Evolution and Christianity

And they don't live.
I wonder how evolution could have brought about that beautiful sunflower pattern....

 

It was not so much evolution, but the result of known laws of physics and a particular set of conditions being present. Pure mathematics and physics are being expressed clearly in material form.
The golden ratio is represented throughout all life, from fern leaves to our own fingers.

 

First, evolution, shit, life itself, isn't much like being shaken in a bag. Because first, the things in the bag are responsive organisms, not passive pieces of a watch, second, because there are many complex patterns in nature, not just random bouncing. And also, it's obvious that the time scales are far different and generally vaster than humans really comprehend. It's a pretty dumb analogy all in all.

Living creatures from non-living matter... Well, first, Genesis says we came from clay. But anyways, any molecular biologist will tell you that we're all made of chemicals, the same chemicals found in rocks and soil and air. It's just the organization that is different, and certainly more complex. I don't claim to know how life came from nonlife, in fact, science can't tell us that yet either, and maybe never will. But there are evidences that it could happen. Amino acids can form in natural ways, entities resembling the lipid cell membranes have been observed, bits of RNA (percursers to DNA) have been found naturally occuring. Start putting these things together and you get closer to life. To be honest though, I haven't really researched this so I only know about it in general terms.

Agreed, Blackguard. These natural forces create such staggeringly complex beauty that never fails to leave me in awe. Patterns of form and behavior all melding together like a sort of cosmic dance, the universe is one big poem to me, so wonderful.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/entropy.html

 

Hello. Its interesting claudia, the more you study this theory the more you understand the fact that its based on conjecture.(therfore we see those who defend it strongly are those who know little, if not anything about it)

It seems as if you are interested in this subject, as you start reading youl notice that this theory contradicts:
¤biology (there are two many difficulties for a certain specie to change into another, Darwin him self felt a scence of disgust for instance when he studied the featheres of a bird since its structure is not close at all to the cover of reptiles. Try perhaps Jonathan Wells book; Icons of evolution for more on this subject)
¤chemistry (the gases needed in the soup they so often present are dupefully presented. They miss the essential tools for this to happen aswell as the difficulty of the reaction it self, such a reaction would release water and in chemical terms - reactions which release water and which happen under water are seen as the most unlikely of all chemical reactions- Not to mention the fact that there were(according to them) no, or very little oxygen in the word, this would leave all doors open for radioactive beams to come down and destroy the amino acids(since ozon is composed of oxygen).Microbiologist M.Denton writes about this in his classic and often discussed book "Evolution-a theory in crisis"

¤paelontology - The GREAT lack of fossils cannot be denied. They have tried to explain this by numerous explanations such as the theory of puncuated equilibrium but these are based on hopes and wishes and has no evidence to support it. Darwin blamed the lack of fossils on the fact that they didnt have much back then and he was sure that they would prove him right in the future. Almost 150 years has passed, still no luck... The best book Ive read on this subject is "Darwinism Refuted" by harunyahya, he has put all his book online aswell.

¤math The numbers of species exceed billions, many of these have extremly advanced systems(such as the bat, whales and dogs) which all must have been produced step by step in darwinian fashion. The time is not enough! Also, think of all these small probabilities the theory must pass, their are millions of these and this alone makes it illogical and unclear! Incase you find this interesting, try one of famous cambridge mathmetican William Dembski´s book on this matter. (They can sometimes be alittle booring though...)

¤biochemsitry The best argument from this standpoint Ive seen comes from M.Behe in his book Darwins Black box. If you want, strong evidence against this theory I would recommend this book which presents the irreducibly complex systems of our inner organs. Creation is beautiful but people are too blind too see it...
*Just some tips and pointers for futher study.

The idea that nothing produced everything is well... you give it a thought.As Fred Hoyle remarked, the chances of its accuracy is nothing greater than that of having a tornado sweep through a junkyard and build a boeing 747.

 

*Biology: Just because you think there are too many difficulties does not make it so. Also, you are seriously confusing 'species' with 'class'.

*Chemistry: Surely you've heard that they created amino acids out of nothing in a lab - all that was needed was a lightning strike. And a higher presence of radiation would only mean that things were getting shuffled around more, which actually increases the likelihood that the atoms would join together in a way conducive to producing organic materials.

*Paleontology: All you anti-evolutionists have this misguided impression that 150 years is a long time. We've had 2000 years to discover every artifact from ancient Rome - by your logic, we shouldn't keep finding things. Oh, but we do. Guess you're wrong.

*Math: Bats, whales, and dogs are not as different as you would like to think to support your claim. Structurally, they are all actually quite similar, and those developments only needed to happen once, in a common ancestor. The divergent line of bats developed wings and sonar, dogs developed a keen nose, and whales became more suited to an aqueous environment. Once a beneficial (or even a neutral) adaptation is introduced, it remains - that's why the process works.

*Biochemistry: You're confusing "creation" with "nature." If we were created, our organs would surely function better than they do. The fact that they are merely functional and not perfectly suited to their tasks is a large point in favor of evolution - it's what works, not what necessarily works best.

And finally, I've heard that quote far too many times - and it's inaccurate. It needs to be modified to express that the pieces picked up by the tornado would stick together when they fit. For instance, the tornado comes through and picks up all the pieces, but when the wheel hits the ground vertically, it remains there, because that's its function.

Like I said, it's fine to believe that God initated or directed evolution. It's asinine to believe that it doesn't happen.

 

False. Tornados and planes are not responsive entities, they are inanimate. Plus, a living organism grows, bit by bit; it isn't assembled. Further, life procedes via reproduction, it doesn't have to start from scratch every generation out of the seeming chaos of the nonliving universe.

You creationists love to use these quotes that sound smart but are actually irrelevant and misleading. Stop it, please, if for nothing else but your own credibility.

 

meh, If one believes in evolution, it boggles my mind on how they can't believe in God.

Even if evolution was true (which I don't believe, I could post many scientific and other reasons why ), than there must be a God...

Atheism's pretty illogical to me...

BTW: Hi Adam!

Nice to see you, and thanks! ^^

 

Why must there be a god?

 

For one, evolution uses natural selection, in order for an organism to adapt.
Natural selection would be part of evolution (however, natural selection can't come from it's own).

For instance, in disruptive selection: limpets. Limpets may changed their colors in order to fit in with the rocks it lives on (some live on black rocks, so the black allele stays. Some live on white rocks, so that color stays throughout the generations. Now, if the mixture: tan would exist, it wouldn't be camouflaged. Therefore there are black and white limpets, but no tans.)

How'd they change their color? Do they think:' oh, I need to make myself black, so I'd camaflouge on the rock! Better make sure my offspring'll be black!', and than it happens?

or stabilizing selection, which favors average individuals:

For instance, a type of spider has an advantage in being average, because if it's to big, it may be easier to catch, or if it's to small, it may not catch enough food.
Since average individuals are in the middle, they can catch enough food, and are hard to catch.

Hello?
So since it's easier to catch, the 'average' allele pulls through? That alone doesn't make any sense.
How do the alleles know that? Can alleles think???
There must be something between that. What about the advantages about being big? Are they ignored? Does it 'supernaturally' know that it must be in the middle?


Now, directional selection:

A population of woodpeckers.
Woodpeckers feed by pecking holes in trees in order to get at the insects living under the bark. Suppose that one year, the trees in the woodpeckers' area are invaded by a species of insect that lives deep within trees. Only woodpeckers with long beaks would be able to reach the insects. Therefore, woodpeckers with long beaks have the selective advantage over those short or average-sized beaks.

So these creatures' bodies know this? When they mate, the creatures with long beaks automatically come through.

We've got some major mind-body problem here.
Just because the woodpeckers 'think' they need longer beaks, they'll get some?
That's like saying you want to fly, so you jump off a building thinking you'll get wings. (this one's based on the dinosaur-to-bird 'evolution.)
Or saying: OK, I need a longer nose, so my offspring's automatically gonna get it.


I hope you get my point. Unless alleles can think, you'd need something else to do the conversion (or inharitence)...

 

well its those offspring who ingerit the genes for the longer beak that would survive [if the bugs stayed around long enough]

ok, i know where this is going, and im not really in the mood being a little under the weather and all...i may com back laer with a little more indepth response covering quite a bit...

 

oh, and ryu, your thinking of lamaraks theory of evolution where animals desire more advantageous traits

 

1.) When tan limpets are produced, they are not camoflagued so they are eaten, thus not reproducing and spreading this tan version. The black and white ones can be camoflagued (provided they are on a rock of the same color, and do survive to reproduce and pass their survivable genes on. No, there is no thinking involved, why should there be?

2.) No, the advantage to being big is that you're easy to catch and be eaten. It's not really an advantage in a world full of birds, frogs, reptiles and small mammals that like to eat spiders. But the spiders do have to be big enough to catch their food, so, natural selection allows the spider to be only as big as it NEEDS to be to catch food, even if it would be easier for the spider to catch food it if they were larger...because the larger spiders are too much of a danger to themselves. This is why it's called stabilizing selection: two forces are at work on the creature and it will end up at a balance point between the two; a compromise if you will.

3.) The woodpeckers reproduce, resulting in a generation of woodpeckers with all different bill lengths. The ones with longer bills can reach the deep-living insects, the shorter billed ones cant, so they starve. Guess who is left to pass on their genes? The long billed woodpeckers. They aren't thinking about growing longer bills; this is just cause-effect.

In each case, there is no need for thinking. The alleles are driven by the circumstances of their environment, and only organisms which happen to have the better allele combinations will survive (in the long run) to reproduce. I don't see why you think these examples prove a need for thought. Inheritance is simply you getting your genetic makeup from your parents, it happens when sperm meets egg.

 

I think you've just got a basic misunderstanding of evolution. Have you taken any in-depth biology classes? Lamarck's theory of evolution, which most closely matches yours (as Burbot said) is indeed ludicrous. However, natural selection is not so much a theory as a law. Sort of like the law of probability. You should really learn more about it before you poo-poo it.

 

Then take the evolution from dinosaur-to-bird. The hypothesis of scientists of how dinosaurs developed feathers is probably the dumbest I've ever heard:

The small dinosaurs jumped off trees, and after a while they developed feathers.

 

no, thats not how it worked [or even how the theory goes], sorry ryu

i cant wait to get to school tot get that pro-evolution package

 

Yeah, no scientist says that....

It's more like this: feathers evolved for insulation or display; they may have been used for gliding purposes later in time. then real flight developed. The point is, feathers were not initially flight-oriented, but had more to do with keeping the creatures warm or in displays to mates or competition for mates. Another example of evolution making use of earlier developments in new ways.

 

Stay in fucking school, and pay attention.

 

It says so in my Biology book, that that's one of the hypothesis.

 

they teach you that for some reason, even thoguh in the book, it should say its wrong...im assuming this is a secular school?