival or reproduction, and therefore those mutations get passed down to descendants. For an easy example think of the antibiotic resistant bacteria that are all over the news nowadays. There are some species of bacteria that naturally have antibiotic resistance, or develop a mutation that confers this resistance, and some that don't. In a world without antibiotics, neither one is favored and therefore you don't see any changes in the relative amounts of either over time, the gene is a non-issue. However when you start using antibiotics, you kill off all the bacteria that don't possess the gene, and the only ones left are those that are resistant. Then in turn, those bacteria produce more antibiotic resistant ones until that's all that's left! And also as you can see these two types of bacteria can coexist, just because one has evolved to have more resistance doesn't mean that the bacteria that don't have the resistance just "die off".

Also for the record, I am a Christian and I do have pretty strong spiritual beliefs. But I personally don't see the Bible as antagonistic with respect to evolution. Rather, I see it as a supporting argument for evolution. But that's just how I feel and a topic for another day .

Exactly. I'm a Christian of the Lutheran persuasion, and I believe - nay, know - that evolution is an undeniable fact.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I wish by no means to offend any young earth creationists, but what you're describing only prooves that these guys are good a asking questions and are well adept at articulation and (often) masters of rhetorics.

Neither Constantine, St. augustine or any recent pope dismissed science in favour of Biblical literalism. Disrespecting science would also mean disrespecting God's ways.

Evolution is not in contradiction with the text if it only meant believing in evolution. However, an evolutionist really - in the sense that it is used - is a metaphysical naturalist. Following the laws of naturalism, nature is a closed system of material causes and affects which can never be influenced by anything outside naturalism, and I'm talking of course specifically about the supernatural creator. In the final analysis, there is no God, or if one exists, its existence is irrelevant to how life and the universe came about.

That is in contradiction to Genesis 1:1. Genesis 1:1 is our calling card. It is our declarative statement to the world, and it was one of the greatest revolutions in human history.

The bible is not here to explain science, but Genesis 1:1 is the one exception that the text makes because of all of the ramifications that follow in accepting God as a creator of the universe, and of you and me.

Evolution is not in contradiction with the text if it only meant believing in evolution. However, an evolutionist really - in the sense that it is used - is a metaphysical naturalist. Following the laws of naturalism, nature is a closed system of material causes and affects which can never be influenced by anything outside naturalism, and I'm talking of course specifically about the supernatural creator. In the final analysis, there is no God, or if one exists, its existence is irrelevant to how life and the universe came about.

That is in contradiction to Genesis 1:1. Genesis 1:1 is our calling card. It is our declarative statement to the world, and it was one of the greatest revolutions in human history.

The bible is not here to explain science, but Genesis 1:1 is the one exception that the text makes because of all of the ramifications that follow in accepting God as a creator of the universe, and of you and me.

That is in contradiction to Genesis 1:1. Genesis 1:1 is our calling card. It is our declarative statement to the world, and it was one of the greatest revolutions in human history.

The bible is not here to explain science, but Genesis 1:1 is the one exception that the text makes because of all of the ramifications that follow in accepting God as a creator of the universe, and of you and me.