Posted on 12/21/2004 4:13:57 PM PST by beavus
Maybe if you start putting thoughtfulness into a poofist he will evolve into an evolutionist.
Why do you think it is "drivel"?
Huh? Or, to put it more succinctly, Huh?
The question was, "What came first? The modern day human mother able to fully care for all the needs of the modern day human infant or the modern day human infant that will grow up to be such a mother?"
The implication is that one must exist first to make the other one possible.
The answer, as I posted, was that such "evolution" takes place gradually with small changes to generations of both mothers and infants over time. They therefore "evolved together".
What is so hard to understand about that?
An analogous question would be, "What what came first? The Modern English-speaking mother or the Modern English-speaking offspring?
The answer is, "Neither".
English, as all languages, is constantly evolving with changes in each generation. The evolution from the English of Chaucer to American Modern English was a gradual change with both mothers and offspspring "evolving that language together" in the time between Chaucer and today.
Part of your conceptual difficulty with the issue of evolution is revealed by your choice of words "...at what POINT will human beings evolve..." and "...genetics are determined AT conception...". This reflects a lack of understanding of the continuous nature of biologic phenomena.
I understand the continuous nature of bioligical adaptation. However, there is no real evidence to suggest that evolutionary processes occur during any creature's life. I am the same person I was twenty years ago, and I will be the same person twenty years from now. My children's DNA has not evolved, nor has their future mates' DNA evolved.
The statements would be more insightful if they were phrased as "...how is the PROCESS of human evolution manifest..." and "...genetics are determined DURING conception...".
The statements were perfectly insightful as they were written. The PROCESS of human evolution manifests itself through behavioral adaptation and mate selection across a very wide gene pool. There is no PROCESS of inter-species evolution, even if your theory is applied across millions of generations.
You have started with a conclusion (evolution explains our existence), and you're trying to match the evidence to your conclusion. The problem is your evidence consists entirely of fossil records and biological function similarities across multiple species. There is no hard science to show how one species changes into another species.
If you are saying that evolution does not demonstate itself by physical changes developing during the lifetime of an individual, you are correct. That was the basis of the now discredited "inheritance of acquired traits" theory of Lamarck
If you are saying that your biological makeup has remained unchaged for 20 years and will remain so, take a 20 year old photo of yourself and compare it to what you see in the mirror.
As for "20 years from now", one of your cells may mutate into a cancer cell three years from now in which case you may be dead 10 years from now. That cancer may be due to some carcinogen, such as a chemical or radiation, which has altered the DNA in some of your cells. So, no, you are not the same individual that you were 20 years ago. Your physical body has changed with age and your DNA has also changed with age.
My children's DNA has not evolved, nor has their future mates' DNA evolved.
DNA is constantly being damaged and constantly being repaired. DNA is constantly being copied, sometimes perfectly and sometimes not. That is a biological fact of life.
A DNA mutation is, essentially, a "Typo" during copying.
For your DNA never to mutate, you would need perfection in every DNA replication in your lifetime and no biological system is capable of such perfection.
"Does poofism cripple the mind, or is it an incapable mind that is prone to poofism?"
I am not sure, but I think they evolved together. :O)
Your post said:
"A question; the human infant can not fend for itself for many years after birth. Did the parent evolve before the child?
They evolved together."
How can you have a child before you have a parent (at least physically)? If you are talking about having a parent (first) and then a child (second) and that within that species they "evolve," I have no problem with that. Except that children are not always like their parents. So to assume that a protective parent would have a protective child is a bad assumption.
"A question; the human infant can not fend for itself for many years after birth. Did the parent evolve before the child? ................ They evolved together." ............... How can you have a child before you have a parent (at least physically)?
I did not write the question you quoted. I wrote the answer to that question.
The original poster had noted that human infants are helpless for years. So, he asked:
"The human infant can not fend for itself for many years after birth. Did the parent evolve before the child?"
In other words, the original poster wanted to know which came first, a totally helpless offspring or a protective parent that will protect the infant for a long time period after birth.
The answer is neither.
Such a combination of traits take an extremely long time to develop and both traits must develop together resulting, over tens of thousands of years, with a combination of progressively more protective mothers in conjunction with progressively more dependent offspring.
Except that children are not always like their parents. So to assume that a protective parent would have a protective child is a bad assumption.
When I answered that poster, I was not speaking about "Good Human Mother" vs "Bad Human Mother". I was speaking about salmon or sea turtle mothers who give zero post-natal maternal care to self-sufficient offsping that are own their own from the moment of birth vs bird, bear or human mothers that given extensive maternal care to totally helpless newborns.
In Nature there is a term for a totally helpless newborn (as in the case of birds or bears or humans) that are paired with a mother that gives zero post-natal maternal care (as in the case of salmon and sea turtles).
That term is: "Dead".
Such a throwback trait in the mother "selected against" with extreme prejudice in the case of her genetic offspring.
How can you claim to understand, and to have once been an evolutionist, and yet make such a statement? It reveals your ignorance. Individual creatures do not evolve by any contemporary evolutionary theory.
The statements were perfectly insightful as they were written.
Not if you truly believe that evolutionary theory requires such a thing as a "point" of evolution.
The problem is your evidence consists entirely of fossil records and biological function similarities across multiple species.
At least you finally admit that there is evidence. Fossil evidence shows a time before humans existed. Additional evidence is the ubiquitous observation of space-time continuity. So, there was some continuous process between no human and human. If you have a nonevolutionary theory to explain these facts, let's hear it.
There is no hard science to show how one species changes into another species.
Here again you are wrong--or rather, it completely depends on how you wish to define "hard" science. Evolutionary change can be observed experimentally in creatures that can be manipulated in large populations with short generations. Fossil evidence, of course, can only give us snapshots in time, but many of those snapshots appear to fall along a continuum of change from one species to another. Genetic similarites across different forms of life is explained most simply by common ancestry and more extensive expression of those changes that are observed experimentally.
You simply don't get it. In order for one species to mutate into another species, there must be an evolutionary process during the life of the creature. Selective mating and environmental adaptation does not explain the leap from one species to another.
Here is your hard science:
many of those snapshots appear to fall along a continuum of change from one species to another.
Genetic similarites across different forms of life is explained most simply by common ancestry
None of your rhetoric actually explains the leap from one species to the next. It is purely observation of similarities and speculation about origins. The "evidence" that you are citing is nothing more an attempt to support a conclusion that evolution explains our existance.. This conclusion is not based on anything except similarities and observations.
Please to explain how an explosion resulted in this:
Cells are the fundamental working units of every living system. All the instructions needed to direct their activities are contained within the chemical DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid).
DNA from all organisms is made up of the same chemical and physical components. The DNA sequence is the particular side-by-side arrangement of bases along the DNA strand (e.g., ATTCCGGA). This order spells out the exact instructions required to create a particular organism with its own unique traits.
The genome is an organism’s complete set of DNA. Genomes vary widely in size: the smallest known genome for a free-living organism (a bacterium) contains about 600,000 DNA base pairs, while human and mouse genomes have some 3 billion. Except for mature red blood cells, all human cells contain a complete genome.
DNA in the human genome is arranged into 24 distinct chromosomes--physically separate molecules that range in length from about 50 million to 250 million base pairs. A few types of major chromosomal abnormalities, including missing or extra copies or gross breaks and rejoinings (translocations), can be detected by microscopic examination. Most changes in DNA, however, are more subtle and require a closer analysis of the DNA molecule to find perhaps single-base differences.
Each chromosome contains many genes, the basic physical and functional units of heredity. Genes are specific sequences of bases that encode instructions on how to make proteins. Genes comprise only about 2% of the human genome; the remainder consists of noncoding regions, whose functions may include providing chromosomal structural integrity and regulating where, when, and in what quantity proteins are made. The human genome is estimated to contain 20,000-25,000 genes.
In your world, all of this had to happen by chance in order for the first living cell to replicate itself. The leap from that one cell to our existance is unfathomable.
Take a good hard look at the world we live in: the environment that fosters us; the abundant variety of food; human emotions such as love and hate; intelligence and reason; good and evil; pets to comfort us and horses to ride; game to hunt and oceans to fish in; mountains to climb; trees that provide oxygen to breathe and wood to make paper and build shelter for people and livestock; the sun to warm us and provide UV light for plants that grow fibers that we use to create fabric to wear; minerals and fossil fuels that allow us to build cars to drive; electricity to power our homes; fire to warm us on a cold night; freon to cool us on a hot day. The pieces of this puzzle are endless, and they cannot be explained by random chance and selective mating habits beginning with a single-celled organism in a pool of prehistoric muck.
If you believe this is all an accident, and not of intelligent design, then there's nothing anybody can do to help you. Maybe someday, when you are faced with your own mortality, you will see the error of your twisted scientific logic. Maybe someday God will find you just as He found me. And give this some thought: the consequence of you being wrong is infinitely greater than the consequence of me being wrong. Exactly how confident are you in your scientific theories?
You are utterly wrong about this, both logically, and factually with regard to evolutionary theory. The only two required evolutionary processes during the life of an individual creature are (1) during gametogenesis, which has NO impact on the expressed traits of the individual organism; and (2) reproduction, which is affected by existing traits, but also does not affect the expressed traits of the individual.
Selective mating and environmental adaptation does not explain the leap from one species to another.
You again reveal your ignorance of evolutionary concepts by your use of the word "leap". You don't realize it yet, but with every post you reveal that you do not understand evolutionary concepts.
None of your rhetoric actually explains the leap from one species to the next. It is purely observation of similarities and speculation about origins.
First, those observations of genetic similarities are striking and persuasive. Second, that is not the only evidence, as I put in my previous posts, but you left out of your response. There is the observed fact of space-time continuity. There is the observed fact of offspring being different than parents. There is the observed fact of genetic changes from generation to generation. There is the observed fact of environmental influence upon genetic expression in populations. One merely adds to this the snapshots available in the fossil record showing temporal changes in organisms over vast periods of time.
I don't understand why I went to the trouble of denumerating so many facts, and you then ignored most of them. It is as though you are avoiding something--like you've been struck with intellectual blinders.
The "evidence" that you are citing is nothing more an attempt to support a conclusion that evolution explains our existance.. This conclusion is not based on anything except similarities and observations.
Of course not. The evidence exists. Genetics, experimental evolution, biology, physics, chemistry, geology, the fossil record, all present the evidence I described to you and much more. How is all of the available evidence best explained? Together it is all just screaming "natural selection!"
I *again* ask you, how would you best explain all of these observations?
Please to explain how an explosion resulted in this:
First, what "explosion" are you talking about? I thought we were discussing evolution. Second, you needn't cut & paste such long passages. My education includes general biology, genetics, cellular biology, molecular biology, biochemistry, animal & human biology and physiology. This is not to say I'm an authority, but so often I wind up arguing with people who paste long passages of other people's words. Feel free to use key words and shortcuts. And please, show your own understanding by using your own words.
In your world, all of this had to happen by chance in order for the first living cell to replicate itself.
You clearly don't know "my world". I conceive of no probability model to describe how the first living cell replicated itself.
The leap from that one cell to our existance is unfathomable.
I can tell it hasn't been fathomed by you. Nature is not constrained by your own particular intellectual limitations.
The pieces of this puzzle are endless, and they cannot be explained by random chance and selective mating habits beginning with a single-celled organism in a pool of prehistoric muck.
Again, it is you, not me, suggesting some sort of probability model for all of those things. But at any rate, you say they cannot be explained such. How do you know? Are you suggesting that you have a better explanation? What is it?
If you believe this is all an accident, and not of intelligent design, then there's nothing anybody can do to help you.
Oh, I see. You hold a false dichotomy that existence is either "random" or by intelligent design. You should know that deterministic theories about various things, without appeal to intelligent design, are quite common.
Maybe someday, when you are faced with your own mortality, you will see the error of your twisted scientific logic.
What does that have to do with truth? Are you saying that people think clearer when faced with death? Do you have evidence for that claim?
Maybe someday God will find you just as He found me.
My friend, I can say one thing--you are wrong about much of what you have posted to me on this thread. If there are acorporal voices telling you these false things, I promise you, it is not from a friendly entity.
And give this some thought: the consequence of you being wrong is infinitely greater than the consequence of me being wrong.
Do you base all of your knowledge upon an appeal to consequences? And you accuse me of "twisted...logic"?
Exactly how confident are you in your scientific theories?
I can only say that evolutionary science today does provide the most rational explanation of all currently available evidence. It does, in fact, put itself at the mercy of evidence, and so as we observe more, evolutionary science will change as necessary to incorporate it.
Finally, I am of course not unfamiliar with your beliefs. You won't like what follows. You have been taken in by a group that tells you that unless you believe their particular modern twist on Christianity, you are a bad person and will likely be cast into some torment when you die. They have captured your mind with fear, peer pressure, and an overwhelming supply of factually incorrect rhetoric and literature. Neither Christianity nor your everlasting soul are dependent upon their false proclaimations. I hope you can free your mind from their clutches, since they stifle in you useful ways of understanding the world which can contribute to a very stimulating intellectual life.
I am not sure, but I think they evolved together. :O)
Sounds like a defensible theory to me.
I apologize for making the assumption that you believe in the "big bang," as most evolutionists are subscribers to that theory by default. Whether the universe was the result of a massive explosion is beside the point I was trying to make. If you subscribe to evolution theory, then you must believe a single-celled organism was the "stem cell" for the existence of every living thing. A single-celled organism was either A: created by a supernatural intelligent being, or B: a product of random peptides attracting to each other to form a chromosome.
My biggest problem with evolution has nothing to do with the biological and chemical mechanics of evolutionary process, but with the probabilities that the universe, our habitat, and our existence came into being through random chance and natural selection.
I was a pre-Med biology major, and I don't have any difficulty grasping the mechanics of reproduction, adaptation, and evolutionary theory, but the evidence just isn't compelling for me, so I'll continue to believe what I believe, and you will continue to believe what you believe.
The cold, hard truth is that there are certain things that neither of us can explain. The scientific evidence doesn't hold water for me, and the gospels don't carry any weight with you. I was an atheist, an agnostic, and finally I took the time to really study biblical scripture, which I believe is the most plausible explanation for our existence. You have every right to consider this belief nothing more than "poofism." My proof is hardly more compelling than your proof. That's why they call it faith.
The complexities of life, the struggle between good and evil, the temptation of sin, and the healing power of repentance and faith are what steered me away from belief in the speculative science of evolution. Finding God was a blessing. It has changed my life for the better. Say what you will about Christianity or religion in general. I've heard it all and I'm not offended by people who don't understand what it's like to have a relationship with God.
May I ask what you do for a living? I'll venture a guess that you're in a profession that requires a great deal of procedural and/or statistical analysis. Aside from the pot-shots we took at each other, I really enjoy your writing style, and you don't mince words. Although you don't have my agreement, you have earned my respect through your writing ability. I appreciate the debate. Perhaps we can discuss a topic where we share some common ground in the future?
All the best, HighImpact
That's right. Inflationary cosmology has nothing to do with evolutionary biology. It was strange for you to just toss that in out of nowhere.
If you subscribe to evolution theory, then you must believe a single-celled organism was the "stem cell" for the existence of every living thing.
"Must" isn't true. Evolution theory describes facts observed even prospectively in laboratories. However, it is also frequently used to explain fossil evidence, as well as speculations about how all life may have developed from a single cell lifeform.
We know there was a time before life on earth. We know there was a time after single cell life and before multicellular organisms. We also know that the universe operates smoothly above quantum scales. Evolutionary biology currently gives us the best means of speculating about how these smooth transitions occured.
A single-celled organism was either A: created by a supernatural intelligent being, or B: a product of random peptides attracting to each other to form a chromosome.
Or C: a product of deterministic nonintelligent forces, or D: created by a natural intelligent being, or E: created by a supernatural unintelligent being, or F: created by a natural unintelligent being, or G: created elsewhere and deposited by a meteor, or H: created by several intelligent beings, or I: created by a mixture of intelligent and unintelligent beings, or J: randomly formed in the presence of intelligent beings. I could come up with many more possibilities. You are not providing a logical either-or. "Nonrandom" does not equal "a supernatural intelligent".
My biggest problem with evolution has nothing to do with the biological and chemical mechanics of evolutionary process, but with the probabilities that the universe, our habitat, and our existence came into being through random chance and natural selection.
Again, what does natural selection have to do with the universe coming into being? Don't you know that there is a difference between cosmology and evolutionary biology?
Also, you keep alluding to some random model for "our existence". What model would that be? Why do you think probability theory is the only posited alternative to "supernatural intelligent" creation for explaining life on earth?
I don't have any difficulty grasping the mechanics of reproduction, adaptation, and evolutionary theory
Then why do you keep writing about "leaps" and "points" of evolution? Why do you insist that an individual organism must demonstrate evolutionary change? No reputable biology text teaches such things. That is, if you understand evolutionary theory, then why do you write as if you do not?
the evidence just isn't compelling for me
That's fine. Everyone has his own standard of persuasiveness. If it doesn't make sense to you, then by all means, do not claim that it does. I would never advocate such a thing. Beliefs are what you discover in yourself, not what you directly choose.
However, if you are not just proclaiming utter ignorance on the topic of life on earth, I would ask you what alternative theory you find persuasive, and if you are applying the same skeptical standards to it.
the gospels don't carry any weight with you
Which gospels are you referring to that contradict evolutionary biology? Why would you assume that they carry no weight with me? Why would you think that they have anything at all to do with evolution?
biblical scripture, which I believe is the most plausible explanation for our existence
I didn't find an explanation for our existence in biblical scripture. There was a short passage in Genesis, but it doesn't even attempt to be such an explanation. All I know of is a modern cult of creationists who have created their own extrabiblical doctrine of creation which contradicts observed facts. I give little heed to such self-proclaimed prophets, especially when they say things that are known to be false.
The complexities of life, the struggle between good and evil, the temptation of sin, and the healing power of repentance and faith are what steered me away from belief in the speculative science of evolution.
But NONE of those things has ANYTHING to do with the science of evolution. It's like saying that life's problems steered you away from plate tectonics. It just doesn't make sense.
Say what you will about Christianity or religion in general.
I've said nothing about them except that they have nothing to do with evolutionary biology; and that their merits have nothing to do with the false claims of the creationist cult.
It is clear that you have bought into a false link between evolutionary biology and Christianity. Someone has convinced you of the false dichotomy that either God exists or evolution is true, but not both.
Perhaps we can discuss a topic where we share some common ground in the future?
Your words are gracious, and I make no claims to know anything about you--only your words on this thread. I value this as a forum for *ideas*, freely expressed and freely criticized without regard to irrelevancies regarding the messengers. I didn't mean to touch on my background in an effort to stifle your criticism, but only to avoid what I thought would turn into another unnecessary massive posting of textbook material.
I didn't evolve at all. I was created by God in His image. I believe that evolution is a theory and nothing else. It should never be taught as fact.
"I didn't evolve at all. I was created by God in His image. I believe that evolution is a theory and nothing else. It should never be taught as fact."
It may be true that you as an individual did not evolve. However, evolution works in populations not with individuals. We can tell that evolution is occurring because of the increase in alleles at various loci.
The image of God is a metaphor for the Spirit of God. If you had the same properties as God you would be God.
It doesn't matter what you believe about evolution. Evolution is a fact and the theory of evolution describes the mechanisms that made that fact occur.
If you don't teach evolution as fact, you will deprive generations of an understanding of biology. It will hurt progress in medicine, public health and agriculture. Your view would be responsible for consigning millions of people to their deaths. As a Christian, I am sure you would not want that.
Go to www.talkorigins.com. Read what the science says instead of listening to those that may want your money to support misinterpretation of the Bible.
"I was a pre-Med biology major, and I don't have any difficulty grasping the mechanics of reproduction, adaptation, and evolutionary theory, but the evidence just isn't compelling for me, so I'll continue to believe what I believe, and you will continue to believe what you believe.
The cold, hard truth is that there are certain things that neither of us can explain. The scientific evidence doesn't hold water for me, and the gospels don't carry any weight with you. I was an atheist, an agnostic, and finally I took the time to really study biblical scripture, which I believe is the most plausible explanation for our existence."
Here is some GOOD NEWS! You can believe that God is responsible for our existence and evolution is a fact.
The Theory of Evolution does not contain the act of creation. It simply deals with the life we see and see in the fossil record. If someone told you otherwise, they were misrepresenting the facts of biology.
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.