Evolution

Evolution is very fascinating. Yes, I do believe in it, there is way too much evidence not to. The fact that about 50% of people don't accept the theory is remarkable, the evidence is right there, and grows stronger everyday.

 

heh.

The Theory of Evolution doesn't dismiss the possibility of the existence of gods. It's claiming something in a different ballpark. Immature and Insecure Christians see some powerful proof of something that discredits a fairly minor myth they have, and think it's an attack on their whole system.

 

I believe I have shown my colors in this forum.
Evolution is not science it is a belief system that tries to to sell itself as science. It interprets information base on an assumption and belief just as Christianity does. Christians do not ignore science if fact I embrace science as the evidence of a creator. My great friend and chess buddy is world renowned scientist, author and lecturer on creation science Dr. Jonathan Sarfati. He has a greater in depth of knowledge on the subject than I do and would be a better apologist than I. I am not here to argue the point but I find it offensive that derogatory statements about christian faith like "MYTH" is used. You are entitled to disagree with my point of view but please treat with respect others point of view. Resorting to ridicule is base and is a diversion from ones own inability to present a good case.

 

No no, it's a science. It's based on questioning results and disproving them. Therefore; Science.

 

:boink:Hehe ...than good it's disproved itself but seriously my point was not so much the evolutionist but respecting others right to opinion without ridicule

 

The assumptions made by christians seem less plausible than those made in regards to evolution. Evolution seems obvious to me, just by observing nature you can see it at work and get an idea of how the overall process works. Creationism does not seem obvious to me as it depends on some magic man in the sky, which can't be observed in everyday life/nature.

 

How has it disproven itself?

 

I was having a joke

 

Funny I see the same things in nature but come to the total opposite concussion and find evolution implausible because of the complexity necessitates design and intervention so I see and observe in everyday life/nature the existence of such a one.

 

Wow.

Two, countem' TWO simultaneous Evolution vs. Creationism threads to freak me out.

 

I used to not believe in evolution, which was kind of an awkward position for an atheist. Now I realize that I just didn't agree with ridiculous ideas like "selfish gene." DNA is not the soul method of inheritance and mutations and the selection of mutations are not entirely random. For instance, it's not unusual for a particular part of the genome that needs to be changed to be made more prone to mutation. So the organism can't say "I want brown hair instead of white," but they can mutate parts that are likely to affect hair color.

 

The theory of evolution is widely confused; most people don't really even know what it is. Evolution is the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. (Its all based on the genes that are passed on to the offspring.) When mutations occur, new traits may be observed and either kept or rejected in the population based on natural selection. Recombination is also a cause of this as well.

The fact is, the theory of evolution is the change in a species over time. There is no reason that creationism and the theory of evolution can't coexist unless you define either as different than the general definition. If you believe in a higher being creating all that you observe here, you can still believe that a species changes over time.

(p.s. im not saying that any of you don't know the real definition of evolution, im just providing insight and giving a possible reason as to why much of the population 'doesn't believe in evolution).

 

This isn't quite true. The population was Darwin's unit of evolution, but what exactly is the real unit of evolution has been of some debate. Here's a chart in a book of mine:



Book is Evolution in Four Dimensions. See the last column for what's the unit of evolution.

 

To me the complexity simply comes from very long (inconceivably long for the human mind to comprehend fully) periods of time. The complexity does not happen over night it comes from millions of years of refinement.

In London (I think it was) there was a species of moth that was generally light in colour (although there were some variations in colour), this moth blended in well with the light coloured tree bark and manmade objects, this meant it could happily go about it's life having lots of light coloured babies. However when the industrial revolution occured soot and grim become common around the city, most surfaces became much darker than they were before. This exposed the light coloured moths as easy targets against the dark walls or trees, most were quickly eaten by birds and other insects but the ones that survived were the ones with darker variations of colour (they blended in with the environment so were able to survive long enough to have lots of babies). The most successful breeders were the darker moths, within a few generations (not long in human terms) the species had become almost entirely dark coloured. Now this all happened over a very short period of time but if you apply the same concept over very long periods of time then you will see similar refinements that increase chances of survival, the more time that passes the more complex the animal seems, it has been refined into a specialized niche. All it takes is variation in genes (what sex is for) and loooong periods of time.

 

What exactly did I say that wasn't true? The way it comes across to me it seems like you're saying that I was incorrect in stating that evolution is a change in a population over time. You're saying that it isn't quite true and that it is the allele population? Or are you just saying that it is incorrect because there is more than one theory?

Evolution to me is the change of a population over time based on the alleles, yes. This is what I meant when I said genes (yes, I do know the difference). Although, without natural selection there wouldn't be a need for evolution.

(im just asking for clarification, I am not disagreeing with you. I apologize if I come off as argumentative; i just like clarification.)

 

Some people define evolution strictly as changes in gene frequencies and some people use more or less general definitions with or without "theory of". If I need to be precise I say that yes, I do think the theory of evolution is very useful, but neither the darwinian or any of the neo-darwinian types explain everything. I do all I can to avoid arguments concerning definitions.

The rise of epigenetics (factors controlling the activation of genes) in the last few decades has taught us that the genes aren´t everything. We have like 97 % or so similarity with chimpanzee genome, but what matters more is which genes are expressed and when. The mechanism how exactly these expression factors are inherited is still mostly unknown if I remember right. If someone knows more please tell me. This is the reason why cloning animals is difficult. If you pick DNA from one cell, it very likely has the expression factors in wrong places to start a new organism.

The DNA molecule is a good storage for information, but it most likely has not been the first information storing molecule, so it cannot be considered the only unit of evolution.

The logical unit for evolution in my opinion would be simply all (relatively stable) molecular configurations that are inherited by some mechanism. Everything that is persistent in organisms.

 

Yes, I was basically saying that there is more than one theory and that maybe someone who thinks that the population of individuals isn't the unit of evolution is familiar with that particular theory.

If you are trying to say that the unit of evolution is the gene / population of genes then I disagree completely, but you would be perfectly in line with the "selfish gene" version, which is all the rage right now. I'm more in the "molecular neo-darwinism" line.

 

Bad example its the one creationist use to show the floors in evolutionist theory as no change occurred in the genes only more darker or lighter moths where eaten depending on the environment as the environment changed back so has the natural balance of the population.