Evolution Anyone???

by Steve Josef 50 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • 2bfound
    2bfound

    Zep, sure thing, I recommend three books #1 Denton’s “Evolution a theory in crisis” microbiologist Lehigh University. #2 Behe’s “Darwins black box” also a microbiologist, this book is good if you have a technical bent. #3 Johnson’s “Darwin on trial”.

    Like design does not mean a common ancestor, that points out to a single designer.
    But again we creationist do not reject micro-evolution a evolution within kind for variety and adoptability. Micro-evolution of kinds giving way to other kinds is what we reject.

    Stephen J. Gould in Natural History magazine said:
    “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our text books have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; The rest is inference, however reasonable, not evidence of fossils.

    There are many books out there and new ones in review.
    Sites check out: www.origins.org www.probe.org and www.answersingenesis.org just to name a few.

    If you made up your mind Zep, I’m afraid you won’t find answers. Conversion happens in the heart and not in the mind, and in as much as Christianity is a logical belief, if you reluctant then nothing will persuade you.

    Yes God created all in the order and let me underscore order that you see, a precise order and design that chance cannot produce.
    We know that time, space and matter had a beginning. We know that cause has an agent and that would point to a creator.
    Or so it would say: “In the beginning God created”; otherwise it would say: In the beginning there was nothing and then it exploded!!!…???

    P.S. there is no junk DNA check out last weeks USA today

    Regards
    Rb

  • Zep
    Zep

    2bfound, thankyou for the references.
    You talk about Micro-evolution as opposed to macro-evolution.When i was learning about evolution I found it very hard to accept micro-evolution and yet not accept macro-evolution. The problem hinges on how do you define a 'kind'? Is a kind defined as mophological similarity or just the ability to interbreed. In nature, from memory, there are certain species that pose the following problem if you wish to go ahead and define a 'kind' as the ability to interbreed. For example, there is one species i'll call A, now species A can breed with Species B but not with species C. But then species C can breed with species B but not with A. This fact seems to throw the definition of a kind as that which is capable breeding right out the window because species B can breed with both A& C and yet C and A cant breed, yet they are obviously related and you'd be mad to say otherwise.
    You then have to define things in terms of morphological similarities. Does that mean that, for example, all bats are one 'kind'. The variety of Bats around the world is very large, larger than he difference between Man and chimpanzee i believe. On that basis are we humans therefore to be grouped into one kind with the chimps? The definition of a kind seems to be too vague and too arbitrary for me.

    On your point about there being no 'Junk' DNA. But if there is no Junk DNA as you say, then why do we have an appendix?. The appendix is useless to us but in lower animals it is functional. In animals it is used to digest cellulose (fibre),something we no longer can digest yet we still have an appendix. If there was no Junk DNA then how can the appendix exist, since it is junk, usesless to us?. It one of many examples of a vestigial structure that i believe provides very strong evidence for evolution.

    Thank you for the links etc, i'll check'em out. As it stands at the moment, i lean very strongly to the idea of Macro-evolution, though i dont discount some kind of creator starting the initial process of evolution. This idea, i've been told, is the same idea proposed in the book 'Darwin on trial', if we are talking about the same book. I'm referring to the one that was over at commentary-press.com...but i dont think it was written by Johnson???

  • 2bfound
    2bfound

    Zep, I know what you are saying but you have to be specific. Are you saying that bats, as a species cannot interbreed? Give an example.
    Micro-evolution speaks of adaptability of say virus’ developing immunity or defenses.
    Macro-evolution speaks of (in a nut shell) a lizard suddenly giving way to a winged semi-bird.
    Macro-evolution is a jump of major mutations without any gradual steps or transitional ancestry. Very convenient for the dogmatic evolutionist, since it would free him/her from having to produce an ancestral line of descendants or any kind of transitional intermediate.
    It’s at best wishful thinking at worst no science at all.
    Good book, J.Wells “icons of evolution”. “Darwin on trial” is authored by Phillip E. Johnson, Berkeley professor of law.
    Zep, I do respect the fact that you have taken the time to research and know what you believe and or are looking for answers. I have great respect for people like that, even if we disagree. Many times I will meet a person on both sides of the debate that cannot tell you what they believe or why.
    I like taking the time to research not only the theory of beginnings, but also all aspects of Christianity, reliability, so-called contradictions, cults and religions, etc. I can only conclude that Christianity answers all these questions and more.
    I commend your search and hope you find answers.
    I personally do not subscribe to a creator that employed evolution (macro) as his agent of creation, because it goes against the biblical account of creation.

    Appendages that seem useless to us now, does not mean they have no purpose. Such was the case with the earlobe according to Darwin, and has been also the case for some of our organs, which we recently found functionality.

    I just can’t get away from the fact Zep, that evolution as it stands provides no reasonable answers for some of the greater questions.
    Think of this Zep, single cell life forms start replicating themselves and then, all move to a sexual reproductive system. Now, how was it possible that chance coordinated this as to have two single cell life forms simultaneously produce sexual organs that would not only produce life but that would seem tailor- made to fit each other. This sounds more like a miracle than chance. You have you see what Professor Brandon Carter of Cambridge U. proposed the “anthropic principle” or the “just so universe”. A universe to precise to be chance.
    Evolution violates a number of physical laws that just cannot be ignored.
    Please Zep, check out those web sites.
    Regards
    Rb.

  • ianao
    ianao

    2bfound:

    Single-cell organisms replicate themselves through division.

    Multi-cell organisms replicate themselves through the same method. DNA in the cells of the parents deermine what organisms come about.

    This "big gap" that you seem to see as so miraculous is nothing more than direct evidence of evolution at work. Single-cellular organisms becoming more complex over billions of years. The complexity comes about by refurbishing of genes through reproduction that were lost by divisions over time. Hence the need for reproduction to replinish the gene pool by two organisms instead of the one organism splitting it's cells again and again.

    NOTE: ianao made an A way back when in biology, he is not a geneticist. If you have a problem with my point of view because I am not a "professional" in this field, then you likewise need to close your bible and get a hobby because YOU ARE NOT GOD.

  • 2bfound
    2bfound

    A?... in biology? hmmmmm

    This "big gap" that you seem to see as so miraculous is nothing more than direct evidence of evolution at work. Single-cellular organisms becoming more complex over billions of years. The complexity comes about by refurbishing of genes through reproduction that were lost by divisions over time. Hence the need for reproduction to replinish the gene pool by two organisms instead of the one organism splitting it's cells again and again.

    Give me a working model; You just skipped the transition between single cell division and multi cell replication.
    Read the post again, my question is not the mechanics.
    Again, produce the evidence of a working model, single cell transforming to a multi cell reproduction, simultaneously with another in order to accomplish this reproductive feat. The miracle is in the coordination of these two cells to agree to start reproducing this way. Suddenly!!!
    Your other mistake is you assumed that cells, be it single or multi are simple. Michael Behe's book "Darwins black box" deals with just this "irreducible complexity".
    Acell is very complex, DNA has proved that.
    A? It's been a while since you were in school.
    Regards
    Rb.

  • ianao
    ianao

    2bfound:

    Give me a working model; You just skipped the transition between single cell division and multi cell replication.
    Read the post again, my question is not the mechanics.

    I already admitted at not being a professional in the field. I just know what I was taught in school. Your "miracle" is addressed in the theory of abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is a work in progress.

    Again, produce the evidence of a working model, single cell transforming to a multi cell reproduction, simultaneously with another in order to accomplish this reproductive feat. The miracle is in the coordination of these two cells to agree to start reproducing this way. Suddenly!!!

    Ok, you want the evidence of a working model... Look in the mirror.

    Seriously, many ascribe to the theory that one or more prokaryotes (bacteria) were engulfed by larger prokaryotes and became organelles for the once simpler prokaryote. Giving form to the eukaryotes that comprise US and other protozoans today through the symbiosis of the two or more individual cells within the larger cell. Look up mitochondria (sp?) and it's differing DNA structure to the surrounding cell. The "single cells" theoretically were replicating before the eukaryotes came about, so the eukaryotes are doing the same thing that the prokaryotes did, essentially because the WERE prokaryotes.

    ref: http://dekalb.dc.peachnet.edu/~pgore/students/w96/joshbond/symb.htm

    Your other mistake is you assumed that cells, be it single or multi are simple. Michael Behe's book "Darwins black box" deals with just this "irreducible complexity". A cell is very complex, DNA has proved that.

    LOL. Looks like you are ASSuming something. I said: "Single-cellular organisms becoming more complex over billions of years", not the cells. In comparision to a multi-cellular organism, a single-celular organism is SIMPLER.

    Just for kicks, here's an interesting theory about the origins of DNA itself...
    http://www.alaskagold.com/thedoc/dna.html

    BTW, I'll go back to school if you'll brush up on your reading comprehension.

  • 2bfound
    2bfound

    Ianao, I think reading comprehention is here the problem but not by me.
    Let me repeat it again, working model, an example, A REPEATABLE EVENT BY WHICH WE CAN OBSERVE, you know "science".
    That was a pretty graf but not very realistic.
    Which polymers and chemicals bonded?
    what where the conditions, agents?
    why can we not replicate this process in the lab?
    and finally what and I repeat what simple cell organism has become more complex? give one example.
    Friend, just stick to the questions not the pretty theory. Again simple organisms are highly complex. It is what is called irreducibly complex; Meaning an organism cannot be irreducibly simple as compared to a more complex one just less adaptable or efficient. The old mouse trap example, 5 parts to a mouse trap if you are missing one part you don't trap 10% less mice. You trap NONE.
    Regards
    Rb.

  • ianao
    ianao
    Ianao, I think reading comprehention is here the problem but not by me.

    Thinking can be dangerous, can't it?

    Let me repeat it again, working model, an example, A REPEATABLE EVENT BY WHICH WE CAN OBSERVE, you know "science".

    Ok... Look in the mirror. Then go outside and look at your neighbor. Then you will see the direct evidence you require.

    That was a pretty graf but not very realistic.
    Which polymers and chemicals bonded?
    what where the conditions, agents?
    why can we not replicate this process in the lab?

    Go to http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-abiogenesis.html and look for yourself. I'm not going to cut and paste a bunch of crap onto this board as it's a waste of space.

    and finally what and I repeat what simple cell organism has become more complex? give one example.

    Look at bacteria under a microscope.

    Friend, just stick to the questions not the pretty theory. Again simple organisms are highly complex. It is what is called irreducibly complex; Meaning an organism cannot be irreducibly simple as compared to a more complex one just less adaptable or efficient. The old mouse trap example, 5 parts to a mouse trap if you are missing one part you don't trap 10% less mice. You trap NONE.
    Regards
    Rb.

    *YAWN*. Please check out http://www2.evansville.edu/evolutionweb/answer1.html for why you've invented your own straw man in regards to this.

  • Tina
    Tina

    Well done (((((((((((ianao))))))))))))) :D Tina

  • Zep
    Zep

    2bfound, Ok our definitions of macro-evolution/micro evolution are a little different here. What i meant by macro-evolution is that things evolve from single celled organisms to complex things like us (still via small mutational steps and not necessarily huge jumps). What i meant by micro-evolution is that evolution is confined within a 'kind'(whatever a kind is?). For example Bats can evolve, but only to a certain degree, they "still remain bats" as a creationist would put it. I'm not sure that these are the correct definitions of micro/macro evolution, but this is what i was thinking of.

    BTW, i believe the definition of a species is: that which breeds within nature. Bats are not a species since not all bats breed with each other within nature. There are thousands of different kinds of bats, with as much difference between certain ones as there is between man and chimp. Some creationsts will tell you however that all bats are to be grouped into one 'kind'. But if they do that then they should also group man and chimp into one 'kind'. They of course wont do it for obvious reasons. They are being inconsistent with their reasoning. To me it doesn't make sense to group the huge array of different bats into one kind and not do it for chimp and man, simple as that. But also, to me it's obvious that all bats are related, to try and separate different bats into different kinds seems silly, and i dare say it would be impossible to do. It would be just too arbitrary and convenient. I maintain that Creationists can't clearly define a 'kind', its just too vague an idea and something nature resists.

    Basically for me, Dawkin's said it. We have gone from Wolf to a whole host of different dogs in only a few thousand years. You have the dingo, poddle, you have all sorts of wild dogs, the british bulldog etc. The variety is huge now, and will only get larger as you allow more time. With more time allowed we could theoretically move so far away from the wolf, or even the poodle for that matter, that it wouldn't be funny. But creationists tell me that a 'dog' is still a 'dog'. To me, this is just playing with words. I just cant dismiss the theoretial implications of Artifical selection (selective breeding), that being that if we can go from Wolf to whatever --greyhound, poddle, all sorts of weird dogish creatures--, then you can go a hell of a lot further provided you allow more time, even to the point where this future theoretical creature starts looking more like a cat. After all, Cat and Dog arn't as dissimilar as you would think.

    BTW "Darwin on Trial" has been on my want to read list for a while now since i first saw it over at commentarypress. And i have checked out your links, thanks.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit