Evolution for ValenII

[lucaspa]

Valen posed a lot of questions on another thread. Instead of my reply getting buried there I decided to start a new thread. Valen, feel free to ask any more questions you want here. I will answer and we can discuss the issues.

Can anyone imagine how man will look like and how he thinks after the evolutionists claimed that every organism undergoes evolution after several millions of years?

The most recent Discover magazine has an article that specifically addresses this! Hit the newstands and buy one, or read it at your local library.

Bottom line: since evolution is adaptation to the environment and we can't predict environments in advance, we don't know.

By the way evolutionists didn't explained how giant dinosaurs game into being starting from a small newt?

Oh, yes, that is done. Get any book on vertebrate evolution and you will find it.

Evolutionists didn't explain how a single microorganism became man, fish, dinosaurs, birds, animals, fishes, protozoans, bacteria, viruses, etc.?

That's exactly what the whole field of evolutionary biology does! Explains the diversity of organisms. Simply, descent with modification thru natural selection.

How come man were smaller compared to dinosaurs after the more evolutions of man than dinosaurs?

Size isn't everything. If it were there would be no bacterium today. What you are doing is arbitrarily setting certain characteristics as "good" or "more evolved" and saying those are a goal. They are not. If an organism can earn a good living being small, then why be large?

Evolutionists need to answer questions how other organisms didn't evolved after several billions of years.

There are none. There are genera that are little changed over tens of millions of years, but there is still change. The explanation is stable environments for those genera. Purifying selection.

Where can I find the complete book about evolution of each of the known species?

There isn't one and the complete lineage of each and every species is not known. Isn't necessary to know each and every one. It's just necessary to know some.

I see... on a piece of fossil that dates back several millions of years ago... Do scientists really belief or declares this to his soul and to all creatures that all his theories are truths? Period... No questioning?

We declare that some theories are wrong. Absolutely. CreationISM is a wrong theory. And we ALWAYS question. However, some theories -- such as gravity -- are so well-supported that we accept them as (provisionally) true unless and until we find data to falsify them. Now, with evolution we have tested and tested evolution trying to show it to be wrong. We have tested common ancestry so much that we really don't have any more tests we can think of to try.

But remember, evolution is NOT saying God did not create. Evolution doesn't talk about God at all. For people who believe in God for other reasons, then evolution is simply how God created.

I see... they made conclusions from rocks and sediments that dates several billion of years ago? I see... fossil records that dates back several millions of years ago and study the bones of different animals.

And from living species. Valen, the present is the way it is because the past was the way it was.

They are thinking that all organisms came from a single celled eukaryotes.

Actually, no. Bacteria, archea (also single-celled but without a nucleus) and eukaryotes all evolved from a common ancestor.

How about the plants of modern day how did they evolved? [/QUOTE

I can point you to reading material on the evolution of plants if you are interested. Remember, there are single celled plants around today.

They answered the movement of plates. The whole world was shaking then? Tidal waves? Earthquakes? They answered Yes. What are the Richter Scales of those terrible Earthquakes? How did scientists assumed the terrible earthquakes of billions of years ago that they cannot predict earthquakes of the present?

As plates shift there are earthquakes. Knowing they happened in the past doesn't allow predictions for the future. That depends on a whole host of factors that are contingent.

Why do small islands appear during one of the violent eruptions of volcanoes? Why did the volcanoes stop there activities?

They didn't. New islands appeared off Iceland about 10 years ago from underwater eruptions where the lava reached the surface.

Freedom to look for the truth is not possible because man's theory is the truth?

What freedom. Valen, remember that creationism was THE accepted scientific theory in the period 1700-1831. Scientists (all of whom were Christian and many were ministers) looked at the data and decided that creationISM was false. God didn't create that way.

 

[flapjack_05]

Alright, I'm going to make sure I have this all figured out correctly...you are not a creationist, but you are a Christian and you believe that God used evolution to create everything...is that correct?

 

[lucaspa]

Alright, I'm going to make sure I have this all figured out correctly...you are not a creationist, but you are a Christian and you believe that God used evolution to create everything...is that correct?

Pretty much.

It's the view Darwin had and nearly all Christians before and since.

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, The Religious Aspects of Evolution, 2d ed. 1890, pg 68.

 

[revolutio]

Actually, no. Bacteria, archea (also single-celled but without a nucleus) and eukaryotes all evolved from a common ancestor.

Cells without nuclei are called prokaryotes. One of the biggest evolutionary advances was probably the advent of eukaryotes.

As plates shift there are earthquakes. Knowing they happened in the past doesn't allow predictions for the future. That depends on a whole host of factors that are contingent.

Technically if you knew complete past you could predict the future. Or if you knew the location and velocity of every particle in the universe.

However Heisenburg's Uncertainty principle makes everything a matter of probability so you can't know that you just have the probable locations of those particles.

 

[davyuk]

Nice thread lucaspa.

 

[ValenII]

Thank you for your concern...
Well actually the questions that I asked were tests of how people respond by using reasons properly not through faulty emotions. It is good to know that there is still a reasonable person around here.
Is it ok for me to increase my level of seriousness? We are going to appreciate the discussions but I need to fulfill certain obligations. I will look for you for a formal debates in this Science forum when I'll return.
Thank you once again. Farewell.

 

[Jet Black]

Technically if you knew complete past you could predict the future. Or if you knew the location and velocity of every particle in the universe.

However Heisenburg's Uncertainty principle makes everything a matter of probability so you can't know that you just have the probable locations of those particles.

this is a really off thread comment, but just to end it now; no you can't. you can't have a complete past, a complete present or a complete future.

 

[JohnR7]

Bottom line: since evolution is adaptation to the environment and we can't predict environments in advance, we don't know.

A lot of things have to "evolve" in order have a invironment for things to adapt to. So you just managed to falsify evoluton. Sense you can not have an invironment without evolution, and you can not have evolution without an invironment.

Size isn't everything.

Tell that to Mark McGwire.

 

[Jet Black]

A lot of things have to "evolve" in order have a invironment for things to adapt to. So you just managed to falsify evoluton. Sense you can not have an invironment without evolution, and you can not have evolution without an invironment.

huh? mars has an environment, so does jupiter and so does venus.

 

[revolutio]

A lot of things have to "evolve" in order have a invironment for things to adapt to. So you just managed to falsify evoluton. Sense you can not have an invironment without evolution, and you can not have evolution without an invironment.

You are grasping for straws methinks. Environments exist naturally everywhere. Some actually evolve with plantlife and native creatures. Of course you can't have evolution without an environment.

Tell that to Mark McGwire.

Bruce Lee would turn him into mince meat. His size would be a cumberance in martial arts. He would never get his hands on his opponent.

Everything can be an advantage or a disadvantage, it is pointless to say that one thing is always good.

 

[Mainframes]

A lot of things have to "evolve" in order have a invironment for things to adapt to. So you just managed to falsify evoluton. Sense you can not have an invironment without evolution, and you can not have evolution without an invironment.



Tell that to Mark McGwire.

Not very open minded are you. The first organisms had to survive in the original environment on earth, but these first organisms actually managed to change the environment as a result of their being. They released oxygen into the atmospherer converted it from a reducing atmosphere to an oxidising atmosphere. Some of the organisms adapted to the new conditions prevailant and thrived.

You see, the environment and the organisms living in it are linked. The environment affects the organisms that live there, and organisms can affect the environment they live in. It's all a matter of give and take.

 

[lucaspa]

A lot of things have to "evolve" in order have a invironment for things to adapt to.

You have this backwards. The environment is ALWAYS there. The environment is EVERYTHING that interacts with the individual and population: climate, food source, salinity of the water, siblings, microbes, etc.

Before there was life, there was an environment. Climate, chemicals, water, etc.

Tell that to Mark McGwire.

Go tell that bigger is better to a female gymnast. Different environments, different selection pressures. Large females are at a disadvantage in gymnastics.

As someone pointed out, large size is also a disadvantage in martial arts.

 

[revolutio]

I would love to take on Mark McGqire in foil fencing his torso area is the size of a small car. Easy hit.

 

[Gracchus]

I would love to take on Mark McGqire in foil fencing his torso area is the size of a small car. Easy hit.

Maybe. But he would probably have the reach on you and you might have trouble beating down his guard. A bigger man with greater reach might fleche. I heard somewhere that the fleche is against the rules now. You don't have to forbid an ineffective strategy.

How about broadswords? There is no such thing as a fair fight. Different evironments select for different adaptations.

 

[lucaspa]

John, do all the excellent answers to your "bigger is better" statement tell you that what is "good" changes from environment to environment? It should. This is why there is no "ladder" or "progress" in evolutionary thinking. Since all the environments require different designs, there is no way to say one design is "good" or "the goal".

 

[Gracchus]

The advantage intelligence gives us is intellectual adaptability, which to the dogmatist is anathema.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I would love to take on Mark McGqire in foil fencing his torso area is the size of a small car. Easy hit.

Hey, dude. I've been fencing for a little over 2 years now. I think if I had more opportunity I would enjoy sabre best. But as it is I prefer foil to epee.

Anyway ... back to the thread at hand.