Micro-evolution= changes within a species (golden retriever, poodle) Macro-evolution= change to a different species (monkey to human) The latter has never been seen. And since evolution is based solely on something that has never been seen, I have doubts. But proclaimed science is supposed to be based on discoveries!!! :\
Bootsie you are wrong! I don't believe either have and I can prove it. Have you ever seen a golden retriever give birth to a poodle? No! Checkmate! Evolution was made up by people who hate god and microevolution is just god giving animals cool toys. I wish we lived in a world where evolutionists and microevolution-creationists could be honest and base their assumptions on either scripture or evidence. Scripture never mentions microevolution and we've never seen a golden retriever change into a poodle so why believe either! My loving god will smight you and all who besmirch his name with this evolution religion. I bet those evolutionist disguised as creationists taught you microevolution! Don't listen! If you are foolish enough to listen you'll go to hell for have the false god of microevolution before you! Think about it for once. Do you become more environmentally resistant in the winter? No? You don't grow white fur? Checkmate! Jesus be praised. Nitrous, OUT! A better source to give him would be the 40+ observed speciation events. We've actually seen those happen. He can't play the "the devil put those bones there!" card.
honostly i think in a mixture of both... I dont think that human was just popped out of nowhere and said "Hey world im human and thats a monkey!" I think Evolution happened- people think thats against religeon...but what happened before that? how did the big bang happen? that i believe is the religeous answer of God (Catholic here)- and afterwards started the fall of man.
I cant really answer this properly. My logic side says evolution. My religious side says creation. Maybe god created the source of the big bang which then lead in a series of events to life.
Both of the posts above me have to consider another question: What made God? You both say it is possible that God created the big bang- what created god? No matter how complex something is scientifically (the big bang) the creator of that thing must always be even more complex. Thus, you need to realize that it is actually more likely that matter just popped into existence one day (even though that is an unsatisfying answer), than that god appeared out of nowhere, and was smart enough to create all of that matter himself.
Aaahhh! YIKES! I had no intention of such an uprising!! I AM INCREDIBLY SORRY NITROUS!! I wasn't specific again *bangs head on table.* Please let me try again at my intended concept: When i said "golden retriever, poodle" I was not saying "golden retriever to poodle." I was trying to give examples of different breeds of dogs. I guess I should have had more than 2 examples :/. Again, I am sorry. What I should have said was "golden retriever, black lab, doberman, poodle, bloodhound, golden doodle (my neighbors bred a poodle and a golden retriever so yes it exists) and other mixes" are all breeds of DOGS!! Nitrous, I do not want to create such a rivalry between us. Please accept my apology.
We are still evolving. It's such a slow process that you during your lifetime would never be able to notice. If the earth is as old as scientists say it is (4-6 billion years), then that's a heck of a lot of time for something to change. I'd say that if you were to look at human beings in, say, 50,000 years from now, they wouldn't be anything like what you see today. You're not going to see new species's of animals in 2 weeks... Personally, I think it's a little mix of both. I don't necessarily believe in the "God" that everyone seems to name like they know him personally, but there has to have been some sort of powerful outside force to get the universe started. Whether or not that's a divine entity or person is not my expertise. However, I don't believe for a second that "God" placed 2 people on the earth and told them to start doing ****. I do believe that evolution has brought people where they are today.
actually, they would look quite the same. even 50,000 years is a short time for any major evolutions to occur. and besides, evolution occurs because an organism needs to addapt. the human race does not need to adapt, at least any time soon. natural selection.
*wonders if he's already replied to this topic* I was unaware it was an either-or argument. After all, who's to say that God didn't use (isn't using?) creation to bring about the current created order? I'm not opposed to the idea of evolution, because I don't believe the idea of evolution contradicts my notion of a sovereign God. But something has bothered me about evolution for a while--this notion of cross-species evolution. I believe it is the law of entropy which states that all things tend toward decay. So then, keeping that law, how can anyone rationally hold that a complex biological organism could spring forward from an organism of less complexity? I don't know too much about the subject, but I am interested to hear explanation as to how new species can evolve by an organism giving birth to another of its own species with spare chromosomes, given that by our current understanding, extra chromosomes are almost never beneficial to an individual of a species. See, by my understanding of it, I can only hold a theory of evolution that takes into account the notion of some Higher Power intervening, because it would be impossible by any other means. I would get into how the two theories don't necessarily contradict each other, but my time for writing is short, and I suppose I'll make another post in this thread that shows how the two can work in harmony with one another instead of in sharp contrast. But for now I think I've provided enough fodder for posting. =D
I believe in more of a mixed or middle view. We were created by some higher being, and from there evolved to be what we are today. In fact, we are still evolving which is evidence enough to prove that evolution is reality. Whether or not creation is reality may never be fully answered. My thoughts have always been that there must have been a higher power in the beginning. Now whether or not said higher power is still watching over us or has any part to do with today's society another question entirely.
What's cross-species evolution? Entropy[1]- In simplicity, entropy is the measure of the unavailability of the energy in a system to do work. It describes the tendency of heat to flow from hot regions to cold regions homogenizing the system by allowing energy to be distributed in the greatest number of microstates. The notion that entropy is a measure of disorder is one of the more pervasive misconceptions regarding thermodynamics. In fact, the idea that everything should tend toward disorder is disproven by crystallization. You took an unordered amount of atoms and ordered them in a crystalline pattern which should tell you that order can be achieved even if the second law stated that everything is head towards disorder.[1] If you don't like diamonds you can use snow. You also have the problem of emergence but that's an irrelevancy at this point. But of course you may have objections to this. Crystallization and snow flakes require added energy to form, to which I would agree. If the earth were in a closed system I suspect no life would have arose, however, the earth is an open system as it constantly recieves energy from the sun, which reduces the sun's ability to do work while increasing the earth's ability. It doesn't overcome entropy it just delays it. It's a double-edged sword. You may continue to say that the universe itself is a closed system, which I would disagree once more, since the universe is expanding and the definition of a closed system is that it must be closed and static.[1][2] 1) Sonntag RE, Borgnakke C, Van Wylen GJ. 2002. Fundamentals of Thermodynamics, 6th ed. Wiley. 2) Spergel DN, Bean R, Doré O, Nolta MR, Bennett CL, Dunkley J, Hinshaw G, Jarosik N, Komatsu E, Page L, Peiris HV, Verde L, Halpern M, Hjill RS, Limon M, Meyer SS, Odegard N, Tucker GS, Weiland JL, E Wollack, and Wright EL. 2007. Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) three year results: Implications for cosmology. Astrophysical Journal Supplement, 170:377-408. --- I'm not too clear on how chromosomes emerge but chromosomes are made up of DNA. If you are adding DNA and its being passed on then I would assume additional chromosomes would be beneficial. Then again, the fern has 400+ chromosomes while we have only 46. I'll have to read up on chromosome formation and get back to you. No that's not possible. Science can't reference a deity. It must pertain to the natural world and the natural world alone. That doesn't mean there isn't a supernatural realm it just means science isn't interested in it. For evolution to become a theory it must have passed the test without supernatural intervention. If you could give me some reasons why evolution needs a deity I might be able to clear some things up for you. Two theories? Explain, please.
This is why I like debating here so much, despite having not done so as often as I'd like. Well-thought-out arguments with support, and an admin who enjoys engaging with the members, and who can actually outsmart most of them. So before I begin again with the debate, I will say that I genuinely appreciate the fact of your tenacity and willingness to support your cause, Nitrous. ^_^ Dogs evolving into cats, or something like that. I'll agree that species will evolve certain characteristics and different subspecies depending on their climate, and that the theory of natural selection (survival of the fittest) is very clearly displayed in nature (why we don't see any slow, hulking, bright yellow forest-dwelling elephants--they just blend in so damn well...). Well I stand corrected. I admit defeat on that point, and praise the fact of your citations. I hadn't considered diamonds, snowflakes, crystals, and the like before, and you certainly do bring up a very valid point. So we came from fern? The point I'm making is that at the inception of life, from the most basic, beginning steps when the first microbial, single-cell organisms emerged from the oh-so-popularized (and probably misconceived) primordial soup, evolving upwards and outwards to bigger, stronger, more complex organisms (such as the 46-chromosome human being, let alone the 400+chromosome fern) seems almost impossible. Still, I'm curious to see what your research determines. Actually, science began as the study of how God did it (at least if history hasn't changed on me since grade school). Only in modern times has it turned away from a reverent study of His Creation to a cold, unfeeling machine that attempts to use explanations of how to clear up the question of why. And what I mean by evolution needing God to function is simply how the process could work towards the current vast and marvelous Creation that we have now without some driving force behind it, working it to the state in which we now exist. Evolution could very easily be how it happened that the current state of life came into existence, but it can only ever be an explanation of the how. Whether it was mere chance that it happened, or whether it was God working it to happen, or even some other alternative - that is the why that individuals should decide for themselves. Creation and Evolution, as I said, I don't think are mutually exclusive. Sure most evolutionists will point to creationists and say that their arguments are weak and their positions unfounded in fact and thought, and most creationists will say that the evolutionists are atheistic simply for the sake of being atheistic, but I think it's silly to not try and reconcile the two ideas. What I'll call "strict" creationists hold that the Bible's account of the creation in Genesis 1-3 is exactly how it happened. God took six days to speak the universe into its current state of being, rested a day, and then un-created the plants of the earth and humanity to re-create them in reverse order so he could throw them into His garden (literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3, which fails). Evolutionists, unless I'm mistaken, hold the notion of primordial soup birthing microbial life-forms, which over a very long period of time developed and evolved into bigger, better, stronger, smarter, faster, and more complex life-forms until we're left with the menagerie that we see today. But what if the Bible isn't exactly, precisely literal when it says that God created the heavens and the earth and all its inhabitants in six days? If you look at the text, there are two obvious pericopes (natural groupings and breaks in the story) that stick out: Genesis 1:1-2:2 and Genesis 2:3-3:24. What distinguishes them is the use of the name of God in the original text (note how 1:1-2:2 only says "God" and how 2:3-3:24 will incorporate "LORD" language, denoting the Tetragrammatron). There's also the fact that the first account is much more artistic and poetic in nature, while the second is much more folk-tale-like. Some have said that God created mankind twice, but this doesn't hold water. Just going to point out quickly before I keep going that the Bible was never exactly intended to be an exact historical narrative, and that those who read it as such are missing the main point of the thing. Now without getting too far into it, when you read the first pericope by itself, the point to an Ancient Near Easterner wouldn't have been that God systematically spoke all of creation into being exactly as it said. They had no mind for science and the things that we hold in our advanced society as sophisticated. No, to them, the point of the text would have been that God was responsible for everything. It never gives great detail on how God's words brought the current order into being, and I think that we're supposed to try and figure out how He did it, if only to bring more glory to Him (I mean, creation had never been done before, so no matter how you swing it He was pretty innovative if you believe it was Him). Now, the second pericope is a bit more detailed in how God made man and brought him into the garden. This one bears more characteristics of the narrative that we see later in the book of Genesis, so it is more likely a recounting by Adam of how he remembered creation. Granted, we don't know exactly where it came from, but the style of writing lends itself to more characteristic accuracy than the first account. While the Pentateuch is attributed to Moses as the author, it is widely accepted that for Genesis he turned to a number of other sources to get his information. Here's where I break from my sources. How can we verify the account of the creation of man in Genesis 2:3-3:24? It is possible that God told Adam how He created him, but we have no record of this--and the Bible tends to be pretty clear on when God speaks to man. So we can say, then, that the second account of the creation of man in 2:3-3:24 (specifically 2:3-7) is also not an explicit statement of how God did it. Sure it gives the details of how God formed man from clay and breathed life into his nostrils, but I think there is a better point to be derived from this than that God is an excellent Potter. The point is that man is unique and shares a unique fellowship with God that none of the other members of creation had. So then I have shown that it is possible for the scriptures pertaining to creation to not be an explicit detail of how the world came to be as it is. The points they bring are that whatever happened, God did it, and that man is unique in creation and supreme over it under God. Neither of these ideas conflict with the theory of evolution, and so it is very possible to hold the two concepts in harmony with one another.
I liked this post a lot. The response to my last quotation was really good. You've made me the happiest girl in the world! Nah, evolution doesn't predict that. I mean, I suppose it's possible that a dog subjected to the right conditions could evolve to be cat-like but I really doubt its ability to directly evolve into a cat. Every evolutionist will tell you that dogs will never give rise to a cat and they aren't lying to you but it technically isn't true. I probably shouldn't do this since it might further your misconception and confuse you but I guess I'm going to do it anyway! Imagine that humans only have 5 genes. They will be labeled by numbers. The genes are 1-3-5-6-7. Imagine that cats have 5 genes labeled 2-4-8-9-0. Now, regardless of whether you believe it or not, you were just a packet of cells at some point. Just a sperm and an egg that has instructions on how to construct the multicellular organism that is you. If you could grow a human in a test tube and change all his genes to match a cat's, as far as I know, the packet of cells will grow up to be that cat. See genes determine what you look like when you grow up. If your dad has red hair, then you have a good possibility of being red-headed. So changing the gene artificially to brown hair, regardless of your parents will cause you to have brown hair. So is it possible that a dog could evolve into a cat? Yes its possible though entirely improbable. Most mammals have over 3 billion genes so the odds are incredibly small that two different species may one day match up. But if your ever in a debate about the idea that a dog can evolve into a cat just remember that evolution doesn't predict it and that if it did happen it would be evidence against evolution rather than for (though it is technically possible). I probably should have been more forward on this point. The goal of evolution is not to make the most chromosomes. Likewise, more chromosomes do not mean you have more versatility to adapt or that you are better than suited than other organisms. I still haven't looked into chromosomes formation so let's put this subject on hold for the moment but be sure to remind me in case I don't bring it up in a later post. That's entirely subjective. Personally I think religion drove science away, not science choosing to walk away. It wasn't an atheistic scientist cult that started up modern science. It was creationists and Christians. Science in the early days wasn't very well pronounced, it took revolutionary discoveries to truly spark an interest in it. Galileo was put under house arrest for his discoveries. It's not that he wanted to contradict the bible, it just happened to be so. Likewise it was Christian, creationist geologists that disproved the flood. Not atheists wanting a cold, hard rational word (not that atheists advocate that). I find it a rather loaded question to ask, "how did the Christian god do this?" When you don't know if it was or was not the Christian god in the first place. You're presupposing an answer instead of making an attempt at unbiased inquiry. Science, by definition, must eliminate bias and it does so through the scientific method. Marvelous would be subjective but I understand your want to believe in a designer. I do take issue with evolution being just chance. It's not. Though, it has chance components to it that are, natural selection is not random. You'll have to get me in the mood to really go on about the universe. I can go for a while when I'm blasted with inspiration. I do agree that science will only ever reach the answer of how, not why. That's why we have philosophy, though. Just because science as a practice is only interested in how doesn't mean the people have to be. Fantastic. When I read it earlier I had a few nitpicks but I'm too lazy to go back, through. I may bring them up later but they aren't damaging to your arguement so they're kind of just food for thought.
Evolution does not have any goals. It is merely the process by which the inherited traits of a population change over time. It is not goal-oriented or subjective, it just happens. Having more chromosomes does not necessarily mean anything because the complexity of a chromosome varies greatly within and across species. Chromosomes are just an ordered structure that can contain any amount of DNA + proteins. The Adder's Tongue Fern may have 1,400 chromosomes, but they are probably less complex (less genetic material) than that of any of the 46 human chromosomes. We did not come from a fern. We shared a common ancestor, which in no way means we descended from it. Not all organisms evolved into more complex organisms. Evolution does not imply an increase in complexity. Bacteria that exist today are as simple as the microorganisms that existed hundreds of millions of years go.
I didn't advocate that evolution had any goals, though, I didn't deny it either. I could have been more clear so I won't press the issue but understand that I do know evolution has no goals as it is a process not a conscious decider. Agreed but once again I didn't say that chromosomes were necessarily helpful. "More chromosomes do not mean you have more versatility to adapt or that you are better than suited than other organisms" [sic]. Excusing the now obvious grammatical error I rest my case. Shiruken you're doing biochem, right?
The Big Bang: Where did that first piece of matter come from? They have no answer. this is untrue. scientists have found that matter can, and often does, spontaneously appear.