Evolution is Not Atheistic

[Meowzltov]

It takes a lot of deductions to further conclude that the sticks and leaves evolved from some marine organism.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think plant life developed independently and earlier than animal life, evolving from single celled organisms such as algae. A fish never evolved into a tree.

 

[Loudmouth]

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think plant life developed independently and earlier than animal life, evolving from single celled organisms such as algae. A fish never evolved into a tree.

Depends on the plants. For example, major tetrapod lineages were already well established on land before grasses appeared. Animals were already on land before flowering trees with big leaves evolved.

 

[Meowzltov]

There is also positive and negative selection which is not random with respect to fitness.

I agree natural selection is so not random. Random mutations happen, and that most of them are not adaptive. But too many of them are adaptive for me to accept that all mutations are random. I may be wrong. It wouldn't bother me at all if I were wrong. But that's how things look to me at the present time.

 

[Graham Lloyd Dull]

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think plant life developed independently and earlier than animal life, evolving from single celled organisms such as algae. A fish never evolved into a tree.

Excuse me. I never said a fish evolved into a tree.
I said, "from some marine organism."
This is consistent with the evolutionary view that the origin of all life was in the sea.

 

[Meowzltov]

Depends on the plants. For example, major tetrapod lineages were already well established on land before grasses appeared. Animals were already on land before flowering trees with big leaves evolved.

I didn't mean to imply that plant evolution stopped when animals evolved. Actually plant evolution is still ongoing, as I think you'll agree. Many of the new species we are seeing today are plants.

I really only was trying to say that the land was full of plants already by the time the first tetrapods walked out of the waters.

 

[Meowzltov]

Excuse me. I never said a fish evolved into a tree.
I said, "from some marine organism."
This is consistent with the evolutionary view that the origin of all life was in the sea.

Sure, so long as you understand that plants evolved from single celled organisms that developed photosynthesis like algae (neither a plant or an animal or a fungi). They did not evolve from marine animals of any sort.

 

[Loudmouth]

I didn't mean to imply that plant evolution stopped when animals evolved. Actually plant evolution is still ongoing, as I think you'll agree. Many of the new species we are seeing today are plants.

I really only was trying to say that the land was full of plants already by the time the first tetrapods walked out of the waters.

Since the previous post mentioned twigs and leaves I thought it was worth mentioning the ongoing evolution of plants, as you describe quite well.

 

[Meowzltov]

Pollen is found in Precambrian metamorphic rock from the Roraima formation in South America ‘dated’ at 1.7 Ga old.
.
In the orthodox evolutionary timeline, pollen is supposed to be over 1 Ga younger than these rocks supposedly are. Numerous attempts to explain away the presence of pollen have been made. Contamination from the environment has been cited, but this simply doesn’t fit with the geology of the Roraima formation or its surroundings.

When you have a kazillion pieces of evidence supporting something, it doesn't matter if you have a few that don't fit.

 

[Graham Lloyd Dull]

Sure, so long as you understand that plants evolved from single celled organisms that developed photosynthesis like algae (neither a plant or an animal or a fungi). They did not evolve from marine animals of any sort.

That is correct. I use the term 'organism' meaning exactly what it means.

 

[Graham Lloyd Dull]

When you have a kazillion pieces of evidence supporting something, it doesn't matter if you have a few that don't fit.

You could perhaps recognize that the fossil evidence shows that pollen is older than the marine fossils, and consider the likely possibility that all life evolved from pollen.

 

[Meowzltov]

Since the previous post mentioned twigs and leaves I thought it was worth mentioning the ongoing evolution of plants, as you describe quite well.

It's always interesting to me as a Catholic that my allies in these sorts of threads are agnostics and atheists. It's very sad to me that fundamentalists are so behind. Only 42% of Americans accept evolution. But then, only 3/4 of Americans understand that the earth orbits the sun, so that tells us that the major problem isn't religion but ignorance of science.

All I can say is, I taught it, but many just didn't listen. I laughed and laughed when I saw Walter White try to teach Chemistry on Breaking Bad. Poor guy, his class was soooo apathetic.

 

[Graham Lloyd Dull]

It's always interesting to me as a Catholic that my allies in these sorts of threads are agnostics and atheists.

Strange bedfellows.

 

[Meowzltov]

You could perhaps recognize that the fossil evidence shows that pollen is older than the marine fossils, and consider the likely possibility that all life evolved from pollen.

Pollen IS older than many forms of marine life. That doesn't mean that marine life evolved from pollen. You need to go back to school. Your understanding of evolution is abysmal.

 

[Graham Lloyd Dull]

Pollen IS older than most forms of marine life. That doesn't mean that marine life evolved from pollen. You need to go back to school. Your understanding of evolution is abysmal.

Sorry -- that was a quick comment. I don't believe that all life evolved from 'Pollen' any more than I believe that all life evolved from 'Archaebacteria' or 'Eubacteria.'

 

[Meowzltov]

Strange bedfellows.

It simply means that those who follow the evidence are not exclusive to any one religion or lack of.

 

[Graham Lloyd Dull]

It simply means that those who follow the evidence are not exclusive to any one religion or lack of.

Would you abandon your belief in God if the fact of evolution led you in that direction?

 

[bhsmte]

Would you abandon your belief in God if the fact of evolution led you in that direction?

Are you required to ignore or deny evidence, to preserve your current faith belief?

 

[Loudmouth]

Would you abandon your belief in God if the fact of evolution led you in that direction?

It seems like hubris to tell God how he is allowed to create.

 

[Meowzltov]

Would you abandon your belief in God if the fact of evolution led you in that direction?

There is nothing about Evolution that touches upon the existence of God. It simply would never come up. Science explores God's world. Science cannot explore God and whether or not he exists.

 

[SkyWriting]

The absolute strongest evidence is fairly complicated genetic information. Right now, in every cell of your body, you have genetic information that's identical to animals who don't have a spine. Some of it is information that your cells don't use at all anymore, that isn't there for any logical reason. Some of it is junk DNA (or, at least, DNA that has incredibly limited use in your body) that matches the genetic information of animals so primitive that you wouldn't even think about their relationship to you.

As they tell me....
What you don't understand,
is not an argument for anything.