I think there is a logical argument for a designer the problem is though how do you independently prove the existence of a designer? If I can split the difference an omnipotent designer might just have set about a set of rules and allowed it to run as the process we call Evolution. As Lscoladominates noted there are ways of testing a theory based on common ancestry that can make it fall apart and there are always other explanations. That said which explanations best fit the evidence and which explanations prove predictive. So far Evolutionary theory fits such as in the example of whales. Whales are believed to be descended from land dwelling creatures. They are warm blooded, breathe air and give live birth. These are qualities that don't apply to fish but to mammals that mostly live on land. Under evolutionary theory we should be able to find fossils of creatures that share features similar to whales and other land animals. Sure enough in recent years finds like that have been found. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/09/0919_walkingwhale.html There is another line of evidence in DNA that also shows that whales aren't related to fish but are most closely related to hippos. All of that evidence makes Evolution theory the most plausible idea on where and how whales as a species arose. DNA is complex but it isn't more complex than the cell as a whole. That would be like saying the Roman alphabet is more complex than The Aeneid. Also just saying that DNA and RNA are at a state of irreducible complexity fails to take into account a few things. The first is that there is no such thing as fossilized genetic material so in that regard there isn't, yet, a record of how those compounds came to be but as mentioned earlier in this thread there is lots of examples of very complex chemical structures forming and replicating without any seeming intelligent cause or motivations. Just because the nucleic acids are very complex doesn't mean that they only way the could form are due to intelligence anymore than a snowflake did. Again those are issues that Evolution doesn't directly deal with.
It is different because the theory that we share a common ancestor makes specific predictions that can be weighed against our observations. If all life descended from a common ancestor, we should find the same genetic code used by all organisms (with minor variations). Every time we find an organism that uses the same genetic code, the theory of common descent is strengthened. If there is a better explanation that fits the evidence, present it. Otherwise, the theory of common descent is the best we have. There are no leaps of faith in science. As for testability, please please please please check out www.talkorigins.org and read the essay on evidence for macroevolution. It gives a lot of examples of specific, testable predictions made by the theory of common descent (i.e. 'macroevolution'). I attempted to give an example in my above post (about the common genetic code), but there is so much more. Why do you keep talking about simplicity/complexity!?!? Those terms do nothing but obscure the actual phenomena that we observe in life: shared traits that reveal a deep interconnectedness.
Hey, sorry been real busy, if I don't get to check Clutchfans BBS I am REALLY busy... Just a quick response to Rocketsjudoka's reply because that is the only post I've read... Thanks for helping me clarify my statement it was too broad and absolute to express what I struggle with on evolution... I really feel what is missing for me is a clear linking of transitional fossils. Enough to make it more supportive of the theory. I think that over just one million years of evolution this theory would demand significant transition and that should be seen in fossil records especially when using the geological ages... Could we all think about one million years and what transition would take place? Rocketsjudoka I like your baseball analogy but it falls way short of any context to evolution, you can observe a baseball game being played so what happens even 1/10000 of a sec after the bat hits the ball has no significance, in other words if you are listening on the radio and you hear that a grounder just turned into a double play you don't need any proof that the ball hit the bat at all. Baseball is observable and testable. You can't observe macro evolution. You can experiment with variation, mutation and adaptation but how would you test that a creature 200 million years old evolved into a creature 100 million years old? It isn't enough to find similarities in creatures; or simple creatures and complex creatures; that is how nature is today, Madmax pointed out that cell complexity has been around for a very long time. Here is the better analogy to evolution using baseball: You show me artifacts of a small ball used in the ancient Roman Coliseum, then you show me a small ball that is similar to that ball and about the same size and weight as a modern baseball that was found in the earliest settlements in America and then you show me a modern baseball and tell me that the game of baseball evolved from Rome. That is evolution and baseball. That is how 'missing links' are treated by scientists. But I understand that I am not a scientist and really don't know enough to make that point, so I defer to science on it, I think I already posted that I can't prove anything I believe on this, and I believe God created anyways (which is not a scientific statement at all but one of spiritual beliefs) I couldn't begin to explain anything about a creation; but I still don't buy into evolution being a proven fact. That makes me kinda wishy washy I guess. And Rocketsjudoka is a good friend and a very good guy, great heart for people, the Rockets (he's an insane fan) and music. I am not that equipped to deal with science, I just like to debate.
This is a good analogy, but it misrepresents evolutionary theory. There are two big discrepancies that I see. First, that three organisms share traits does not imply that they are related by descent from each other, but rather that they are related by descent from a common ancestor. Two guys walk into a bar. They both have 4 limbs. Does that imply that the younger guy is the elder's son? Second, one trait in common is not enough to establish relationships. Fish and whales live in the water, but whales are not descendants of fish. We can test this theory by comparing the number of characteristics shared between whales and fish vs. whales and mammals.
http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=2065577&postcount=114 For the sake of more personal vanity and me saving some time, here's a post from yet another evolution thread on the complexity issue. There was even a study claiming that chimps were more evolved than humans. That'd be like predicting how much of a difference man made global warming will make in 1,000,000 years. Life supposedly had around 2,500 million years to play with on earth. That's a lot of time for late bloomers and early risers to play with. DNA and protein Sequencing. The intertubes has examples of convergent evolution. Playing with your analogy, at one point in time, the East Coast wasn't as far off from Rome as it is now. Spoiler Glancing back at those past threads, I doubt I'll change your mind or your opinions about this. I don't think scientists are emphatically dogmatic over evolution's weaknesses. The Devil (intense conflict) is in the details. Given the diversity and complexity of nature on earth, there are likely several paths to evolution. One theory about eucharyotic cells is that it's an example of symbiogenesis, a merger of bacteria into a larger cell. It doesn't play well with the one common ancestor rule, but even now our bodies need outside organisms to function. Maybe it's several common ancestors converging out of mutual convenience. Our world has countless of crazy and wild surprises that with science, even seeing isn't always believing.
Been reading along, but have to jump in here without finishing the rest of the thread, so be patient if this has been said. Fish are not reptiles and vice-versa. Birds and reptiles are much closer, as has been stated. As for transitional forms, Tiktalik is a good example. Read Shubin's Your Inner Fish for a decent overview. Also, with respect to transitions, I take it you are completely unfamiliar with ring species, then? You might want to do some research on salamanders in California. "One of the most powerful counters to that argument is the rare but fascinating phenomenon known as "ring species." This occurs when a single species becomes geographically distributed in a circular pattern over a large area. Immediately adjacent or neighboring populations of the species vary slightly but can interbreed. But at the extremes of the distribution -- the opposite ends of the pattern that link to form a circle -- natural variation has produced so much difference between the populations that they function as though they were two separate, non-interbreeding species." - from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_05.html There are several more examples in gulls, warblers, etc. as well. Also, please post your (someone's?) statistical analysis of the number of transitional forms needed, please. Thank you.
You don't. I'm not asking for proof of it. I'm not suggesting we teach it in school. Not at all. It's an inference to be made...we're looking at the effects and guessing at the cause. That's the same logic that was applied in the post I responded to. I'm not saying that evolution didn't happen. I can buy it. I have no problem with it. I would tell you that I see God behind creation and the development of life. I can't test it or prove it and I'm not interested in doing so. It seems as if we're all having different conversations about the same topic.
I don't mean to pick on you personally, but I think this is a horrible argument. You're right...it's the best we have....but if you're subscribing to it as anything more than our best guess (and let's be honest, it sure seems like a helluva lot of people do) then you're elevating it something other than "the best we have." Truth doesn't wait for us to figure it out. What happened happened...whether it matches up with our best guesses or not. Evolution is our best guess. Nothing more. It's not necessarily true. I'm not telling you it happened another way. I'm not telling you I subscribe to a belief in the literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis. I'm not telling you that I know more than the evolutionary scientists who've studied this for years and years and years.
This is accurate, but terribly misleading. If you had said: it says the same thing. But it's a much different answer.
oh, man..you got me there. i had never thought of that before. (where I have seen God, you'd explain it differently) but the lead singer of the Fray saw him on First and Amistad smoking his last cigarette.
Thanks, I have no business posting in an evolution thread. I don't have expertise, just questions because of alot of things I don't understand within my own reason... I think alot of examples are given as to similar organisms, adaptation and variation that do nothing for me except demonstrate that there are simlarities between organisms, adaptation occurs and variation is common in nature. One can make what I call soft links between events and what I call hard links. A soft link is what may have caused or influenced something else to happen for example - would the Beatles have been the Beatles without Chuck Berry? We could use soft links to connect their music but it would be a stretch to say that the Beatles evolved solely because of Chuch Berry. A hard link is what has to cause something else to happen and is a indicator of a direct transition for example- If I claim to be a direct descendant of the First President George Washington a hard link would be birth certification that makes a direct link from Pres. Washington to my birth. I think evolution is a theory describing hard links. Predicting what happened during 2500 million years with the relatively small fossil sample that scientists do possess just shows you how cool we really are as a species. As far as analogies, I believe that all good music evolved from the Beatles, great guitar leads from Jimi Hendrix and smooth melodies from the Beach Boys. And James Brown is the father of soul. (guess I am an old baby boomer)
I don't intend for people to stop asking questions. Maybe not the same ones. Genetics makes it easier to prove hard links, but it isn't the end all. We're assuming that all life on earth began on earth (there is a lot to support this). The information scientists gleam upon is like rungs of a ladder. We use molecular biology as the support with fossil, geographical, anatomical, and geological evidence as the rungs. The rungs can be considered predictions. Not all predictions are right or confirmed, but there's plenty of debate over it. Fossil evidence is used to support theories. There are also species that existed hundreds of millions of years ago that are closely similar to the way the were then. Evolutionary scientists can't base everything on fossil samples for reasons stated before and also because the a mountain of other evidence doesn't require finding potential fossils to be the end all. I don't mean to sound so definite over the past. There's healthy debate over whether evolution occurs within species or within groups. Again, the details are crucial issues that are still debated even if textbooks sound so certain. IMO, that's not a flaw of evolution, but rather how we approach and teach it. It's purposefully and politically watered down. Plus, the information policymakers can agree upon is decades old and more than likely outdated. I guess we're de-evolving with the dreck we have now.
Thanks, you have to read to the end of the article to clear it up.... "The division was not absolute: some members of the sub-populations still find each other and interbreed to produce hybrids. The hybrids look healthy and vigorous, but they are neither well-camouflaged nor good mimics, so they are vulnerable to predators. They also seem to have difficulty finding mates, so the hybrids do not reproduce successfully. These two factors keep the two forms from merging, even though they can interbreed. By the time the salamanders reached the southernmost part of California, the separation had caused the two groups to evolve enough differences that they had become reproductively isolated. In some areas the two populations coexist, closing the "ring," but do not interbreed. They are as distinct as though they were two separate species. Yet the entire complex of populations belongs to a single taxonomic species, Ensatina escholtzii." I think the science of that article is better suited for extinction theory. This is adaptation; common throughout nature. The division of species was not actually absolute, but it was relative to the variations within the species as they adapted to different locations. The article though is given as scientific evidence for adaptation=evolution. I predict that within the next 150 million years the gulls and the warblers will become humans (I feel smarter).
Thank you for posting this. This is why this issue camps out in such controversy....because one side communicates it could not have happened this way because the Bible says differently...and the other side communicates that it did happen this way. It's not taught in schools (at least not when I was a kid) as a theory....it's taught as fact. Maybe that was just my experience, but I don't think so because I hear that trumpeted over and over again from people. To question evolution, in some circles, is to make yourself an idiot in the eyes of those around you. That's unfortunate.
The division was absolute at the southern end of the "ring", where the subgroups were reproductively incompatible. You even quoted that part of the article. How does it feel to be willfully ignorant? I would love for you to answer mclawson's question about how many transitional forms you would need to see to be convinced, but you never will because you've already made up your mind. You continue to make the same errors and misrepresentations, despite the efforts of a number of people in this thread to correct you. You clearly have no desire to learn. That's sad.
