As a Christian, how many of you believe in evolution?

[Ophiolite]

Everyone says so and has been saying so for quite some time.

When you have a forum full of people telling you that you lack basic understanding of a subject, perhaps you really do lack a basic understanding of that subject.

There you go, using logic and reasoned argument again! What are you like?

 

[xianghua]

But we can see patterns in the fossil record that fit with the notion that certain species evolved into other species over very long periods of time.

but we also find fossils in the wrong place. so if a fossil in the correct place is evidence for evolution isnt a fossil in the wrong place should be evidence against it?

second- we can arrange also designed objects in hierarchy. but we know that it doesnt prove any evolution. so its also true for living things.

3- think also about this analogy; say that we had a self replicating car (a population of them like living thigns). do you think that such a car can evolve into an airplane in millions of years? the simple answer is no since there is no stepwise way from a self replicating car into an airplane. so its also true for living things.

 

[pitabread]

say that we had a self replicating car

 

[Yttrium]

but we also find fossils in the wrong place. so if a fossil in the correct place is evidence for evolution isnt a fossil in the wrong place should be evidence against it?

Fossils in the wrong place would certainly mess things up for the theory that all life is connected. For example, if you could find fossils that show some modern mammals hanging out with a brontosaurus or trilobites, that would break the theory pretty badly. Personally, I don't know of any cases like that.

second- we can arrange also designed objects in hierarchy. but we know that it doesnt prove any evolution. so its also true for living things.

Right. It's when you combine that with the known evolutionary processes ("microevolution"), and the fact that we don't know of anything that would limit those changes, that we get a theory of evolution: that all living things descended from common ancestors. It all works together.

3- think also about this analogy; say that we had a self replicating car (a population of them like living thigns). do you think that such a car can evolve into an airplane in millions of years? the simple answer is no since there is no stepwise way from a self replicating car into an airplane. so its also true for living things.

If the mechanism of self-replication included occasional mutations, not unlike those we see with DNA, then the distant ancestors could indeed turn out to be something very different.

 

[Kylie]

but we also find fossils in the wrong place. so if a fossil in the correct place is evidence for evolution isnt a fossil in the wrong place should be evidence against it?

Care to give an example of this? Perhaps you can show us a bird in precambrian rocks? Or a trilobite that is only a million years old?

second- we can arrange also designed objects in hierarchy. but we know that it doesnt prove any evolution. so its also true for living things.

I hope you understand that it's more than, "Well, this one is a bit bigger, so it goes after that one..."

3- think also about this analogy; say that we had a self replicating car (a population of them like living thigns). do you think that such a car can evolve into an airplane in millions of years? the simple answer is no since there is no stepwise way from a self replicating car into an airplane. so its also true for living things.

I've told you EXACTLY how such a transition could happen. Why do you say it is impossible when you have already been shown?

 

[Ophiolite]

Care to give an example of this? Perhaps you can show us a bird in precambrian rocks? Or a trilobite that is only a million years old?

I add a note of caution. The first incident would certainly be a major problem for evolutionary theory from which it would be unlikely to recover. The latter, not so much.

There are several million species on the planet that are yet to be identified. I think I have seen estimates ranging as high as twenty million. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that in some secluded, essentially unexplored niche a surviving species, or maybe a genera or two of trilobites survived. I concede that this is unlikely and its mainly my affection for the little fellows that keeps my hopes alive, but I can't entirely rule it out.

 

[xianghua]

Or a trilobite that is only a million years old?

why do you think that such a trilobite will falsify evolution?

 

[Yttrium]

why do you think that such a trilobite will falsify evolution?

Yeah, I think Kylie misspoke on that one. A million-year-old trilobite would be cool, and wouldn't harm evolution.

 

[xianghua]

Fossils in the wrong place would certainly mess things up for the theory that all life is connected. For example, if you could find fossils that show some modern mammals hanging out with a brontosaurus or trilobites, that would break the theory pretty badly. Personally, I don't know of any cases like that.

if we will find human with a dino it will not falsify evolution. it will just push back human origin.

Right. It's when you combine that with the known evolutionary processes ("microevolution"), and the fact that we don't know of anything that would limit those changes, that we get a theory of evolution: that all living things descended from common ancestors. It all works together.

actually we have at least 2 limitations:

1) say that we want to add a motion system to a creature without it. we know that a motion system need at least several parts to work. so such a system cant evolve stepwise.

the other problem is that even if we have a stepwise way to evolve such a system its not realy matter since we know that such a system is the product of design. thus even if it can evolve by evolution it cant happen without design.

 

[Yttrium]

if we will find human with a dino it will not falsify evolution. it will just push back human origin.

… No. Human origin can't be pushed that far back under evolution theory. We've got a whole history of mammal development that needs to take place, leading up to primates and eventually humans. Finding human fossils that are hundreds of millions of years old would really break the theory.

 

[xianghua]

… No. Human origin can't be pushed that far back under evolution theory.

so how much can we push back human origin? by 20 my? 30? give me a limit.

please also refer to my second argument about a motion system. we know that such a system neeed at least several parts so it cant evolve s tepwise.

 

[Yttrium]

so how much can we push back human origin? by 20 my? 30? give me a limit.

I'm no expert on the subject, but modern humans supposedly have been around less than a couple hundred thousand years. Certainly if you found modern human fossils more than 10 million years old, it would break things, due to the ages of theoretical ancestors.

1) say that we want to add a motion system to a creature without it. we know that a motion system need at least several parts to work. so such a system cant evolve stepwise.

I don't see a reason offhand that it couldn't evolve stepwise. Take wings, for example. If you start with arms, you just need to get some flaps for gliding, like the flying squirrel. Then change the arm motion and body weight a bit. Small refinements here and there over time can get you to functioning wings like a bat.

the other problem is that even if we have a stepwise way to evolve such a system its not realy matter since we know that such a system is the product of design. thus even if it can evolve by evolution it cant happen without design.

Well, I don't know that it's the product of design. It could have been designed, I suppose. What if the basic properties of matter were designed to inevitably produce humans? Great clouds of hydrogen form stars, which produce planets, which produce life (somehow), which produces humans, all as planned... But that's just idle speculation, of course.

 

[Kylie]

why do you think that such a trilobite will falsify evolution?

Please see Ophiolite's response.

 

[xianghua]

I'm no expert on the subject, but modern humans supposedly have been around less than a couple hundred thousand years. Certainly if you found modern human fossils more than 10 million years old, it would break things, due to the ages of theoretical ancestors.

why? scientists already pushed back human origin. not problem for evolution here.

I don't see a reason offhand that it couldn't evolve stepwise. Take wings, for example. If you start with arms, you just need to get some flaps for gliding, like the flying squirrel. Then change the arm motion and body weight a bit. Small refinements here and there over time can get you to functioning wings like a bat.

ok. but i asked about a motion system. even we as intelligent designers cant made a motion system stepwise. so it will be impossible by a naturall process.

 

[Yttrium]

why? scientists already pushed back human origin. not problem for evolution here.

We have to fit in common ancestors with other mammals too. There's a whole mess of things converging together between us modern humans and the days of the dinosaurs.

ok. but i asked about a motion system. even we as intelligent designers cant made a motion system stepwise. so it will be impossible by a naturall process.

Can you give an example of such a motion system that would be impossible for natural processes? (I apologize if you've already done that before.)

 

[Kylie]

why? scientists already pushed back human origin. not problem for evolution here.

You really don't seem to understand why you are wrong.

Let me try an analogy.

How far back can we push the invention of the spring-powered pocketwatch?

You seem to think that we can push it back as far as we like. But we can't. A spring powered pocketwatch needs springs, so the spring powered pocketwatch must have been invented after the spring was. If we push the spring powered pocketwatch back far enough, soon we'll have to push back springs. And we need a manufacturing process capable of producing the small components needed to make a pocketwatch. So if the spring powered pocketwatch is pushed back far enough, we'll have to start claiming that people developed the manufacturing process earlier as well. And since the spring powered pocketwatch is made of metal, we need to have the capacity to produce metal before we can have the spring powered pocketwatch. But if we keep pushing all these things back, then it's going to cause a problem, because we'd get to a point where you are claiming people could have had spring powered pocketwatches, yet all the evidence from the real world shows they were still just making stone knives and dressing in bearskins.

 

[Speedwell]

we know that such a system need at least several parts so it cant evolve stepwise.

You have made that claim over and over. But you have NEVER backed it up with any arguments or any evidence. You have NEVER responded to explanations as to how related parts of a complex system evolve. It's time you stopped making that claim.

 

[xianghua]

You really don't seem to understand why you are wrong.

Let me try an analogy.

How far back can we push the invention of the spring-powered pocketwatch?

You seem to think that we can push it back as far as we like. But we can't. A spring powered pocketwatch needs springs, so the spring powered pocketwatch must have been invented after the spring was. If we push the spring powered pocketwatch back far enough, soon we'll have to push back springs. And we need a manufacturing process capable of producing the small components needed to make a pocketwatch. So if the spring powered pocketwatch is pushed back far enough, we'll have to start claiming that people developed the manufacturing process earlier as well. And since the spring powered pocketwatch is made of metal, we need to have the capacity to produce metal before we can have the spring powered pocketwatch. But if we keep pushing all these things back, then it's going to cause a problem, because we'd get to a point where you are claiming people could have had spring powered pocketwatches, yet all the evidence from the real world shows they were still just making stone knives and dressing in bearskins.

actually even in that case there is no problem to claim that some people may created the watch earlier than we thought. here is something similar:

World's oldest computer may be older than previously thought

 

[xianghua]

We have to fit in common ancestors with other mammals too.

what mammals? we are talking about apes. so there is no problem to push back both human and apes origin. actually we can even push back all mammals.

Can you give an example of such a motion system that would be impossible for natural processes? (I apologize if you've already done that before.)

i think that the venus flytrap is a good example. basically its like an automatic door.

 

[Yttrium]

what mammals? we are talking about apes. so there is no problem to push back both human and apes origin. actually we can even push back all mammals.

It's a problem when we have all those fossils linked to specific periods in history. It's just too complicated.

Besides, they probably would have eaten all those dinosaur eggs.

i think that the venus flytrap is a good example. basically its like an automatic door.

Oh yeah, the Venus flytrap. That's a very interesting case. Apparently, it's closely related DNA-wise to the sundew. Theoretically, a common ancestor of the flytrap and the sundew had sticky leaves to trap insects (like the sundew has today). Larger insects could get out of the sticky stuff, so any small changes that improved trapping the larger insects would be favored. Change the shapes of the leaves to better trap the insects, add a mechanism to close the leaves together, and add some fronds to really keep them from escaping. Then the sticky stuff isn't needed any more, and may hinder the operation (by sometimes sticking the leaves together), so the sticky stuff goes away. All of these changes can happen very gradually over time.

This is all very theoretical, of course. Still, it's a likely evolutionary path. Without the sundew-like carnivorous system to begin with, it's hard to imagine how the flytrap could come up with its trapping mechanism.