Evolution and Speciation
Spawned from the Political/Current Events Random Pics and Videos Thread thread starting here
Some background reading: Cliffs: Argument about "Evolution cannot be proven. Speciation cannot be demonstrated or observed. Hence Evolution is just a faith." http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html There are hundreds of instances of observed speciation. In the above links, there are literally dozens of hard studies with references available to those that want to find this out. Now, what I actually wanted to post on: I'm a hobbyist aquarist. I breed fish for fun. One of the lines I spent a very long time breeding is no longer able to breed back with the base stock (This actually creates a problem for me with respect to genetic diversity...) due to various anatomical reasons with respect to fin structure and size. I've personally caused speciation with a line of fish of mine. Anyone here can reproduce it if they are able to spend enough time on a strain and understand how to ensure virgin females in each new brood, as well as understand how to breed traits in and out of fish. However, this is with respect to anatomical inability to breed. With that said! Genetic inability to breed is referenced quite frequently in the above links, and it is observed as well. Your ball, Jared. |
"The Greatest Show on Earth" is a great book...
|
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB
(Post 816292)
"The Greatest Show on Earth" is a great book...
Even creationism posits that natural adaption can happen. Natural adaption over a sufficient amount of time is speciation/evolution. If you allow for natural adaptation to happen, you allow that given time, speciation/evolution happens. Creationism, as a result, has a very necessary need of the 6,000 year old earth*. If they allow for natural adaptation, which can be very easily observed, and an old world, they by default allow for evolution. But there's one giant flaw. China has historical records and documents dating back 8,000 years ago. Not "extrapolated numbers". Not "oh, but carbon dating is wrong" or "geological processes can take place faster", or any of the other arguments Creationists trot out. It's human records, from human civilization that can be accurately tracked before the date Creationists claim God created the world, which even if you assume all of our science is wrong about dating the world, blows a hole in the "But no humans were there to experience it!" argument. Anyways, just some background on the whole reasoning behind people wanting to argue that evolution and speciation is a myth for those who are interested, and why it is so critical to creationists that the world is 6,000 years old. *: Interestingly, the Christian belief that God once created the world a long time ago does not conflict with evolution. It's only the creationists that are in conflict with evolution. |
The six thousand year old earth idea, I believe, is a small amount of creationists though. I went to a private school (read:Parochial school) , and they never once taught us this. So I couldn't believe my ears the first time I heard this.
|
Originally Posted by UrbanFuturistic
(Post 816704)
The six thousand year old earth idea, I believe, is a small amount of creationists though. I went to a private school (read:Parochial school) , and they never once taught us this. So I couldn't believe my ears the first time I heard this.
On the other hand, origin of life hypothesis' do contradict it. But those are merely hypothesis' and aren't actually intrinsically tied into the theory of evolution. |
I don't understand this 6,000 year thing - do any people who believe that God exists, believe that evolution is real?
|
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB
(Post 816744)
I don't understand this 6,000 year thing - do any people who believe that God exists, believe that evolution is real?
With respect to Christianity, evolution only contradicts the 6,000 year creationism doctrine and in general the Bible is the Literal Word of God and Everything in the Bible Is As it Really Was. http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...mans-evolution It's hardly unusual. |
I mean, why assume that the bible is accurate?
|
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB
(Post 816750)
I mean, why assume that the bible is accurate?
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2010/...g-leading.html If you really have to know, although apparently there are also a 10,000 year old earth sect too, oh boy. :facepalm: Basically, this is why creationism doctrine contradicts evolution and it's such a big deal. If evolution is true, it means all of their beliefs are a pack of BS. However, this is the only belief system, as mentioned prior, where this is true. The standard "god created the earth a very long time ago" belief does not contradict it. (Edit) Lolol, apparently creationism recently changed it from the earth was created at 4004BCE (Yes, seriously. They are/were THAT specific.) to "it is around 10,000 years old" because there is human written history 8000 years old. A youtube video on creationism, cross-linked from religion. |
I'd do the young one!
|
|
I evolved from the Diplidocous.
|
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB
(Post 816744)
I don't understand this 6,000 year thing - do any people who believe that God exists, believe that evolution is real?
tis was aprox. 2k yrs from Adam to Abraham aprox 2k yrs from Abraham to Jesus and obviously aprox 2k yrs from Jesus til now
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB
(Post 816744)
I mean, why assume that the bible is accurate?
nobody as of now can say factually how we cam to be way i see it is it is a matter of choosing what to believe now for some reading |
Originally Posted by jared8783
(Post 817488)
the 6,000 yr old thing goes like this
tis was aprox. 2k yrs from Adam to Abraham aprox 2k yrs from Abraham to Jesus and obviously aprox 2k yrs from Jesus til now simply put nobody as of now can say factually how we cam to be way i see it is it is a matter of choosing what to believe now for some reading Chinese historical records exist that are provably, factually, beyond a doubt ~8,000 years old. We can factually say that humans have records dating back at least 8,000 years. So, creationism cannot be true based on the "logic" used to try to justify creationism. The line of thought that God created the earth a very long time ago is not in conflict with evolution (It only conflicts with origin of life hypothesis', which are only hypothesis' and aren't in any way, shape, or form central to evolution. They are merely applications of the theory of evolution.) Of which has been noted before. It's just creationist beliefs (Earth is 6,000 years old!) vs. scientifically proven facts. Evolution is up there with the Theory of Gravity as being scientifically proven. Yeah, Gravity is "just" a Theory too. |
i wasnt trying to say the 6000 year thing was fact
i was just explaining why the six thousand year thing is the six thousand year thing though i would like more info on the chinease records and the translations of the calendars used to date this or whatever but for me that would be nothing more than an interesting read you have two ancient cultures that say two different and opposing things i don't understand how eithor would be proof why believe one over the other? and for the evolution/creation thing. i literally just now started reading the links |
Originally Posted by jared8783
(Post 817499)
i wasnt trying to say the 6000 year thing was fact
i was just explaining why the six thousand year thing is the six thousand year thing though i would like more info on the chinease records and the translations of the calendars used to date this or whatever but for me that would be nothing more than an interesting read you have two ancient cultures that say two different and opposing things i don't understand how eithor would be proof why believe one over the other? and for the evolution/creation thing. i literally just now started reading the links 6,000 years of age was primarily a creation of James Ussher, who calculated that the earth was created in 4004BCE at around 1654AD. The 6,000 year belief is only ~350 years of age. Based on significant research on this topic, once the Chinese writings were accurately dated to ~6000BCE, an updated belief of approximately 10,000 years came about as well. YMMV, but a belief system that can suddenly go from "The earth was created at exactly 4004BCE!" to "The earth is somewhere, about, approximately 10,000 years of age" once conflicting data comes about is iffy - especially considering it is this belief system, and only this belief system that contradicts evolution. |
Originally Posted by blaen99
(Post 816689)
Creationism, as a result, has a very necessary need of the 6,000 year old earth*. If they allow for natural adaptation, which can be very easily observed, and an old world, they by default allow for evolution.
Creationism does not in any way require a 6,000 year old earth. It is true that there is a large segment of those of the modern Christian faith who make this assumption (so-called Young Earth Creationists), however I see no reason why a belief in both Christianity and the basic idea of creationism must be in conflict with either the model of evolution or the many and varied sources which place the age of both the earth and the universe at many orders of magnitude greater than 6,000 years. On creationism vs. evolution: At no time does the Christian bible (or the analogous texts of the other major Abrahamic religions, Judaism and Islam) describe the exact physical process by which God created the universe or its contents. It is often and fancifully supposed that God simply said "let there be X" at which point X magically came into being, however this is not directly supportable. I don't find it at all difficult to imagine that an omnipotent God might have wanted to do things with a bit of flair, such as concentrating all matter into a singularity and then releasing it with a Bang. Moreover, the order of operations listed in the creation story of Genesis 1 is roughly analogous to the order in which an atheist might also suppose life on earth to have come into being (universe springs into existence, stars and planets coalesce, atmospheres and topographic distinctions form, vegetation comes into existence, animal life starts in the seas, then moves on to land, and finally we get man.) On the age of the earth: This, according to the Young Earth crowd, has its basis in the aforementioned Genesis story, wherein God creates everything in six days. Such an interpretation precludes an acceptance of the age of the universe and its contents being measured in billions rather than thousands of years. The basic problem I have with such an assumption is that nobody was standing around with a videocamera (or even a stone tablet) recording things as they happened. At best, we have an account (actually multiple accounts) of the Origin of Everything written after the fact, presumably as a (possibly indirect) result of divine revelation. And there's the rub. What is not commonly understood is that Genesis contains two separate accounts of creation, in chapters 1 and 2 (The second account begins in chapter 2 verse 4) and that moreover, these accounts are directly contradictory as to the sequence in which events unfolded. In order to accept this while still maintaining a "Christian" faith system vis-à-vis a fundamentally creationist viewpoint, the only possible interpretation is that these accounts are allegorical in nature. It's not at all difficult to imagine a single creation story, passed down through many generations in the oral tradition, undergoing some degree of forking and distortion before finally being committed to paper by different authors at different times. |
from what i understand the six thousand year thing has nothing to do with the age of the earth and everything to do with the age of man
as i posted above 2k from adam to abraham 2k from abraham to jesus 2d from jesus til now i have been trying to figure out how these numbers were calculated with no luck and no the creation of the earth was not part of the six days of creation that the creation of man was a part of in genisis 1 it says in the beginning god created the heavens and earth. then it goes on to discuss the six days of creation and the creation of the heavens and earth are not part of that edit: there is no specification of time between the creation of the heavens and earth and how long after that it was before the six days of creation started then don't forget in 2 peter 3:8 it says a thousand years is like a day to god therefore some translate the six days as six thousand years |
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 817514)
I find this statement to be emblematic of the sort of philosophy which is responsible for most of the major "anti-religion / anti-evolutionism" arguments which I've seen.
Creationism does not in any way require a 6,000 year old earth. It is true that there is a large segment of those of the modern Christian faith who make this assumption (so-called Young Earth Creationists), however I see no reason why a belief in both Christianity and the basic idea of creationism must be in conflict with either the model of evolution or the many and varied sources which place the age of both the earth and the universe at many orders of magnitude greater than 6,000 years. Other than that, your post is :full of awesome: and explains in great detail what I've been getting at. As you have wonderfully illustrated, the anti-evolution mindset stems from one very specific belief system (Creationism, or if you insist, Young Earth Creationism. The two are largely synonymous in usage now unfortunately.) Jared: That gives the earth an age of 12,000 years. Yet another number. |
wait what?
what i posted gives the earth no age whatsoever only an age for man edit: and perhaps an age for other creations on earth |
im not saying that what i am posting is fact
not at all just saying that it is interesting pointing out what different christians believe and why and what i posted does not change the six thousand years for man thing |
Originally Posted by jared8783
(Post 817580)
wait what?
what i posted gives the earth no age whatsoever only an age for man from what i understand the six thousand year thing has nothing to do with the age of the earth and everything to do with the age of man as i posted above 2k from adam to abraham 2k from abraham to jesus 2d from jesus til now i have been trying to figure out how these numbers were calculated with no luck and no the creation of the earth was not part of the six days of creation that the creation of man was a part of in genisis 1 it says in the beginning god created the heavens and earth. then it goes on to discuss the six days and the creation of the heavens and earth are not part of that there is no specification of time between the creation of the heavens (outer space) and the earth then don't forget in 2 peter 3:8 it says a thousand years is like a day to god therefore some translate the six days as six thousand years __________________ Like Joe said, there's no conflict in Christianity and evolution. The only conflict arises from what he defines as Young Earth Creationism. |
i apologize
i did a poor job of proof reading post number eighteen it has been edited to say exactly what i was trying to say
Originally Posted by jared8783
(Post 817556)
and no the creation of the earth was not part of the six days of creation that the creation of man was a part of
in genisis 1 it says in the beginning god created the heavens and earth. then it goes on to discuss the six days of creation and the creation of the heavens and earth are not part of that edit: there is no specification of time between the creation of the heavens and earth and how long after that it was before the six days of creation started |
Originally Posted by jared8783
(Post 817596)
i apologize
i did a poor job of proof reading post number eighteen it has been edited to say exactly what i was trying to say Well, what you are saying does not oppose evolution then. It's only a very specific belief that contradicts evolution Jared. As Joe has said, if you do not take every word as the bible as literal (I.e., do not subscribe to what Joe referred to it as Young Earth Creationism), nothing in it prohibits evolution. |
Natural selection is a real thing. Anyone who argues otherwise is flat wrong as it's completely beyond doubt. Just as sure as the sky is blue.
Natural selection drives evolution. Creationism is a theory concocted by an ancient civilisation which did not understand the world it lived in. This is no different than the Mayans, Aztecs, Egyptians, etc. Anyone pray to Ra lately? Perform a ritual sacrifice? There is nothing to argue in this thread. |
did anyone here deny natural selection?
this thread was started because i didn't think that specitation to the point of not being able to reproduce with its parents had been observed therefore i said it was a nice theory but not a fact. the thread is now off track and will probably stay off track til i finish reading on specitation observations though i like it being off track what i really wanna discuss if how far off track mainstream christianity is from the bible and how some thing christianity is the problem with politicians trying to impose beliefs when it is not. those who impose beliefs are heritics |
I didn't read the thread after the first few posts.
That's what I get for injecting my $.02 without reading, lol. |
Originally Posted by jared8783
(Post 817645)
did anyone here deny natural selection?
this thread was started because i didn't think that specitation to the point of not being able to reproduce with its parents had been observed therefore i said it was a nice theory but not a fact. the thread is now off track and will probably stay off track til i finish reading on specitation observations though i like it being off track what i really wanna discuss if how far off track mainstream christianity is from the bible and how some thing christianity is the problem with politicians trying to impose beliefs when it is not. those who impose beliefs are heritics IIRC, the only thing that prohibits speciation from within the Bible is a literal reading of Genesis. And I do mean literal, on the level of "The earth is 6000 years/10k/whatever old". Joe did an excellent write up explaining it. Ultimately, it comes down to a minority (What Joe termed Young Earth Creationists) convincing other people to get up in arms over something that only exists for the YEC's cause. |
aliens did genetic experiments on apes and made us
/thread |
1 Attachment(s)
Originally Posted by blaen99
(Post 817650)
IIRC, the only thing that prohibits speciation from within the Bible is a literal reading of Genesis. And I do mean literal, on the level of "The earth is 6000 years/10k/whatever old".
Joe did an excellent write up explaining it. Ultimately, it comes down to a minority (What Joe termed Young Earth Creationists) convincing other people to get up in arms over something that only exists for the YEC's cause. Person A (presumably wearing a large belt buckle) says "Look, it says right here, six days plus x,000 years. That's it." Person B (presumably wearing an artificially distressed T-shirt with a picture of Carl Sagan on it) hears this, and replies "You're a damned fool. How can you possibly ignore the panoply of physical evidence which directly proves otherwise?" Person C, a television anchor, grabs hold of this and turns it into a two hour documentary special, and that pretty much shuts the door on logic and reason. Viewpoints A and B are stretched to their most extreme and absolute, and those who might posit a centrist point of view become lost in the noise. It's reductio ad absurdum, but it seems to be the way of things. The original post here wasn't actually about the age of the universe (or the earth) per se, however it's an important point which one must resolve in order to have discourse on the acceptance of an evolutionary model within the framework of a Judeo-Christian faith system. If the earth really is only 6,000-12,000 years old, that's not really enough time for any meaningful evolutionary processes to take place. It's also not enough time for dinosaurs to have roamed the planet, and I mention that only to raise a question: Why is it that, having blindly accepted a relatively fanciful premise, based on one interpretation of a small, vague, and self-contradictory account which is in conflict with all observable evidence, must some people go on to fabricate one excuse after another, completely absent logic or reason, to dismiss those arguments which weaken their premise rather than to consider said arguments as grounds for re-shaping their original assumption? Example: Person A: "The earth is x,000 years old, not x,000,000,000 years." Person B: "But we have physical evidence here in our hands, in the form of fossilized plant and animal remains, which proves otherwise. It would have taken millions of years for all of this to form." Person A: "Well, God just laid down the whole fossil record intact when He created the earth." Person B: "We can also deduce the age of the universe by the fact that all of the galaxies which we can observe are clearly expanding outwards from a single point. For them to have reached their current positions, given their speed, would have taken billions of years." Person A: "Well, God spread all of the galaxies into a specific starting point and then assigned each of them a velocity and direction to make it appear that they all originated at a single point in space billions of years ago." Ok, so given an omnipotent Creator, these assertions are certainly not easily refuted, but why would this have happened? Is Person A claiming that God is a jerk? Or could it be that Person A simply took far too literal and absolute an interpretation of a story which, regardless of its fundamental validity, was written several thousand years ago by men with a relatively finite and primitive understanding of the world around them, in a series of languages from which it is not especially easy to make unambiguous translations of meaning into Latin / English / etc., and which, at best, are revelatory rather than observational in nature. I would posit, to anyone who interprets Genesis 1 as laying out a literal six-day timeframe for the creation of the universe, that they refute the following assertion: "God revealed the creation of the universe to someone in the form of a vision which lasted six days. Each day, a different phase of the operation was depicted. That person then wrote down what had been revealed to him each day. This process would be analogous to my watching a six-part miniseries about the Vietnam War on television, where each part in the series explores a different phase of the operation, and is aired over the course of six nights. It would be improper for me to claim that the Vietnam War lasted only six days, despite the fact that it was shown to me over a six day period."
Originally Posted by bigx5murf
(Post 817854)
aliens did genetic experiments on apes and made us
Attachment 240134 |
Originally Posted by bigx5murf
(Post 817854)
aliens did genetic experiments on apes and made us
/thread i used to know a guy that sincerely believed that he said we were created as a slave race to mine gold and that satan was the alien in charge and his time is coming to an end and he wont give up without a fight and the aliens are coming back and will be war it was very difficult not to laugh at him |
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB
"The Greatest Show on Earth" is a great book...
Originally Posted by blaen99
(Post 816689)
You know, it is, although some parts are not fully accurate anymore. But it's still a great book nonetheless. And this inspired something I remembered.
|
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB
(Post 818201)
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB
"The Greatest Show on Earth" is a great book... Do you have a link explaining what's incorrect? |
Originally Posted by jared8783
(Post 818182)
lmao
i used to know a guy that sincerely believed that he said we were created as a slave race to mine gold and that satan was the alien in charge and his time is coming to an end and he wont give up without a fight and the aliens are coming back and will be war it was very difficult not to laugh at him *edit... forgot about censoring here... Eve was probably very promiscuous... All of our very promiscuous mother... |
Originally Posted by bigx5murf
(Post 818334)
Not saying I believe it, but it does conveniently explain why no missing link exists. Also, some world renowned geneticists claim our DNA can all be traced back to one mother. Which implies there was an "Eve"... and she was probably a -----. All of our ----- of a mother...
*edit... forgot about censoring here... Eve was probably very promiscuous... All of our very promiscuous mother... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve The claim is specific to mitochondria, and interestingly there's also a scientific basis for an Adam as well as an Eve. |
Originally Posted by blaen99
(Post 818339)
This is not exactly what the geneticists say. A link to the theory, which has nothing to do with being a harlot ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve The claim is specific to mitochondria, and interestingly there's also a scientific basis for an Adam as well as an Eve. |
Originally Posted by bigx5murf
(Post 818825)
reading through that, they weren't the only humans alive at the time... and actually lived 10ks years apart... how the hell did they get it on?
|
Originally Posted by blaen99
(Post 817650)
mean literal, on the level of "The earth is 6000 years/10k/whatever old
Originally Posted by bigx5murf
(Post 818334)
Not saying I believe it, but it does conveniently explain why no missing link exists. Also, some world renowned geneticists claim our DNA can all be traced back to one mother. Which implies there was an "Eve"... and she was probably a -----. All of our ----- of a mother...
*edit... forgot about censoring here... Eve was probably very promiscuous... All of our very promiscuous mother... not saying it is not possible anything is possible |
Originally Posted by bigx5murf
(Post 818334)
Not saying I believe it, but it does conveniently explain why no missing link exists.
IIRC There have been continually more discoveries of "links". And also a lot of "dead-end" branches. |
Don't have the energy to do an extensive analysis or even one, but...
http://www.nature.com/news/yeast-sug...ar-life-1.9810 |
Well, looks like we are all wrong.
|
Figures, Pensacola. See what I have to deal with down here?
( I admit to only having watched about ~6 minutes... ) |
Originally Posted by UrbanFuturistic
(Post 823632)
Figures, Pensacola. See what I have to deal with down here?
( I admit to only having watched about ~6 minutes... ) I made it about 30 minutes into that video before my face started turning red from anger. |
What gets me, is during the summer. They stand out across the street from McGuires waving their bibles in the air and screaming about the patrons going to hell....
When a block away is the strip club, but they don't bother with that... |
|
1 Attachment(s)
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:58 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands