Posted on 06/20/2007 5:24:39 AM PDT by spirited irish
That’s pretty good, but it’s an answer focused only small scale processes - that’s only part of the story, so let me clarify a few items. I’m sorry for the long post, but I hope you and others find it helpful.
Evolution is not really just about “change over time”...I have changed over time but that’s not evolution. That’s just aging :-p. Lots of things “change over time”. So, a more precise definition of “evolution” is that it is descent with modification.
This definition allows for the small scale, or “micro-scale”, processes you described as well as the larger or macro-scale processes that deal with the descent of various organisms from a common ancestor. It is the assertion of evolutionary theory that it is the small scale process — the thing that happens at the genetic level — that eventually manifests in changes at the larger scale over time.
OK. So, what causes changes at the small scale? You said “natural selection” or genetic drift. That’s good, that’s part of it, but that’s not all there is.
As you said, evolution is supposed to happen when you have a change in the frequency of an allele in a population — for example, more and more Blue-footed Hairless Dingnuts being born with an allele for hair than the allele that leaves them without hair. Eventually, so the story goes, there will be populations of hairless dingnuts and separate populations of dingnuts with hair. More time will pass, accompanied by more changes in the expression of other alleles, and there will be hairless dingnuts, dingnuts with hair, and dingnuts with hair and red feet and long tails. This latter group will be unable to successfully reproduce with the first two groups — leading to a new species — and we’ll eventually end up with all sorts of terrestrial dingnuts, aquatic dingnuts, perhaps some dingnuts that fly, and new groups of things that aren’t even dingnuts at all anymore.
The idea is that millions of very different organisms were all thusly able to descend from a common ancestor.
Anyway. So, how do these changes happen in the first place? There are 4 posited mechanisms through which such changes could occur:
1. Mutation
2. Migration
3. Genetic drift, which you mentioned
4. Natural selection, which you also mentioned
Of these, mutation is the most fundamental because without it none of the other mechanisms can be set into motion. Mutation is fairly self-explanatory — whoa, hey look Ethel, junior’s got an extra fin and it’s longer than all the others! It’s totally and completely dependent on chance.
Migration sometimes happens by chance, sometimes under the direction of some external event (a drought, say). Genetic drift is also mediated by chance - say that in a bunch of our original mixed group of hairless and newly hairy dingnuts there were a bunch of hairless dingnuts who died without having offspring. Statistically, this means that there are now more hairy dingnuts than there are hairless dingnuts having offspring. Genetic drift...like mutation, happens by chance.
And this — this idea of chance — is an important point. A really, really important point.
Every bit of evolutionary change that is supposed to have ever occurred has started with...an accident (mutation) and been moderated by 3 other mechanisms which are also heavily, heavily skewed toward chance. So, this means...
Somehow, chance — and, really, in its simplest analysis, only chance — must account for all of the life in all its many splendored colors and forms on the planet today.
Not likely. Not at all likely, but let me leave that aside for a moment. Let me make the huge leap of faith that it is possible for chance to accomplish that feat — it’s a bit further for me to go than the leap of faith to believe in God, but I think I can do it.
You asked me what natural processes required for evolution have yet to be observed through scientific methods. The answer is...chance. The most basic, fundamental spark that lights the flame for all the rest of the hypothetical mess that is the idea of evolution.
The very first principle of the scientific method is observation. And chance - the driver for mutation and genetic drive - simply fails the test. Chance is NOT an observable natural process like, say, erosion. No one has ever observed it in the field, and no one has ever been able to collect any data from a “mutation in action”.
Furthermore, we can’t test evolution - we can’t test chance, we can’t repeat it - not in the field, not in the lab. Some have tried to simulate chance - using random number generators and all sorts of other scientific methods to try to show that, yes, it is possible to start with species A and eventually end up at species B...but no one has succeeded.
So we can’t observe evolution in action, we can’t test it, and we can’t replicate it.
All...ALL...that we can do is observe what we THINK are its end products. And that means running a lot of analyses to try and show relationships between current species on the planet — try to construct the family tree — and collecting a lot of fossils to try and fill in the historic links from the past.
Both efforts have failed miserably. Of the millions of species that have lived on the planet you’d think we’d have gotten a more reliable set of phylogenies together by now. But the truth is that they’re all full of holes...big holes...right where you’d least expect them to be. And the fossil record is no help either. All we’ve got to show is a handful of bones - a jawbone here, a nearly intact pre-hominid there, and some DNA tests that don’t actually show what it was hoped they would. I simplify, I know, but providing more detailed examples really doesn’t improve the picture.
Anyway, I’ll end with that for the sake of the length of this post. But “evolution” simply does not offer the set of proofs that you and so many others on this board hope that it does.
It's not hard to figure out
The Indians and Japanese have no religious reasons for either accepting/rejecting either creationism, ID or Evolution.
So when a Japanese or Indian scientist looks at the evidence without a religious or non-religious agenda, if the evidence points to Creationism/ID then why don't they see it?
Likewise, if Evolution is such a sham then why wouldn't they reject it and beat the west in Biotechnology?
Why is it only fundamentalist Christians and Muslims who don't study science the only ones to see that evolution is a fraud?
The same can be said of Pharmaceutical companies, do you really think Merck, Pzier, Wyeth, Bristol Myers, etc care about the Evolution/Creation debate? No they only care about coming up with the best drugs which makes them the most money. So when a pharmaceutical company sets out to make a new drug, who do they hire, a Scientist who believes in evolution or a "Scientist" who believes in creation?
When rights become privileges the deed is done.. like in all the democracy's on this earth.. No rights merely privileges..
With all due respect, that just isn’t how public school curriculum is developed - not here in the United States and not in Japan...where it so happens I lived for 3 years. I’ve never lived in India, but I did do some research after your post into the Indian education system and feel comfortable that that’s not how it’s done there either.
All I can say is, I understand the sentiment on both sides, and this is one conversation I'd rather not get involved in. I think there's enough blood under the rug to humble all parties involved.
Myself though, I don't get offended anymore by such comparisons. I put my faith in God, rather than men...lest I fall prey to my pride.
I'm not sure there even is a standard metaphorical view.. I know of a few that see Genesis 1-3 as metaphorical.. but even then they/we see it differently.. sometimes quite differently..
I personally don't know whether Adam is metaphor or literal with metaphorical content, or some other reality.. Not that it matters greatly to me.. If we were to know exactly what the story Adam is about more info would have been given, I think..
I think being human is a test a spiritual test.. Details about Adam must be minutia to that extent.. so scant detail is good enough.. as are details about other things.. like what was Satan doing in "paradise" with Adam and Eve..
Being human, the human experience, must be a spiritual test.. for some future ugh!.. adventure.. A testing, a qualifying, a proving, for a/some future saga.. The bible seems to hint at that.. The personal/spiritual test then is more important than minute details of earthly history..
The parable of the talents also hints at that.. not to speak of the parable/metaphor of the prodigal son.. Getting caught up in whether Adam and Eve were real persons or metaphorical pointers to make the story make sense is O.K to me either way..
I don't require formulaic accuracy for the bible to be relevant to me.. Condensing several thousand years of all relevant human history in the few pages of the bible would be impossible, I think.. The point being did "we" get the "message" hidden though it is, is the point, I think.. Since most of the message(s) is/are hidden in metaphorical content is part of the test.. So many miss the simple most straight forward metaphors.. as you know..
It all leads me to the comment....
Is GOD cool or WHAT?... What a marvelous plan and testing platform..
It should matter to you if you read the words of Christ, and take them to heart, since he does refer to Adam as being a real person.
One should not be ashamed of the word of our Lord. Remember his admonishment.
A metaphorical person can be a real person.. or a group of real people.. On the otherhand a metaphorical personality can be more than a real person.. or all three.. A metaphor can transcend language and culture.. for just that reason.. Jesus spoke mostly in metaphorical terms.. not completely but mostly.. I know few christians that are conserned with the meaning of Jesus metaphors.. except as a kind of prose, let alone, his compounded metaphors.. which I term megaphors.. composed of microphors and macrophors..
bookmark
I don't disagree that a metaphor can represent a real person, place, or thing. The problem, in this particular case, is that such a person can not be established beyond the parameters of the text of the Bible itself, and the excluded middle must apply, therefore, the text either indicates a real person, or a fictitious one.
At least, that's the way I see it....
"every single organic being around us may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase in numbers" (Darwin), "each organic being is striving to increase at a geometrical ratio" (Darwin), "Every species produces vastly more offspring than can survive from generation to generation." (E. Mayr, 2001) "All the individuals of a population... are exposed to the adversity of the environment, and almost all of them perish or fail to reproduce." (E. Mayr, 2001)
In a sense I think you're right when you make these statements; I would, however, not label various views of origins or theories of life's genesis as all suitable to the adjective "Creationist".
I commend you for stating the real debate question over again, and so simply: How this world and universe originated, and just what was the genesis of all that is, these are the questions of debate. I personally think the thread would prove more useful and stimulating if debaters actually exchanged viewpoints and evidence on this point. Other arguments really are turning out to be waste-of-bandwidth rabbit trails - circular, aimless wanderings, slingshot stones, wounded bunnies...but no meat to chew on come dinner time!
Thanks, hosepipe.
To restate:
How did life/the universe/everything originate?
What evidence do you have to support your position?
In what ways does your position influence your every observation,
and, conversely, in what ways do your observations influence your position?
Bravo.
the text either indicates a real person, or a fictitious one.
I agree with hosepipe on this one. There are countless examples in the Bible of a parable applying simultaneously to real persons in a real time and place that are also very applicable to us here and now, via metaphor. Song of Solomon, which I happened to read this morning, is a fine example. I believe the Songs were written for a real love affair and marriage, yet who could deny their applicability to our loves/marriages both in male-female relations here and now as well as in metaphor to our relationship with God Almighty. The story of the rich man (gone to hell) and Lazarus (comforted at Abraham's bosom) is another example wherein Jesus was most likely describing real persons and events whose lives serve as examples/metaphors for every single one of us. The Exodus of Israel from Egypt is a perfect metaphor for our exodus from slavery to sin and death into the Promised Land of Freedom in Christ (the Passover Lamb, another example), yet that escape was a very real event in time as well as a very poignant metaphor for all of time and for all men.
Either/or rules of logic do not and do not have to apply to the Bible or to God. For instance, by your exclusive rule of logic God must either be One or three, yet I am convinced He is both One God and three members ('persons'), in Trinity.
Eww. Very poor grammar. Sorry everyone.
That was intended as general to the issue, rather than specific to people or personalities.
Sorry, I meant to address that last post to both of you. Need more coffee...........
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.