Intermediate fossils

[pyro214]

Another creationist strawman. What we have are transitionals between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and early forms of reptile, between these and early mammals, and several forms of early primate. No one claims aquatic life emerged onto land as anything recognizable as an ape.

not sure why, but throughout this thread i assumped people didnt think evolution actually came from non-living matter. I have a question on the this general sub-topic:

some think living comes from non-living...and then,
-how is the eye made? a light sensitive peice of a body would first take place... evolution progresses through beneficial mutaions that allows that species to outlive others of its previous type. In order for this light sensitive "skin" to be effected, nerves would have to simutaniously be connected from the light sensitive patch, to the brain. Ontop of all this, the brain would have to be "mutated" so that it understands the messages recieved from the nerves....

-keep in mind that this would of taken place near the beggining of evolution...we can see this is true considering alot of animal eyes today look very similar, does this mean a fully formed eye was "evolved" from a light sensitive patch before a division in mutations of some animals took place? if not, how come so many eyes look almost exactly the same.

just a thought on the sub-topic itself...does it make sense to you aswell?

So tell me, have you actually been doing any research from sources that don't have a religious orthodoxy to uphold?

6 college courses, 5 labs, working up to 20 hours a week (taking engineering so you can only imagine the amount of homework ontop of this)...this forum is where most my time goes. I do have a 4 month summer will i will be starting to actually research the origin of life, evolution, and Noahs flood. Like i said earlier, i dont plan to prove anything until i have done this research...but i will continue to ask questions when i have one.

 

[Edx]

off topic but funny,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCvY77jKutg&mode=related&search=

southpark -
(contains some language)

You do know they are ridiculing Creationists there dont you?

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

off topic but funny,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCvY77jKutg&mode=related&search=

southpark -
(contains some language)

Unfortuantely, it is not off topic, it is only a slight parody of the strawman arguments that are used by too many.

Look at it agian, and you may recognize some arguments that you have heard against evolution.

That said, I agree that it is not the way to discuss any subject.

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

I think you guys aren't giving pyro his due. He showed admirable ability to doubt his prior beliefs at the start of the thread - quite unlike your stereotypical YEC. Whether or not it is right and proper to lambast them for such behaviour is questionable, but it seems to me that it is valid to question such things as he did, given his other beliefs. If he didn't know that the chimp skull was there for comparison, or that the second two were the same species, it's natural to ask such questions.

Agreed, back off, we have all, or for the most part been jaded by those who are not here to learn, but only seeking attention, they have have turned many of us into frustrated parents who snap before recognizing a real question.

Ignore the attention seekers who only want a reaction and deal well with those who are seeking knowledge even if they don't know how to ask the question.

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

not sure why, but throughout this thread i assumped people didnt think evolution actually came from non-living matter. I have a question on the this general sub-topic:

Evolution as it relates to biology does not relate to non living matter, though the word may be used for other things. you are correct if I understand your meaning.

ome think living comes from non-living...and then,

living from non-living is a separate study called abiogenisis, it is not part of evolution. How the first "living" organism came to exist is unknown.

-how is the eye made? a light sensitive peice of a body would first take place... evolution progresses through beneficial mutaions that allows that species to outlive others of its previous type. In order for this light sensitive "skin" to be effected, nerves would have to simutaniously be connected from the light sensitive patch, to the brain. Ontop of all this, the brain would have to be "mutated" so that it understands the messages recieved from the nerves....

remember that when, according to the ToE, the first light sensetive spot occured, it was not in competition with an eye as we know it, but with blind creatures, having a sense of where the sun was, (up) could be useful relatively even if it was only in the sense of plants bending toward the sun (which is a very different mechanism).

-keep in mind that this would of taken place near the beggining of evolution...we can see this is true considering alot of animal eyes today look very similar, does this mean a fully formed eye was "evolved" from a light sensitive patch before a division in mutations of some animals took place? if not, how come so many eyes look almost exactly the same.

Best understanding is that "eyes" evolved multiple times. Not terribly surprising considering how useful they are.

just a thought on the sub-topic itself...does it make sense to you aswell?

Thank you for your persistance in learning, please understand that many of us are frustrated just as you have been frustrated in communicating with us.

Cheese

6 college courses, 5 labs, working up to 20 hours a week (taking engineering so you can only imagine the amount of homework ontop of this)...this forum is where most my time goes. I do have a 4 month summer will i will be starting to actually research the origin of life, evolution, and Noahs flood. Like i said earlier, i dont plan to prove anything until i have done this research...but i will continue to ask questions when i have one.

 

[pyro214]

thanks I_Love_Cheese,
i guess its possible....but the chances of a light sensitve organ, nerves connecting to the brain, and the brain being able to interpet it seem so slim its hard to comprehend/ beleive.
Originally i thought all these mutations would have to take place at once, but i guess ( as long as that creature continued to pass on its genes)...consecutive mutations could of taken place to fully complete the eye "cycle" (eye, nerves, brain interpetation).

i keep coming to a wall where it seems possible but for it to be called a fact just doesnt seem right to me.

You do know they are ridiculing Creationists there dont you?

or just anti-evolutionists in gernal.
do creationists and evolutionits really oppose eachother?
they can co-exist...to prove one right does not mean the other is wrong.

 

[flatworm]

not sure why, but throughout this thread i assumped people didnt think evolution actually came from non-living matter. I have a question on the this general sub-topic:

The origin of the very first form of life from non-living matter is a separate field of research called abiogenesis.

some think living comes from non-living...and then,
-how is the eye made? a light sensitive peice of a body would first take place... evolution progresses through beneficial mutaions that allows that species to outlive others of its previous type. In order for this light sensitive "skin" to be effected, nerves would have to simutaniously be connected from the light sensitive patch, to the brain. Ontop of all this, the brain would have to be "mutated" so that it understands the messages recieved from the nerves....

Sensitivity to light does not require a brain, nor even more than one cell. Google "microbe phototaxis".

-keep in mind that this would of taken place near the beggining of evolution...we can see this is true considering alot of animal eyes today look very similar, does this mean a fully formed eye was "evolved" from a light sensitive patch before a division in mutations of some animals took place?

1) Many forms of life, from plants to fungi and many invertebrates, have no eyes.

2) There are several different basic forms of eye to be found in the animal kingdom, from light-sensitive spots to "pinhole camera" eyes, compound eyes, mammal-like eyes, mollusc-like eyes- and various degrees of sophistication for each one. There is thus no need for a modern eye to appear before species start diversifying.

6 college courses, 5 labs, working up to 20 hours a week (taking engineering so you can only imagine the amount of homework ontop of this)

I can do more than imagine- I've been there.

...this forum is where most my time goes. I do have a 4 month summer will i will be starting to actually research the origin of life, evolution, and Noahs flood. Like i said earlier, i dont plan to prove anything until i have done this research...but i will continue to ask questions when i have one.

All right. I just hope you'll be willing to accept all the evidence even-handedly.

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

do creationists and evolutionits really oppose eachother?

they can co-exist...to prove one right does not mean the other is wrong.

depends rather on definiton, would you care to give us yours?

This is a serious question.

 

[pyro214]

depends rather on definiton, would you care to give us yours?

This is a serious question.

members of these forums explained this to me earlier this week.
God never gave a recipe for how he created humans, nor the timeline of evolution disagrees with the Bible.

not sure if this answers your quesiton, are u looking for a defination of...?

Sensitivity to light does not require a brain, nor even more than one cell. Google "microbe phototaxis".

crazy, didnt know that...thanks.

1) Many forms of life, from plants to fungi and many invertebrates, have no eyes.

2) There are several different basic forms of eye to be found in the animal kingdom, from light-sensitive spots to "pinhole camera" eyes, compound eyes, mammal-like eyes, mollusc-like eyes- and various degrees of sophistication for each one. There is thus no need for a modern eye to appear before species start diversifying.

yea i thought that to, tried to be carful about wording my sentence by saying "alot" of eyes....although even then there are so many differnt kinds.
Somewhat shows that a human type eye was formed before apes even?
(doesnt really prove anything but just good to know)

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

I do have a 4 month summer will i will be starting to actually research the origin of life, evolution, and Noahs flood.

Curious as to exactly where and how and what the three have to do with each other in a scientific sense. That they are related in some interpretations of the bible, everyone on this forum understands, but how do you see the relation?

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

members of these forums explained this to me earlier this week.
God never gave a recipe for how he created humans, nor the timeline of evolution disagrees with the Bible.

not sure if this answers your quesiton, are u looking for a defination of...?



crazy, didnt know that...thanks.

I was looking more for your current understanding.

I understand that it may be a bit amorphous.

 

[pyro214]

Curious as to exactly where and how and what the three have to do with each other in a scientific sense. That they are related in some interpretations of the bible, everyone on this forum understands, but how do you see the relation?

three, most common?, topics that are used to try prove the Bible wrong.
(which is why Noah's flood is involved)

other then that, the creation/ origin of life just intrests me in general.

I was looking more for your current understanding.

I understand that it may be a bit amorphous.

currend understanding of evolution?
or how it can co-exist with the Bible?

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

thanks I_Love_Cheese,
i guess its possible....but the chances of a light sensitve organ, nerves connecting to the brain, and the brain being able to interpet it seem so slim its hard to comprehend/ beleive.
Originally i thought all these mutations would have to take place at once, but i guess ( as long as that creature continued to pass on its genes)...consecutive mutations could of taken place to fully complete the eye "cycle" (eye, nerves, brain interpetation).

i keep coming to a wall where it seems possible but for it to be called a fact just doesnt seem right to me.



or just anti-evolutionists in gernal.
do creationists and evolutionits really oppose eachother?
they can co-exist...to prove one right does not mean the other is wrong.

i keep coming to a wall where it seems possible but for it to be called a fact just doesnt seem right to me.

It is not a fact, that part is theory, but it is the best theory available at present. It will take a better theory to overturn the idea, .

As to creationists and evolutionists opposing each other, it depends on definition. evolution is a theory of how things came to be, creation is an idea of who caused things to be, they are not necessarily mutualy exclusive as they do not actually overlap in most cases.

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

three, most common?, topics that are used to try prove the Bible wrong.
(which is why Noah's flood is involved)

other then that, the creation/ origin of life just intrests me in general.



currend understanding of evolution?
or how it can co-exist with the Bible?

OK, I have switched to threaded mode, so that I can follow a little more closely, slow on this board,

Anyhow, you seem to have the point, I am asking, what your understanding is of the topics, I am not interested in proving the bible wrong, I personally side with those who say it is irellevant to the discussion of evolution.

What I am asking is how do the topics relate to your understanding of the bible>

 

[pyro214]

As to creationists and evolutionists opposing each other, it depends on definition. evolution is a theory of how things came to be, creation is an idea of who caused things to be, they are not necessarily mutualy exclusive as they do not actually overlap in most cases.

the co-existing defintion would then be that the person who caused things to be, did it through evolution.

This, although possible, seems unecessary....yet again, since the Bible does not state otherwise, Christian can except both creationism and evolution without having them overlap.

maybe this is not true? deep study of Genesis chapter 1-2 may prove otherwise (this is the hardest chapter in the Bible to comprehend for me...maybe im making it more of deal then it should be though).

Personally i still think God made humans...they were not evolved from anything. Then again, its just an opinion...may change.

What I am asking is how do the topics relate to your understanding of the bible

does the above give you more of a general idea of what i think about evolution?

i have yet to even look over the Flood/ origin of life....ive only delt with evolution.
I used to play a online game, there was a debate section i always enjoyed taking part in. Due to my religion i always found it even more intresting to stick up for myself when someone said "religion is wrong because.....evolution is right". One statment made was beyond my comprehension so i came here for help, and now i debate here aswell.

as far as explaining how evolution relates to the Bible:
ive explained the possibilities but other then that i dont see any way they interfere/ relate.

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

the co-existing defintion would then be that the person who caused things to be, did it through evolution.

This, although possible, seems unecessary....yet again, since the Bible does not state otherwise, Christian can except both creationism and evolution without having them overlap.

maybe this is not true? deep study of Genesis chapter 1-2 may prove otherwise (this is the hardest chapter in the Bible to comprehend for me...maybe im making it more of deal then it should be though).

Personally i still think God made humans...they were not evolved from anything. Then again, its just an opinion...may change.



does the above give you more of a general idea of what i think about evolution?

i have yet to even look over the Flood/ origin of life....ive only delt with evolution.
I used to play a online game, there was a debate section i always enjoyed taking part in. Due to my religion i always found it even more intresting to stick up for myself when someone said "religion is wrong because.....evolution is right". One statment made was beyond my comprehension so i came here for help, and now i debate here aswell.

as far as explaining how evolution relates to the Bible:
ive explained the possibilities but other then that i dont see any way they interfere/ relate.

I guess my question is; why use the term unnecessary? Of course a god could have done anything, but from a creationist (god created) standpoint, if you accept that, why argue with an apparent mechanism?

Or maybe that is the point, do you feel that you must take a particular literal interpretation of a written work as opposed to the apparent evidence?

 

[pyro214]

I guess my question is; why use the term unnecessary? Of course a god could have done anything, but from a creationist (god created) standpoint, if you accept that, why argue with an apparent mechanism?

Or maybe that is the point, do you feel that you must take a particular literal interpretation of a written work as opposed to the apparent evidence?

i use the term unecessary because i dont get why God wouldnt just make everything like "poof"....considering he can. Why go through the trouble of evolution, which would lead people to think his existance is false, leading more people away from him... not what he wants. Then again i dont know how he thinks so for me to question him is wrong, just a confusion i have....doesnt mean its not possible at all. (theres many things i dont understand why he did it, how people are sent to hell...why there sent there for so long, etc...).

This, however, is not the reason i have yet to accept evolution so easily. I am stubbron about it because of a more in depth purpose. Evolution would take billions of years (3.5 billion apparently), the only part of the Bible which would extend its timeline for more then 6k years is a false interpetation of the begats (which would only extend it by no more then...maybe 100k years?), and the term "day" used in the first Chapter of Genesis.

After each "day" in the Bible, Genesis chapter one. It says "evening passed and morning came". This is not possible considering the sun/ moon were not created until the forth day.

Because of this people argue that a "day" is not actully 24 hours, but possibly millions of years.

I think that when the Moses wrote "a day" he was not refering to the placement of a sun/moon but rather a timeline of 24 hours....in saying this the world could not be billions of years old, concluding that evolution is not possible from my point of view.

now that you know how I view the situation you may be able to understand why i oppose evolution, yet still have the idea of "a day" being more then 24 hours to fall back onto....hesitantly.

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

Sure, a god could have done poof, or anything else he wanted, not a lot I can say except that it seems strange to me that a god as described by christians would do one thing and make it appear another. I think it seems far more likely that such a god would use metaphor to explain things to those who could not otherwise understand.

 

[shernren]

Why go through the trouble of evolution, which would lead people to think his existance is false, leading more people away from him... not what he wants.

Perhaps it's people's fault that evolution drives them away from God, not God's?

 

[USincognito]

After each "day" in the Bible, Genesis chapter one. It says "evening passed and morning came". This is not possible considering the sun/ moon were not created until the forth day.

Pyro, I think I mentioned in one of my PMs to you that TEs have all sorts of interpretations of Genesis from completely allegorical to a literal Eden. This "evening and morning, the X day" language, while most literalists say points to it being actual days, to people who look at Genesis as a whole notice the repeated poetic metre in the language discussing the days of the creation week.

Any objections to the Sun/plantes/Moon, etc. are rendered moot if the language is symbolic and poetic. It's actually a more powerful apologetic if the creation days are allegorical.