With all due respect to you also I will try to do what I want to avoid, explain why I believe personally that evolution is placed too highly beyond the very questioning that you stated makes science what it should be. I will try to be reasonable, logical, and leave God and the bible out of this since that really doesn't factor into my questions as much as you think because frankly I don't see any obstruction to science in my relationship to Jesus Christ. It is fine with me if I am wrong about evolution, I have made that statement already (but I must admit I don't remember if I did). But I fail to see why it is hypocritical to think differently or wrongly if I at least try to approach my position with reason and thought (I may not have the intellect to understand my wrong, but I assure you no other motive here than to question what I think is missing) I know my bias as a Christian plays in to this and I am not saying that I don't regard the bible account or creation, I do believe in special creation. But I haven't adjusted my opinions on evolution just to say I am right about creation. I think that is a failure of the Intelligent Design group. I think it is a mistake to try and 'establish' special creation as a scientific work. How could a supernatural creator be discovered scientifically? That is wrong and futile IMHO. Here is what I think about in simple and reasonable terms... and I really don't think my thoughts establish anything about creation or God. I will use traditional bird evolution as I remember it as it was previously posted but it is the same way I feel about mammal evolution etc Let's 'assume' that 'Archaeopteryx' is an early ancestor of the modern bird. Most evolutionists would do that although there is debate amongst some evolutionists about this (I think- correct me if I am wrong). I will focus on Archaeopteryx and bird 'evolution' to keep this as simple and as short as possible. Whether you are of the vain that Archaeopteryx evolved from Theropods (I had to look that up cause I couldn't remember what they called them, just knew they were linked to bird evolution) or some of the other feathered dinosaurs (again by memory I don't know the names but for the sake of time I will let others correct me here) and you are saying that Archaeopteryx is a missing link to modern birds then I have some questions about evolution. There are I believe several feathered dinosaurs that pre date Achaeopteryx by over 100 million years. There is debate as to whether Achaeopteryx is fully bird or dinosaur or partial. Dinosaurs are considered reptiles. Modern birds are warm blooded and have feathers. Modern reptiles are cold blooded and don't have feathers. Now think of species as a point of classification. If something has feathers and is warm blooded it gets classified one way. What I know within reason is that Theropods existed about 100 million years before Achaeopteryx and that was another 100 million years before modern birds. I also know that there are similarities for instance feathers on Achaeopteryx. I realize that I might have the dates off because I am not going to sit here and do research, just explain what seems logical to me. I also know there are finds around the time of Theropods of dinosaurs with feathers. (that's what I remember) So I have set the table for what I see is a large amount of missing data, not just several instances of similar creatures. I take away God and the creation story, now I am going with my data and take away the evolution theory and look at my data. I have Theropods that I find similar to modern reptiles. But they are not modern reptiles so I give them a separate classification. I take Achaeopteryx which is similar to modern birds but not a modern bird and I give it a classification. I take the 250 million year old feathered dinosaurs and give them a classification and I classify dinosaurs. So far I can see that several of these classifications are extinct. Possibly do to a number of factors. I find modern birds and modern reptiles showing up very recently on the timeline though some of them have also become extinct. So far what I know is that the same similarities that occur today within and between species today also existed within extinct classifications. Now I am going to select macroevolution and stick it in my data. Macroevolution will be defined this way- A gradual process over millions of years whereby something changes into a different and usually more complex form (if there is a clearer definition that is fine, that is pretty general but how I see it) I am to understand now that the ancestor of Achaeopteryx is found about 100 million years prior and gradually developed. So, logically I assume the first 1 million years was a very long time indeed and that there was significant transition taking place. It is reasonable I think to believe in evolution if this 1 million years produced significant change (in other words the transition didn't just occur during the final one millionth year it was very gradual) In fact it is reasonable to assume that significant change happened during the next million years that is a very long time also. I hope this is not to simplistic or illogical because it is how I see evolution. For 100 million years a very very long time there is gradual transition from the ancestor whether it be a feathered dinosaur or Theropod or something else makes no difference to me. What is logical and reasonable is that there is significant change. We are talking about large amounts of intermediate classifications that have to survive just the first 1 million years. That is alot of survival and transition. We can also logically believe that not every linking creature lived more than is reasonable in life span. So there is beginning just in the first million years to be furnished a huge amount of evidence that evolution is happening. Now fast forward to million year number 40, we have gone 40 million years piling up evidence of transition. Fast forward logically to million year 41 and so on until you get through 100 million years of transition and you arrive at Achaeopteryx. Now I have added evolution so I link Achaeopteryx to its 100 million year old ancestor, pick one and I am quite logical to look for a very vast and significant amount of transition in the fossil record. In fact I expect the fossil record not to provide just bits and pieces of significant similarity between the two but my theory will demand an actual verifiable process of linking. Because it is the linking that is the theory. This is not only true for Achaiopteryx but every single modern classification and every single ancient and extinct classification. I have a theory that is supported by three very key parts- transition, graduation, and very large (millions of years) amounts of process. Scientifically I have a theory that in a geological and biological test must stand on transition. If the amount of transition does not fit with the time of the process or the graduation of the process something needs to be questioned. I question the amount of transition based upon the fossil record. That may seem totally illogical but then how long is 200 million years? I could go on but I don't find myself being one bit hypocritical in looking within the fossil record for the significance of the evolutionary process in transitional links that would establish a theory that Theropod and Achaeopteryx are absolutely linked though they are 100 MILLION years apart. My definition of evolution is not able to support that in the fossil record. In fact without the data I think it is just as reasonable to believe they are similar but unlinked. That certainly doesn't fly in the face of what we understand about variation and adaptation. If you want to assume that variation and adaptation is the reason for similarity in classifications then I think it should be supported clearly in the scope of evolution as defined in the fossil record. I have to carry on with this later, I don't think I have disproved evolution nor do I care too and you must admit I wouldn't be able to. What I want to point out is my own logic is not satisfied just because the answer is evolution and millions of years. That extinct classifications were more primitive than man I acknowledge, that they were the evolutionary ancestors to modern species I still question on the basis of a lack of vast amounts of transitional fossils. You are certain I am wrong and I am sure my religious beliefs affect that. So think of it this way, yes I believe in special creation. True this puts me at odds with scientific evolution if I discount evolution based upon my beliefs. But I don't see how I can prove my faith or disprove evolution. I don't think I am wrong though to have significant questions about evolution based upon the way I understand it. I certainly know there is a truth and if it is evolution great! And I certainly want to admit to my biases, I am a pastor. My questions certainly could be totally because of bias, but they are logical thoughts and real to me. I guess one way I can express it is - If I am to embrace and accept evolution at this point based upon linking and transition then I would like to see alot more transitional and linking evidence than I have read (I will not read alot more so I may be corrected here again). If you think I am totally taking the religious bias and hiding it in my questions then it just shows the failure of my own thinking. I actually believe what I have posted and I have no scientific expertise so I obviously can't defend my opinions to any satisfaction. But I hope you see my point of view and can see less hypocrisy and more ignorance. BTW- this was fun today. I only posted again to explain how I see transition, graduation and long periods of time. To correct that would be fine, could you email me though? Thanks
rhester- Your problem with the theory of evolution is rooted in an ignorance of even the most basic science behind it. I strongly recommend that you check out www.talkorigins.org and especially this essay, which outlines the abundant evidence in support of macroevolution.
This entire thread reminds me of a friend I had in high school. He was a diehard Christian/creationist while I was more evolutionist. We began discussing evolution and got into some heated arguments, I had another friend who was also an evolutionist and he got into the discussion as well. We spent at least 75 days of the school year talking about nothing but evolution. It was probably more, we stopped talking about anything else. It was safe to say we got NOWHERE. Despite having some funny moments, looking back I would say we wasted our time and I could have gotten to become better friends with him if we had just talked about different things. Until science can muster up indisputable proof of evolution, or Christians can show indisputable evidence of god, this argument will never cease.
Macroevolution isn't a process of things changing into more complex forms as what we have now isn't an end product of evolution but just happens to be a snapshot of where life happens to be at this moment in the history of life on this planet. Extinction is as much a part of evolution as adaption since natural selection would dictate that as some organisms can adapt and thrive so should some organisms that can't survive go extinct. Often the most complex ones die out leaving simpler ones. Again I think you are asking for a standard of proof that is unlikely to ever be there given the relative rarity of any living organism to die and leave a fossil, along with the possibility that us in the here and now are able to find such a fossil. To go back to my analogy of a double play in baseball. If you knew that a runner was thrown out at second and one at first in the same play do you need to know the position of the ball 1/32 of a second after it left the bat to determine the likely hood that a 5-4-3 double play occurred? What I want to point out is my own logic is not satisfied just because the answer is evolution and millions of years. That extinct classifications were more primitive than man I acknowledge, that they were the evolutionary ancestors to modern species I still question on the basis of a lack of vast amounts of transitional fossils. You are certain I am wrong and I am sure my religious beliefs affect that.[/quote] Its fine that your logic is unsatisfied and there is certainly much room for skepticism and unknowns regarding the fossil record but what I am criticizing you is your absolutist statement that there are no transitional fossils. To me that is being hypocritical as you acknowledge that you see something as Archeopteryx as sharing features of both dinosaurs and modern birds. You might question what exactly the relationship is but clearly you recognize that morphologically Archeopteryx appears to be a transition between dinosaurs and birds. My feeling is that you have quick to accuse of proponents of evolution as jumping to conclusions yet you seem to be doing the same when you make such absolutist statements. What I am asking you is to do what you ask others to do. Have an open mind regarding the evidence. [quote So think of it this way, yes I believe in special creation. True this puts me at odds with scientific evolution if I discount evolution based upon my beliefs. But I don't see how I can prove my faith or disprove evolution. I don't think I am wrong though to have significant questions about evolution based upon the way I understand it.[/quote] You aren't wrong enough to have signifigant questions and everyone should but I don't think you have the basis to make a blanket statement that there are no transitional fossils. Again though I think you are asking for making a leap of faith regarding evolution when there isn't a leap of faith needed. Its not a matter of saying well I see a lot of problems regarding the argument for evolution but I will overlook them and embrace a belief in it. Its not a matter of faith but a matter of looking at the evidence and the argument and deciding what the likelyhood of it is. I'm willing to say that evolutionary theory might very well be wrong but at the moment it represents according to available data the most likely idea. That's not a faith statement on my part but an acceptance of what the evidence at present is. I don't think it is a matter of religious bias but a matter of approach that you are judging evolution on the standards of a religion than as science. You are saying that it has to be accepted totally on faith or rejected since it can't be proven absolutely. Science isn't that black and white since nothing scientifically can be proven absolutely. Religion though is. I can't just claim to say I believe in God until something better comes around. I either do or don't. I'm not asking you to not disbelieve what you post and I'm not going to criticize you for pointing out the problems with evolutionary theory. As I said earlier I think you are applying an unfair standard of proof and making absolutists statements when you yourself decry what you see as absolutists statements made by proponents. I certainly enjoy the debate and I apologize if you took any offense. Truly none is meant and if you feel so by all means let me on know. For all of the Clutchfans out there while we have our philosophical and intellectual disagreements I truly respect Rhester and it has been great working with him on hurricane recovery. Any disagreements that we have really pale in comparison to where we think in common. We aren't going to resolve issues like evolution but we can help people rebuild houses and root for the Rockets When it comes down to it those are more important than intellectual debate.
To follow up on my last post. I think it is too bad that you feel that you felt you weren't better friends because of a debate over evolution. As I said I have an intellectual disagreement with Rhester but I do consider him a friend and someone I respect. One of my best friends and business partner is the Republican party chair for my congressional district. While I might not be the farthest out on the liberal scale I have had some very tough debates with him regarding all sorts of political and economic issues. Some that would do the D & D proud interms of overheated rhetoric and extreme analogies. That doesn't change that we are friends and we are probably better friends for it because we can have such debates. I think we would all be better if we accept and are willing to openly debate intellectual and philosophical issues even where we have strong disagreements. Obviously people might never agree but I don't think a difference like where one stands on evolution should be the basis to tarnish a friendship. Then again some of my best friends have deliberately slammed me down hard, inflicted pain and choked me out all for sport so my view of friendship might not be the norm.
Ask them to prove God exists, or else take those teachings out of Sunday school....and see what happens. DD
Is this right? My understanding of Darwin's theories on evolution are that they are wrapped up entirely in the assumption of moving simple to complex. Slight modification to the simple that leads to complexity...not for the sake of complexity but for the sake of survival. But starting with the cell and moving from there to systems.
Where did you get this idea (in bold)? Evolution is about common descent. All life is related through a common ancestor. It is not a philosophical theory about 'simplicity' and 'complexity'. Those terms are thrown around to muddy the waters.
I certainly didn't make it up. It's hardly novel. Darwin talked about it specifically with respect to the development of the eye. We talk about organisms developing from one cell...to tissues...to a system of tissues...to what we would call an organism. Nothing philosophical about that. from a simple google search using the words "evolution simple to complex" I found the following: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12853798/ "We’ve all seen the popular cartoon of evolution’s march from an ancient sea, beginning with a single floating cell that morphs into increasingly complicated creatures, on the way to the punch line of Weekend Man slumped in his armchair. It’s just a joke, but the idea that life starts simple and gets more complex over time persists even in scientific circles." http://scienceandevolution.blogspot.com/2007/11/simple-to-complex-to-simple-to-complex.html "The entire tree of life has been built on the assumption that evolution entails increasing complexity." I don't think I'm nearly as far out in left field as you're suggesting.
no offense man, but you have no idea what you're talking about, and MadMax is absolutely right.. the controversy and confusion surrounding evolution are unbearable, and I spent countless hours researching and fully understanding what the theory of evolution is all about.. basically, from our observations over a small sample of time (relative to the age of the earth/life), different species share similar characteristics that could be traced back to "common ancestors", and the variety in those characteristics are perfectly logical and could be clearly explained with simple genetics.. (ie: variation is beak sizes of closely related bird species).. now I perfectly "believe" in this, but that's the thing, people get ridiculed for not "believing" in evolution when it's not really a matter of belief, it's a scientific observation backed by overwhelming evidence and common sense.. now what I don't "believe" in isn't "evolution", it's the theory that attempts to explain how life on earth came to existence by means of "macro evolution", where those little changes that we observed in regular "evolution" keep piling on each other for a bazillion years and then bam, you had a fish become a turtle, then a turtle become a lion, the lion becomes a monkey, and the monkey gets a larger schlong and stands more upright and voila, you have humans.. It is my scientific belief that this "theory" that ignorant people try to pass off as "evolution" is absolutely ridiculous and has major holes and inconsistencies that it shouldn't even be honored as a "theory".. at least the "superior being" (ie: god) theory justifies the initiation of life by stating that this god is almighty and all powerful (ie: can do anything, and hence created a living cell and then various organisms).. on the other hand, you have this "macro-evolutionary" theory that cites "a lucky strike" as the reason behind the creation of the first forms of living, and those little cells became lions and sea horses and humans after millions of years of "macro evolving".. I honestly cannot see how anyone in the scientific community can present that as his explanation for how life started.. so there you have it, when MadMax says "taking simplicity and applying it to complexity", he's talking about how the principles of the small-scale well documented evolution are applied by some not-very-bright people to large scale theory explaining the existence of life by ignorantly following the flawed logic of "long a$$ time = same thing happening insanely a LOT that a turtle becomes a human!!!11!" .. it just doesn't work that way, just like you can't explain phenomena in the quantum level using Newtonian physics..
No pun intended but I don't think it is that simple as just saying things move from simple to complex. Under thermodynamics the whole universe is moving from simple to complex and life as we know it follows along with that that said evolution as a process that leads to diverse speciation doesn't follow a smooth path from simpler to complex. Consider that at the end of the Cretacious dinosaurs had taken up almost every ecological niche so you had a wide and complex array of dinosaurs. Over the next few millenia that complex array of dinosaurs dies out and for awhile you only have shrew like mammals that eventually differentiate and adapt until we have a wide and complex array of mammals. Their is a presumption that complexity equals survival yet if anything the fossil record indicates thats the other way around. Most sharks and crocodiles have survived since pre-dinosaur times essentially unchanged and the simplest form of what is universally accepted as life, bacteria, have continued to survive and numerically are the most wide spread and successful form of life. Complexity doesn't appear as much to be an end that evolution works towards but as a byproduct of adaption. Organisms figure out how to exploit ecological niches by adaption and when you have a lot of ecological niches you get a lot of complex adaptions. That was exactly what Darwin witnessed with the Galapagos finches. The problem with that though is slight changes to those niches spells disaster to the creatures that have most adapted to them whereas simplier creatures are better able to survive. For example, polar bears are splendidly adapted to the arctic and have unique and complex systems for coping with climate. Grizzly bears aren't as specifically adapted for a particular climate, they live from temperate zones to the arctic. If the arctic warms up though polar bears with all of their wonderful adaptions die out and if current evidence is correct grizzlies bears who aren't so specifically adapted are moving into the polar bear territory. Further genetic evidence suggest that polar bears are descended from grizzlies and they can interbreed. So if Global Warming holds what likely will happen is that the more complex polar bears will become extinct and the more general grizzlies will survive.
I don't think people should be ridiculed for not believing in evolution but people should be willing to look openly and honestly at the evidence along with carefully consider the arguments. You are right belief isn't a matter of faith but a question of interpretting the evidence. Frankly I am more comfortable with an informed skeptic about evolution than an uninformed believer and I think where we get into problems is where people accept scientific principles on faith without understanding. Here though you are confusing two different theories. This has been brought up repeatedly in this thread and in other Evolution debates. Evolution isn't a theory about how life came to being. Evolution is a theory regarding how different species arose. Again Darwin's book isn't The Origin of Life but The Origin of Species. As far as believing in micro-evolution vs. macro-evolution let me ask you do you believe that the Grand Canyon was formed by erosion? Do you believe in Continental Drift? Do you believe that matter is made up of atoms? The argument regarding micro versus macro evolution is an argument about limited observational powers. People say well I can see how a finch in a few generations can develop a different beak to eat a certain kind of nut but I don't see how a finch could turn into squirrel. That is a function though of a limited observation given to human lifetimes and to the limits that our senses perceive the Universe. No human, human civilization or humanity as a species as witnessed the creation of the Grand Canyon from a gully to what it is now yet most of us are pretty confidant in understanding that the process that creates the gully at a creek over millions of years led to the creation of the Grand Canyon. No human, human civilization or humanity as a species as witnessed Continental Drift yet most accept the idea that the continents actually are floating on a layer of hot magma. No human has ever seen a single atom and under the Heisenberg Principle it is impossible to ever observe a single atom yet few contest the idea that matter is made up of atoms. As humans we are very limited in what we can directly physically perceive so we rely upon induction and deduction to understand what is beyond our own physical ability to percieve. For somethign like Evolution we are talking about time scales so far beyond normal human lifetimes yet inductively it logically makes sense that the actions that we can witness over a vast timescale can lead to profound changes. Further we look at what we can from the fossil record that seems to indicate a progression of changes and in recent years we can look at genetic evidence to evaluate other lines of evidence. It is of course possible that we are totally wrong but that is the same as we might be totally wrong about how the Grand Canyon was formed. The most we can do is see what seems most likely and fits the evidence. In regard to saying that the theory that there was a divine creator while that logically makes sense and truthfully nothing about Evolution conflicts with that idea but the problem is how do you create a test for the evidence of a creator that is falsefiable (has the possiblity of returning a negative result)? Until you can do that there is no independent way of verifying a divine creator. So a creation driven argument (creation as in a guided process by a supernatural being(s) and not just as in Biblical creation) can't be scientifically proven or disproven. It is a scientific dead end. Evolution as we understand it though can be scientifically disproven. The quickest way woudl be to witness a squirrel spontaneously appearing from nothing. That would show that the idea of speciation being a process of mutation and adaption is wrong and that new species can suddenly arise. Of course just as Evolution skeptics claim to have never seen one species turning into another as a skeptic of their skepticism I can say that I have never seen a new species spontaneously appear or aliens or angels creating new species.
Link to a great paper hypothesizing on this very subject. There is nothing "far out" in your commentary at all.
I don't think MadMax is out in left field either and have heard many others state Evolution as a process of going from simple to complex. From what I understand of the theory and the fossil record I don't see that as that being an end of Evolution. I can see why Darwin might've felt that way as he didn't have as much knowledge of microbiology and genetics. What we see is that especially in the microbial world simple dominates and since possibly more than 90% of all organisms are bacteria simplicity is by far the most successful survival strategy than complexity. Also I took a look at the link and read the abstract. While it sounds interesting it doesn't directly deal with what MadMax is talking about that evolution drives to more complexity. It deals with a hypothesis that the first cells arose in undersea seeps where naturally occuring comparments were the precursors to cells. While yes this is an example of increasing complexity that is tangential at best to the article. Here is the title: "On the origins of cells: a hypothesis for the evolutionary transitions from abiotic geochemistry to chemoautotrophic prokaryotes, and from prokaryotes to nucleated cells "
If I had a time machine, I'd go to many places. In particular is a time lapse of dinosaurs or something that chronicles suspected evolution. Another would be the period of the Gospels. If only if....
You're getting distracted with tangential matters. As judoka so eloquently pointed out, individual traits, like eye structure, evolve as adaptations to their environments. Whether a trait becomes more complex (the human eye) or remains simple (light-sensing in jellyfish) depends on whether or not that trait is useful in a given environment. Evolution has no teleology (purpose). The testable theory of evolution is that we are descended from a common ancestor. An implication of that theory is that complex organisms evolve from simpler ones, but that does not mean that the simpler ones are less fit and therefore die off. On the contrary, an abundance of "simple" lifeforms exist to this day. What is amazing is that these simple organisms have a lot in common with even the most complex ones. All life shares a common genetic code (with a few minor variations), common metabolic processes, the same energy storage unit (ATP), etc. This is not out of necessity--different molecules can perform the same function as ATP, for example. So why don't organisms each have their own unique energy storage units? The Theory of Evolution provides an elegant answer: they inhereted these traits from a common ancestor. Here's the key: if we found an organism that used a completely different genetic code, had a different metabolic pathway, or used a different base unit of energy storage, the Theory of Evolution would be falsified (or at least called into serious question). That every known organism shares these common qualities is tremendous evidence for common ancestry.
If I made a comment that drew inferences on the cause of something because of the way it is now, I would be lambasted for it. This is the same rationale behind ID...there's complexity and thus there must be a designer. In this one it's that all organisms share common qualities so that's evidence for common ancestry. I agree with you that you can make that inference...but I don't see how the rationale or logic is much different. And I'm not real sure how that's testable, as you say. It requires a leap of faith that there aren't other possible explanations if you're going to adopt it wholly. I get that it moves from simplicity to complexity based on whether it's needed...but it sure seems to me that we don't start out complex and move to simplicity. That common ancestor you're talking about would presumably be pretty simple....and that was the the theory for years...until we broke open the cell and found DNA and codes/language that is arguably more complex than the systems it creates.
Why are variations in beak size more "logical" than variation in reproductive compatibility? Or eye structure? Or presence/absence of specialized cells and tissues? What mechanism stops 'microevolution' from becoming 'macroevolution'? Correct. What you or I believe has no bearing on the validity of a scientific theory. The Theory of Evolution is not concerned with how life started. You are correct that we have very little understanding about how the first organisms formed. What is well understood is that all life descended from a common ancestor. And like you said, this is true regardless of whether you choose to believe it or not. Again, the Theory of Evolution does not explain the existence of life. It does a great job of explaining how turtles and humans are related through a common ancestor.
