Evolution keeps species the same?

[Juman]

It is a fact that "evolution" happpens*... "bio-genisis" is still in dispute. *"evolution" meaning "adaption via mutation".

From all the evidence I have seen, it seems to me that without evolution (adaption), it would be utterly impossible for creatures to survive more that 5 or 6 generations from their initial creation. DNA copies after 5 -> 6 generations, would be worse than faxing a fax of a fax.

I think most of the positive "evolution" we have seen in history, is human driven. Making wheat/cattle/sheep/dogs/cats/horses better for our needs. I have even had someone say to me that cars getting better over time proves evolution. Clearly someone who has never had to do anything creative before. There is a lot of work from a "creator" involved in those steps... not just the rolling of a billion sided dice.

I have heard no case (yet) in recorded history of evolution that wasn't human driven. Even the adaption of bacteria/viruses and bugs seems to be driven by science.

The ape-> human, seems to be extrapolation, and all the "evidence" seems to be more art than good science.

Seriously... what advantage does a human have over an ape? If there were no humans, apes would have no problems, so why did a human come about in the first place?

The Mexican walking fish seems to be the only living transitional, but seriously... maybe god just had a sense of humour.

All that said. I don't think evolution is incompatible with Christianity, but I am yet to prove to myself "bio-genisis"... it seems to go against all my logic. Then again, if we actually did evolve, what reason do I have to even trust my own logic?

 

[USincognito]

Welcome to the forum.

Instead of addressing your questions (which I'm sure plenty of others will gladly do), I'm just going to recommend that you settle in, read the threads as they show up, and have a good time participating here.

 

[JohnR7]

I have even had someone say to me that cars getting better over time proves evolution

When it comes to transportation, the wheel remained pretty much unchanged for about 4000 years. Then the change took place fairly rapidly when Harvey Firestone developed the first air filled rubber tire.

So, how can this be evolution when there was no slow gradual change over a long period of time. Just a long period of time and rapid, almost over night change at the very end.

 

[michabo]

DNA copies after 5 -> 6 generations, would be worse than faxing a fax of a fax.

Mutations occur, but not that much!

I think most of the positive "evolution" we have seen in history, is human driven.

Cats and dogs and sheep have changed from several thousand years ago due to human domestication and selection. However this is very, very far from the only (or the best) evidence for evolution. And cars don't evolve in the biological sense, only in the metaphorical sense.

Then again, if we actually did evolve, what reason do I have to even trust my own logic?

If we didn't, what reason do you have to trust your logic?

 

[GoSeminoles!]

It is a fact that "evolution" happpens*... "bio-genisis" is still in dispute. *"evolution" meaning "adaption via mutation".

From all the evidence I have seen, it seems to me that without evolution (adaption), it would be utterly impossible for creatures to survive more that 5 or 6 generations from their initial creation. DNA copies after 5 -> 6 generations, would be worse than faxing a fax of a fax.

I think most of the positive "evolution" we have seen in history, is human driven. Making wheat/cattle/sheep/dogs/cats/horses better for our needs. I have even had someone say to me that cars getting better over time proves evolution. Clearly someone who has never had to do anything creative before. There is a lot of work from a "creator" involved in those steps... not just the rolling of a billion sided dice.

I have heard no case (yet) in recorded history of evolution that wasn't human driven. Even the adaption of bacteria/viruses and bugs seems to be driven by science.

The ape-> human, seems to be extrapolation, and all the "evidence" seems to be more art than good science.

Seriously... what advantage does a human have over an ape? If there were no humans, apes would have no problems, so why did a human come about in the first place?

The Mexican walking fish seems to be the only living transitional, but seriously... maybe god just had a sense of humour.

All that said. I don't think evolution is incompatible with Christianity, but I am yet to prove to myself "bio-genisis"... it seems to go against all my logic. Then again, if we actually did evolve, what reason do I have to even trust my own logic?

You are clearly curious about evolution, so let me suggest something. Rather than come here first and post lots of things out of ignorance, do your curiosity justice by doing some research on evolution first. Read and study about evolution from evolutionists, not creationists (that would be like relying on a Kerry supporter for your information about Bush). There are lots of great books out there, but there are also many good on-line places to start. Here are a few:

Talk.Origins
PBS's "Evolution" companion site
National Center for Science Education

After having given evolution a good studying, then come back here to discuss things you don't understand or disagree with.

On the other hand, if your only goal is to argue against evolution without really knowing anything about it, then you're equipped fine as you are. Of course, you'll be just another one of the scientific illiterati hanging around taking up space, but that's your choice.

 

[william jay schroeder]

ive read the talk origins site and it gives a lot of mass info but thats it. Its good to read though so you can see all their tricky wordings they use like, significant fraction, meaning a lot of very little, but i dont think thats what their hoping you see. they perty much say creation science doesnt have any real scientist. But i wouldnt stear you away read for your self.

 

[tocis]

they perty much say creation science doesnt have any real scientist. But i wouldnt stear you away read for your self.

Most of creation "science" ignores the most basic principles of scientific work. Where creationists actually have said something that could be verified using the scientific method, all their claims have been soundly disproved, and much more than once. Sometimes over a century ago.
And if your "read for yourself" refers to the talk.origins site, I have read their whole index of creationist claims. In many cases I couldn't even believe that anyone would dare to make such a ludicrous claim... until I started observing the (mostly US) creationist circles.
Wasn't there a commandment in christian scripture that says that lying is a sin? I honestly wonder whether all those creationists ever really read the scripture they claim to follow...

 

[Jet Black]

From all the evidence I have seen, it seems to me that without evolution (adaption), it would be utterly impossible for creatures to survive more that 5 or 6 generations from their initial creation. DNA copies after 5 -> 6 generations, would be worse than faxing a fax of a fax.

false. fax copying is a primarily analogue system with no error checking between faxes. The differential reproductive success of thevariations within the population lead to the result that certain members will breed more than other members within the breeding pool as a result of their phenotypical traits giving them a better survival and breeding ability than other members within the population. This will eradicate "poor copies" of each generation, where the definition of "poor" might change as a function of the environment.

I think most of the positive "evolution" we have seen in history, is human driven. Making wheat/cattle/sheep/dogs/cats/horses better for our needs.

Not really. There are many examples of evolution that are occuring all around us that are perhaps the result of human interference with the environment, but not nescessarily human driven. The increase in brain size of raccoons, the change in bird songs and so on are testament to this. There are other examples of evolution too, that occur as a result of the changing environment, and for those gene pools, these evolutionary changes are positive too.

I have even had someone say to me that cars getting better over time proves evolution.

well whoever said that needs telling that they are wrong.

Clearly someone who has never had to do anything creative before. There is a lot of work from a "creator" involved in those steps... not just the rolling of a billion sided dice.

ipse dixit

 

[Alchemist]

There is a lot of work from a "creator" involved in those steps... not just the rolling of a billion sided dice.

Perhaps there is, Juman. As a Christian, I believe strongly in a creator. But from a logical perspective, there is no definite proof of a creator, as it can not be tested: what defines a 'creative process'? It is impossible to define.

As for the chances of evolution; yes, the probability of the exact series of events that have (according to evolution) happened occuring is slim. But that does not mean it never happened. Even if it has a billion sides, a die will always land on one side...

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Moreover, since DNA is actually "digital" - albeit base 4 rather than 2 - it's more like a copy of a copy of a CD - which, with error checking, can in theory be perfect. Unfortunately, the error checking mechanism is imperfect, so mutations do occur.

There are far more living representations of just the water/land transition - mudskippers, climbing perches, eels. And slightly more watery you get things like Loriciid catfish which are 100% aquatic by choice but can breathe atmospheric air and 'hibernate' above the water line during the dry season.

Someone want to post the human transitional skulls again?

 

[kingreaper]

It is a fact that "evolution" happpens*... "bio-genisis" is still in dispute. *"evolution" meaning "adaption via mutation".

You might be better referring to "common descent" or "historical evolution" if thats what you mean (I think thats what you said in one of the other threads was it?)

But I think it's good tht you actually accept the extremely overwhelmingly evidenced bit

From all the evidence I have seen, it seems to me that without evolution (adaption), it would be utterly impossible for creatures to survive more that 5 or 6 generations from their initial creation. DNA copies after 5 -> 6 generations, would be worse than faxing a fax of a fax.

I think by that you mean not "evolution" but Natural Selection (without mutations that wouldn't happen) in particular the stabilising selection aspect

I think most of the positive "evolution" we have seen in history, is human driven. Making wheat/cattle/sheep/dogs/cats/horses better for our needs.

I suppose that is true, in a sense (I address it further down)

I have even had someone say to me that cars getting better over time proves evolution. Clearly someone who has never had to do anything creative before. There is a lot of work from a "creator" involved in those steps... not just the rolling of a billion sided dice.

While those are examples of memetic evolution, I do agree that genetic evollution isn't particularly anologous to those examples

I have heard no case (yet) in recorded history of evolution that wasn't human driven. Even the adaption of bacteria/viruses and bugs seems to be driven by science.

I guess we should split those into several different subsets

Purposeful Artificial Selection= reasonably fast, faster than natural selection in the same animals for the following reasons:

A higher reproductivity effect for the selected benefit

The selected benefit is of notice to humans (things change which we don't care about, and we never know)

A new set of selective pressures, which the animals are nowhere close to optimisation for

And some others too I'm sure


Experimental artificial selection= very fast

all seen above

Huge selectiive pressure, ignoring all other factors



Natural selection in responce to human effects=

Massive changes in selection pressure


Natural selection that affects humans=

things like aids, which are fast-evolving by nature


Natural selection that's nothing to do with humans=

You never hear about this, because no-one really cares, also slower as there are no major selective pressure changes, and thus the specie are close to optimisation



I'll do the rest in a sec

 

[kingreaper]

The ape-> human, seems to be extrapolation, and all the "evidence" seems to be more art than good science.

That is merely the foswsil evidence repackaged for the consumption of the layman, while you may be able to understand the fossil evidence in it's raw form, I doubt you could understand it on the level of a paleontologist without the annotations

You must remember that those drawings are for people who have either no real interest or no real intellect

The raw fossil evidence might be more convincing for you, or the ERV or pseudogene evidence might be more to your liking, or maybe even the argument from evolutionary contingencies, or even the chromosonal comparisons between humans and the other apes I may try and dig up some layman-level stuff on those

ps. I know whta you mean by ape--> human, but technically speaking humans are apes just like we're mammals and animals

Seriously... what advantage does a human have over an ape?

Which one in particular?

Bipedal walking is advantageous when on plainland compared to crouched crawling (Most apes are adapted to forestland, and as such cannot move in the same way as lions or tigers etc.)

Elongated feet are extremely usefulWhen you're bipedal, in terms of balance

While our spines are still rubbish for bipedality they are better at it than other apes

The loss of the opposable big toe allows easier groundbound motion

this only applies to some humans: having only two toes allows a very fast running speed to be much more maintainable

A lower level of hair is very useful in the plainlands of africa, allowing us to easily keep cool

Human hands are extremely dextrous due to no longer having a locomotive purpose, enabling great tool use

Vocal cords allow humans to form larger societies due to ease of information transfer

Learning abilities allow the buildup of technology, rather than continual reinvention

Higher reasoning skills allow invention, and social living

etc.

 

[kingreaper]

If there were no humans, apes would have no problems, so why did a human come about in the first place?

Humans were advantageous over the apes they evolved from, making them reproduce more

The fact that something is in no danger of extinction doesn't mean it is under no selective pressures

The Mexican walking fish seems to be the only living transitional, but seriously... maybe god just had a sense of humour.

What about the platypus and echidna

All that said. I don't think evolution is incompatible with Christianity, but I am yet to prove to myself "bio-genisis"... it seems to go against all my logic. Then again, if we actually did evolve, what reason do I have to even trust my own logic?

Because evolution would select those animals that were able to respond most advantageously, and no reasoning process is as likely to get correct responses as one hich gets correct conclusions

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

[pedantic tangent]

Species
Species
Species
Species
Species

Banish the form "specie" from your biological lexicon forever!

[/pedantic tangent]

 

[Tomk80]

There is another reason why the 'fax' analogy is insufficient. Where in a fax every change in information is a bad thing, in animals a change in information can be either bad, neutral or good, depending on which mutation occurs and which environment the mutation is expressed in. Because a fax-message is so decidedly different on this account, any analogy made on the basis of it is flawed from the start.

 

[HouseApe]

Seriously... what advantage does a human have over an ape? If there were no humans, apes would have no problems, so why did a human come about in the first place?

Apes would have no problems if there were no humans. Nor would 99.9% of all other species. In fact, they would get along much better. Think about this: would a creator God have made almost all life completely independent of human value if all He really cared about was the humans in the first place?

 

[william jay schroeder]

Apes would have no problems if there were no humans. Nor would 99.9% of all other species. In fact, they would get along much better. Think about this: would a creator God have made almost all life completely independent of human value if all He really cared about was the humans in the first place?

God created the heavens and the earth and thats in it for us to enjoy. animals have no use for us because they live by instincts not a thinking process of reasoning worried about right and wrong. evolutionist of course destroy this beauty and make it all just by chance and mutations, the word it self is horible. they should change this word to something like accidental change that creates good things to happen. say a pleasant mishap. or a lucky change.

 

[Tomk80]

God created the heavens and the earth and thats in it for us to enjoy. animals have no use for us because they live by instincts not a thinking process of reasoning worried about right and wrong. evolutionist of course destroy this beauty and make it all just by chance and mutations, the word it self is horible. they should change this word to something like accidental change that creates good things to happen. say a pleasant mishap. or a lucky change.

Quit whining. What is more beautiful then all nature's beauty having come about through such a simple process as mutation and selection. And gives as more of a sense of respect for nature as the knowledge that we are indeed not seperated from it, but part of it.

 

[Event Horizon]

God created the heavens and the earth and thats in it for us to enjoy. animals have no use for us because they live by instincts not a thinking process of reasoning worried about right and wrong.

Some animals are intelligent enough to use tools and even a wider variety of animals have emotions.

evolutionist of course destroy this beauty and make it all just by chance and mutations, the word it self is horible.

That is your arbitrary connotation to the word. It wasn't all by chance either. We figured out what stars are. Does that take the beauty out of them?

they should change this word to something like accidental change that creates good things to happen.

It's not all chance. The vocabulary won't change because of your connotation of a word.

say a pleasant mishap. or a lucky change.

Again, above.

 

[HouseApe]

God created the heavens and the earth and thats in it for us to enjoy. animals have no use for us because they live by instincts not a thinking process of reasoning worried about right and wrong. evolutionist of course destroy this beauty and make it all just by chance and mutations, the word it self is horible. they should change this word to something like accidental change that creates good things to happen. say a pleasant mishap. or a lucky change.

The point was, why did God create almost all of these life forms for which we have no use, if He created all of this for us? Do you enjoy ticks? Find them tasty?

I, henceforth, change the word mutation to pleasant mishap.