Evolution? How?

I don't get too caught up in arguments about science and how old our universe is, how old the earth is, and stuff like that. The way I look at it Vol, scientists can only tell us the age of our planet based on the assumption that the rate of loss of carbon atoms is constant and has always been constant (I am no expert on this, but it is the way I understand the idea behind carbon dating). They cannot say how old something already was when God spoke it into being. Who is to say that when God created the earth, he created it brand new? (I know this is simplistic, but...) As has been stated, science cannot prove or disprove God.

As far as evolution, I believe that God created man, just as the Bible states. Since God created all living things, I would expect us all to have a commonality, not in the strict way that evolutionists say (a monkey did not one day begin developing into a man and speaking). But again, could not God have created these different levels of species, some of which have died out over the years leaving a fossel record that would seem to support intermediate species developmental evolution?

Anyway, I doubt I have explained my thoughts real well, but the bottom line is that you and I are barking up the wrong tree in trying to "prove" God while those who do not see God as a possibility are wasting breath trying to "prove" evolution. A perfect example of why I normally stay out of discussions of this nature.

Interesting to hear your views, CoastalRat, those of an intelligent and religious person.

Personally, I think that the universe was created at the Big Bang -a bunch of particles and energy, and a bunch of rules to make it interact.

Everything after that point is just particles and energy obeying rules. Including us.

If you ask me where the matter, energy and rules came from, I don't know. It may be God, gods, supreme unknowable beings.

Frankly, as long as I'm alive, I'll make the most of it and stop wasting my time worrying about the meaning behind it all. There is no meaning, there just "is".

Thanks Duke for the compliment. Too often too many on here are quick to dismiss Christians as ignorant, so it is refreshing to see someone who thinks otherwise, even though we may disagree as to our beliefs on this subject.

I don't believe that God would create us and then put barriers out there that would point those who are truly and open-mindedly looking for answers, which is why I honestly believe that science and God are reconcilable. I admit openly that I don't have all the answers but neither does science. It's kinda like the atom. 300 years ago we knew nothing about them, but they were there just waiting for us to find them. I think the path to reconcile God and science is out there. It is just waiting for us to see it.

In an editorial, a political commentator wrote: "I believe the world will end before people agree on how it began."

Now that I will absolutely believe Wandeljw.

CR - I'm with you on that one. There is a way to make it all fit together, somewhere, somehow. Right now, I'll go for...

Higher Power -> Big Bang -> Matter, energy & rules -> Evolution -> Man

I'll certainly go along with the idea that Evolution could be the mechanism of Creation.

Wandeljw - that is so true!

A lesson on evolution in today's Dear Abbey from the former president, American Foundation for AIDS Research. "DEAR ABBEY: The recent news of a possible new strain of HIV that is drug-resistent to three of the four classes of anti-HIV drugs and may progress to AIDS in months rather than years, should provide a wake-up call to those who are not practicing safer sex and/or are still sharing needles and syringes."

I'd like to start off by saying that I wouldn't live my life any differently if evolution were proven true beyond any doubt, or were proven false beyond any doubt.

I 've heard all the arguments and explanations about evolution for years (NOVA did a particularly good one in a four-part series last year), but I still do not understand how it can work.

As I understand the theory (in a very small nutshell): Life does not always breed true. Mutations occur for a variety of reasons. Most of these mutations are bad, but every so often there is a good one. Life with these beneficial mutations is more successful than life without the beneficial mutations, and their offspring gradually displace the non-mutated life.

Here's what I do not understand:

1. Left alone, things in the natural world break down and decay. In Physics this is the concept of entropy (trending to increasing disorder). If you don't mow your lawn and weed your garden in a Houston summer for three or four weeks you can see this for yourself. I do not understand how the complexity of life can increase over time.

2. Since evolution proceeds one mutation at a time, the pace is extremely slow. Let's consider two viable animals. The first one is the original animal, and the second one is what the first one ultimately turns into in 5 million years. Each animal is viable - it stands a reasonable chance of not being easy prey for something else, and of passing it's genes along. What really bothers me is all of the in-between animals that won't be viable - because halfway along the path you have half-gills and half-lungs, neither one of which work very well. Or half-arms and half-wings, neither one of which works very well. Or half-shell and half-spine, neither one of which works very well.

What makes you think all the in-between won't be viable? You've done research on this, and have factual proof?

C.I. -No, just a "thought experiment". Obviously something halfway between an elephant and a rhino would be viable. Or something halfway between an orange and a grapefruit. But I just can't see how something halfway between a shell and a backbone would be anything other than lunch.

That's the reason scientists continue to do research to find the truth/facts. Often times with minimal knowledge, we tend to under estimate what are facts and what is fiction.

nice point jim. reason and logic really work, don't they imposter. I still haven't gotten a straight answer just a bunch of beating around the bush. I have gotten a bunch of halfways. do you have my answers?

"well how was the sun formed? How did the stuff that formed the earth get created? Here are more questions. How is our body so intricately designed by accident? I want answers don't beat around the bush." ** How the sun was formed: A Globule of Gas:
The Sun, like other stars, was formed in a nebula, an interstellar cloud of dust and gas (mostly hydrogen). These stellar nurseries are abundant in the arms of spiral galaxies (like our galaxy, the Milky Way). ** How did the stuff that formed the earth get created? IN THE BEGINNING...

The Earth began as a twinkle in the Solar Nebula's eye some 4.5 billion years ago and it - along with the rest of the planets, asteroids, meteors, comets - formed, it is thought, through the tendency of matter to clump together, ever more until finally there were substantial bodies, the planets and their moons, sweeping up all left-overs in their orbits. During this era, approximately one billion years long, the newly-borning Earth was pummeled mercilessly by these left-overs. This was the so-called "Hadean Period" (and well named at that!), a "hell-ish" time indeed when the Earth's surface was periodically broiled, flash-fried so to speak. Incoming asteroids of sufficient size would actually vaporize, themselves and the part of the surface they impacted and this would turn into a seering plasma that would tsusami around the globe - not a pretty picture. Not to mention volcanic eruptions.

This made it a little hard, one would think, for life to get a toehold on the young planet's surface.

How close are scientists to knowing the origin of life on earth?

When did eukaryotic cells (cells with nuclei and other internal organelles) first evolve?

The Origins and Early Evolution of LIfe
-- The Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry. UC Santa Cruz

The Precambrian
Outline
-- Georgia Perimeter College, Geology 102

THE ORIGIN AND EARLY HISTORY OF LIFE INTRODUCTION
Outlines & Key terms Page:
-- Northern Arizona University

BIO 106 Evolution & Ecology
-- University of Cincinnati

This is probably true, unless you are trying to use science to develop drugs or cure diseases, you don't need to believe or even know about evolution.



This is simply a misunderstanding of physics. Even the example you give (weeds growing) is an example of dirt being transformed into weeds. In this process entropy decreases as weeds are certainly a much more complex and ordered arrangement of matter than dirt.

There are many example where entropy decreases, crystals for example, that have nothing to do with evolution.

Physics doesn't say that entropy can not decrease as the result of a proces. What it says is that the net entropy must increase. This means that a decrease of entropy locally must involve a greater increase of entropy somwhere else.

I won't answer the second question as my field is Physics, not biology. But I am assured that there are in-between forms... but others will will provide them if you are open minded enough...

But I want to make this point...

Science was created by Scientists using the Scientific process If you want to reject science, fine. But disagreeing with scientists (the people who are working to study and discover science) about what they said about their discoveries is ridiculous.

I get really upset with this entropy foolishness... why do people have to drag an ignorance of physics into this.

If you want to learn about entropy why don't you can take an undergraduate course in thermodynamics at your local college.

Vol,

People are giving you straight answers. You are simply rejecting them because they disagree with your world view.

If you want to reject science, fine. But don't say we didn't try to explain to you what science has discovered.

You are right, there are somethings that science hasn't figured out yet, and some things that it is pretty clear science will never discover.

But if you want to know what science has discovered, you should listen to the scientists. You can't expect to learn anything if you remain deaf to anything that you disagree with.

Answered through a couple links which probably you in your ignorance never clicked on



We don' know which is why we study science Vol. We try to find the answers. If God made it then evidence wil show that right? If not then evidence will show the truth.





That's been answered you msut not have checked the links. Here's another interesting link about intermediate speciation
http://www.nwf.org/nationalwildlife/printerFriendly.cfm?issueID=73&articleID=1028



You did for the sun and earth. Click the clicks please.



You don't understnad how the views of speciation happen do you, oh ignorant one?
The mutations which fuel evolution are not detrimental for the organism in its environment. Let's say we have a (for example) chicken (random example) in an area that suffers a prolonged but subtle drought (not no-water-for-30year thing). There is another group of chickens of the same species ina lovely paradise with everything. However the drought chickens are having trouble. They can' get as much water. One slight mutation is one chicken needs less water to survive. So it AND ITS OFFSPRING are now more fit to survive in THIS environment. Over long time the normal chickens disappear and these (same species) chickens with the drought tolerance are still there.
Then a couple chickens are born with, say smaller bodies, that require less nourishment. These chickens are more adapt to survive and soon they become the chicken norm. Then a mutation for needing more water develops but he doesnt survive long. Evolution doesnt involve him in this environment. But then another mutation arise and antoher. Soon these drought chickens are way different from normal chicken; smaller size, beaks, needing less water, more camoflaged, maybe even better flight. These chickens cant even BREED with the old chickens and produce fertile offspring they are so different. And so a new species is born.

There are other ways and my previous link shows these "ecotone" ways of speciation.

El-Diablo, Good example about speciation and evolution. What I found fascinating when I visited the Galapagos Islands (where Charles Darwin did much of his research) is learning about the 14 different species of finches that are now called Darwin finches. The islands of the Galapagos are a perfect environment to study evolution, because they are are geologically different with different species of plants and animals on each. What is most interesting about the finches is that their beaks have evolved differently depending on the environment in which they live to access the food source available to them. There are now 100 scientists at the Galapagos Charles Darwin Research Center, and they learn first hand how evolution is working. They told us they learn new things about evolution all the time, and the excitement of the scientists is the evidence.

Vol,
If you really and truly want an answer then you could help us out here. Tell us what you actually believe to be true so we can then build on what you think is fact.

Some simple questions for you to answer that might help us out to show you how evolution could be true.

Do you believe in math? And that the answers in math are absolutes?
Do you believe in decomposition? That creatures that die decompose so their body parts can no longer be found.
Do you believe in the concept of time? That a year has a length of a year?
Do you believe in chemistry? That our bodies are made up of compounds created out of individual atoms.

Logic requires that we have a starting point here Vol. Give us where we need to start.

I always wanted to go to the galapagos. I hear they have some cool stuff. And I've read alot aobut "darwin's finches" and they are a good example of speciation.

This is my last post here because its starting to get mean and we shouldnt take each other and try to beat sweet reason into our opponents head. Its just not cricket what?

Jim, There are plent of intermediate fossil animals that define the bridges from one species to the next. From ambulocoetus (walking whale) to full Cetaceans. a gradual fossil story of their evolution has been developed in the last 15 years reom the hills of Pakistan and Afghanistan . The well known bird dinosaurs (dromaeosaurs0 and featherd dinosaurs (rators0 all the way to birds , have been nicely documented and from recent fossils in China, we see that the linneage now makes more sense that from early feathered pre-dinos both birds and dinosaurs emerged (the old line that birds are evolved dinosaurs is losing ground).Elephants arose from an animal whose lines include little rodent like animals. There are plenty of intermediates in that family. Horses are another example. The evolution of dinosaurs in the new world follows the opening and closing of the sea that first connected, and then separated North from South America till about 45 million years ago. Coal measure dragonflies with stubble wings were a specialty of Jay Gould. He assembled a number of intermediate dragonflies from earlier sediments. His theory that dragonflies were using the stubby wing buds for cooling . Dragonflies, like all spiracled arthropods have a gene (Hox) that controls legs and wings. It appears that , perhaps this gene turns off and n for another trait , size. As dragonfly wings appeared longer the bodies became shorter until the right aerodynamics were met.
Remember , evolution affects just one individual at a time, not an entire species. One individual gets the benefit of either the full genic diversity, gene replication, admixing, or mutation. All the others are left slightly less competitive.The successful one in a million , passes on this trait until gradually the population majority contains this morphological trait.Then ,as time passes, newer generations diverge farther from the foundation species and new species are formed
All this is quite in keeping with environmnetal data taken at the fossil site. When you do drilling, Im sure youve got a micropaleontologist whose considering the specific genera of foraminiferans along side the geophysical data. Thats why oil drilling isnt as much a shot in the air AS IT USED TO BE EVEN 25 YEARS AGO. oIL DRILLING IS PARTLY INFUSED WITH EVOLUTIONARY rules of forams and micropelecypods. The environment of theK/T in the Niger delta is controlled by shallow "aborted ocean basins" that, showing the correct lines of fossil forams unique to those types of strata. are damn good oil drill spots. These forams, are tools to us geologists. I sure as hell wouldnt wish to waste my clients money with a strict Creationist interpretation of sediment traps in the Cretaceous. The Benue trough, next door is an anoxic deep organic foram rich ooze that , based on good geophysics and interpretation of fossil morphology, is another series of good spots. (This fields coming on line, you may be workin there yet) The fossils of these areas are quite unique to that spot . And, because there are infield volcanics and troughs, guessing where to drill is not an option. The whole point is that these microfossils are only found here and in certain layers. Their discovery helps tie down the applied science of finding ouil, and its all based upon macroevolution of teeny critters, that some weenie has to density separate and identify under a scope