Evolution and you?

After all this evolutionary battling, I feel like watching Planet of the Apes now...a little Heston....need to watch Taylor and Dr. Zaius having it out... "Get your stinking paw off me you _____ dirty ape!"

gurneyhalleck1 said:

After all this evolutionary battling, I feel like watching Planet of the Apes now...a little Heston....need to watch Taylor and Dr. Zaius having it out... "Get your stinking paw off me you _____ dirty ape!"

Click to expand...

Crawdad said:

Yes, they were still flies, but different species of flies. You said that we cannot observe a species change into another species. Yet here we are, observing it. That was only one test. Mosquitos and bacteria (and I think beetles) were observed in nature.



So what mechanism is in place that would stop a fly from becoming another something other than a fly?

Click to expand...

yeah, and I clarified by saying not some fruit fly changing into something other than a fruit fly, but something other then a fly, so I apologize for not being more clear.

and I dunno what mechanism is in place that would stop a fly from becoming something other than a fly, all I know is that we have not observed it yet.

ArmyMatt said:

yeah, but they are still flies, and humans guided the experiment. if it were too happen out there in nature, and a fly became something other than a fly, I would believe in a heartbeat.

I used macro because microevolution is observable and testable. no one denies that animals change to adapt ( like a ll the finches Darwin observed). where most folks like me take issue, is what I said before, changing randomly in nature from one thing to another. so when the fly becomes something other than I fly, I'll have no problem.

Click to expand...

This reminds me of a poem, it goes something like this:

A fly is a fly because he flies and flies and flies all day,
And if that fly, didn't fly,
Would we call that fly a stay?

Which is, I think, a good question with regards to what you are saying about the thing changing its nature. I think maybe this is really the crux of the issue for you? What makes a fly a fly? What would it look like for a fly, or something else, to evolve or become another thing?

I don't really think it would look like anything, because the idea of a fly, or a designation of a species, is to a large degree a human creation or convenience. We define a species (usually) as a group of creatures that can potentially breed together. When there are small changes in their genetic profile we say that is variation within the species. If we could pinpoint when a change occurred that stopped two populations from breeding, then we would say that they were two species. (Usually that wouldn't happen in a whole population all at one time. But it would be a bunch of small changes of the sort that meant they could no longer breed together - even something like a change in the time they were fertile so breeding seasons would not match up.)

But I suspect that wouldn't be because their nature had changed in the mind of God - that one fixed entity in his mind became some other thing. Rather, animal life exists in many permutations and variations and ways of being and God knows each one intimately as an individual and perhaps as a category as well.

And we see that we actually do have other categories we create for animal life for convenience, like class or genus. But I don't think anyone believes them to be somehow fixed entities for God that he is limited to - they are ways for us to break things down and hold them in our minds and see how they relate to each other, because we are linear.

To me what you are saying seems similar to the problem of saying something can't go from being a tree to a chair because that is a change in its nature. (Though of course no one seriously believes that because we know we create chairs and can see it. But people have advanced the question in terms of how we understand a thing to have a fixed nature.) But the change there is more in terms of how we relate to the object, or to the outward form of the object at this particular place and time. But if we look at it through its entire existence it could be called tree and seed and wood and chair and boards and maybe eventually trash, and that is all true and accurate and God holds them all together.

I tend to think of the idea of species in the same way. And if that is true, then it puts a whole different complexion on the issue of animals evolving from one thing into another as a problem of changing their nature.

it's an interesting way of putting it. but my main problem is the problem of death. I don't see God creating any kind of death in any way.

ArmyMatt said:

it's an interesting way of putting it. but my main problem is the problem of death. I don't see God creating any kind of death in any way.

Click to expand...

That is one of the things that bothers me most. I fully believe the concept of evolution, all the way up to the pan-spermia theory. I do not, however, see any justification for the 99% of species on the planet that have needed to die to create our 1%. I suppose, however, the same justification we use when a loved-one dies from cancer can be used to remedy that.

The problem plagues me though...

ArmyMatt said:

it's an interesting way of putting it. but my main problem is the problem of death. I don't see God creating any kind of death in any way.

Click to expand...

Yeah. That is an interesting question too I think. I have my own thoughts as to how that might work with relation to evolution - or really I don't like to say just evolution but the whole gamut of scientific observations about how the universe came to be.

In the end they are just thoughts though, and not something I can say is true for sure. But I am comfortable with that - it isn't surprising to me that I, and others, can't see precisely how what we know from revelation and what we know from observation or experience fit together. I know they must fit together because being is a unified thing, creation has one origin, and the world and Revelation come from the same God. God gave us the Revelation in part because there were things we wouldn't be able to figure out for ourselves. I can see a few possible ways it might fit, and that is enough for me to be satisfied if there is no way to make a better fit. God can do things in a way I can't understand.

I thought it was interesting that Knee-vee said that for him evolution was something that caused him difficulties that brought him close to atheism. I think I feel the opposite - not because of any particular scientific theory - those change all the time, no surprise there. But my Christianity is in part dependent on the same things that allow me to see science and evolution as something that could potentially be reconciled with my religion. I can believe that Christ really existed in history because I believe we really can have knowledge through the world. I can believe in God because I think it is possible for us to know real things, we aren't stuck in some relativistic chaos. These are the same things that lead me to think science can lead to real knowledge and that evolution is a very strong theory. So if Christianity asked me to give up that way of thinking, I'd no longer have any reason to think I could know what the Church says is true - I'd have no more reason to believe in it than Mormonism.

So ultimately I'm content to say how we reconcile evolution with death is largely a mystery and might remain that way.

GodActsOnMe said:

That is one of the things that bothers me most. I fully believe the concept of evolution, all the way up to the pan-spermia theory. I do not, however, see any justification for the 99% of species on the planet that have needed to die to create our 1%. I suppose, however, the same justification we use when a loved-one dies from cancer can be used to remedy that.

The problem plagues me though...

Click to expand...

I think you misread me. what I meant with death was that if evolution is true, then God created death from the beginning, and since God creates only good things, then death would be good. I have a problem with God creating any kind of death, even in the animal kingdom.

ArmyMatt said:

I think you misread me. what I meant with death was that if evolution is true, then God created death from the beginning, and since God creates only good things, then death would be good. I have a problem with God creating any kind of death, even in the animal kingdom.

Click to expand...

Evolution is true, and that is the problem I spoke of. Evolution directly conflicts our view on what is "good", and changes our view of God. It kind of makes me feel weird.

ArmyMatt said:

yeah, and I clarified by saying not some fruit fly changing into something other than a fruit fly, but something other then a fly, so I apologize for not being more clear.

and I dunno what mechanism is in place that would stop a fly from becoming something other than a fly, all I know is that we have not observed it yet.

Click to expand...

Im going to leave it there since this discussion so heated. This is a horrible topic.

GodActs, if you look at earlier threads you can see what problems I have with evolution and why I don't believe it to be true.

Crawdad, I hear ya. truce.

This is an interesting topic. I am a committed Creationist myself, I believe God did it like He said

ArmyMatt said:

GodActs, if you look at earlier threads you can see what problems I have with evolution and why I don't believe it to be true.

Crawdad, I hear ya. truce.

Click to expand...

Unless you have come to that conclusion by finding scientific facts that contradict such a scientific theory, then I do not believe I care to debate with the reason.

christseeker45 said:

This is an interesting topic. I am a committed Creationist myself, I believe God did it like He said

Click to expand...

Why do you take the Bible so literally? One can believe in Him without being confined to the Bible like that.

I don't wanna debate, look at Crawdad and my back and forth. if you want, you can see my reasons, but they are theological and not scientiffic.

We can all agree pokemon evolve. In the end, isnt that all that matters?

Crawdad said:

We can all agree pokemon evolve. In the end, isnt that all that matters?

Click to expand...

hahahaha

GodActsOnMe said:

Why do you take the Bible so literally? One can believe in Him without being confined to the Bible like that.

Click to expand...

Because it is God's Holy Word inspired and inerrant.

this post really spoke to me, Meghan

MKJ said:

Yeah. That is an interesting question too I think. I have my own thoughts as to how that might work with relation to evolution - or really I don't like to say just evolution but the whole gamut of scientific observations about how the universe came to be.

In the end they are just thoughts though, and not something I can say is true for sure. But I am comfortable with that - it isn't surprising to me that I, and others, can't see precisely how what we know from revelation and what we know from observation or experience fit together. I know they must fit together because being is a unified thing, creation has one origin, and the world and Revelation come from the same God. God gave us the Revelation in part because there were things we wouldn't be able to figure out for ourselves. I can see a few possible ways it might fit, and that is enough for me to be satisfied if there is no way to make a better fit. God can do things in a way I can't understand.

I thought it was interesting that Knee-vee said that for him evolution was something that caused him difficulties that brought him close to atheism. I think I feel the opposite - not because of any particular scientific theory - those change all the time, no surprise there. But my Christianity is in part dependent on the same things that allow me to see science and evolution as something that could potentially be reconciled with my religion. I can believe that Christ really existed in history because I believe we really can have knowledge through the world. I can believe in God because I think it is possible for us to know real things, we aren't stuck in some relativistic chaos. These are the same things that lead me to think science can lead to real knowledge and that evolution is a very strong theory. So if Christianity asked me to give up that way of thinking, I'd no longer have any reason to think I could know what the Church says is true - I'd have no more reason to believe in it than Mormonism.

So ultimately I'm content to say how we reconcile evolution with death is largely a mystery and might remain that way.

Click to expand...

GodActsOnMe said:

Why do you take the Bible so literally? One can believe in Him without being confined to the Bible like that.

Click to expand...

I take the bible literally because mom literally bought it for me and literally left it at my house as a gift. Taking it metaphorically wouldnt get it off my coffee table and my roommates would get mad.

Not as good as the pokemon joke? Ok.

Nevermind