What to talk about...

[edrogati]

I must admit that I'm a little bored lately. I accept evolution, so I'm not sure what to discuss. Please, any ideas?

 

[AV1611VET]

I must admit that I'm a little bored lately. I accept evolution, so I'm not sure what to discuss. Please, any ideas?

Ya --- try this on for size.

Note: if you've already seen it --- then nevermind ---

BTW: Which is cheaper, and why? Taking two atheists to the movie once; or one atheist to the movie twice?

 

[consol]

I must admit that I'm a little bored lately. I accept evolution, so I'm not sure what to discuss. Please, any ideas?

If you're bored, why not start your own religion? there is always someone looking for a new religion.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

I must admit that I'm a little bored lately. I accept evolution, so I'm not sure what to discuss. Please, any ideas?

we could have a general discussion of the science. is there anything about the evidence or about the evolutionary history of life or anything that you have questions about. i'm sure someone on this forum will be able to answer or at least direct you to the answer.

 

[Skaloop]

BTW: Which is cheaper, and why? Taking two atheists to the movie once; or one atheist to the movie twice?

Taking two atheists once; you have to pay for three tickets (one for yourself, one for each of the atheists). If you take one atheist twice, you have to pay twice for both yourself and the atheist, which constitutes four tickets. Also, two round trips to the theatre uses up more gas than one round trip.

 

[edrogati]

we could have a general discussion of the science. is there anything about the evidence or about the evolutionary history of life or anything that you have questions about. i'm sure someone on this forum will be able to answer or at least direct you to the answer.

I've always wondered about the "Cambrian Explosion" (I'm not sure if that's even an accepted term). I'd like to know more about the theory of why there was so much speciation in a relatively short period of time. Or have I heard something from a bogus source again?

 

[edrogati]

I've always wondered about the "Cambrian Explosion" (I'm not sure if that's even an accepted term). I'd like to know more about the theory of why there was so much speciation in a relatively short period of time. Or have I heard something from a bogus source again?

Also, how important is geographic isolation as a mechanism?

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

I've always wondered about the "Cambrian Explosion" (I'm not sure if that's even an accepted term). I'd like to know more about the theory of why there was so much speciation in a relatively short period of time. Or have I heard something from a bogus source again?

The cambrian explosion was a time which nearly every animal phyla arose. It is the first appearence of major calcification in animals (hard parts) which more readily fossilizes than tissue (which is usually only left in impressons or amber which didnt exist yet). Even an increase in detection cannot account for the rapid (relative to geologic time) rise in diversity. From my class on the subject i remember a hypothesis that oxygen levels (originating from photosynthetic blue-green algae) were at a point where aerobic life could flourish to a degree that it wasnt previously able.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Also, how important is geographic isolation as a mechanism?

Geographic isolation is huge, it prevents gene flow between subpopulations of a species. With time, the populations accumulate enough differences that they are reproductively incompatable. It is a major source of the variation within our own species. if they remained isolated for some tens of millenia more, speciation would likely have occured.

 

[edrogati]

Ya --- try this on for size.

(Taking my swing at the aforementioned "this")

Here are my Four Biblical Refutations Against Evolution:

1. NOT ENOUGH TIME.

• The Bible portrays this universe as having been in existence for approximately 6100 years. This is much too short a time for evolution to work.

Accepting the above claim as true for the sake of argument, I will also accept for the sake of argument that the Flood account is true. By your own claims that there were only representative species on the Ark which somehow resulted in today's biodiversity, we have the result that *more* evolution is required by the literal view than any other.

2. GOD'S CREATION LEFT NO ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT.

• Six times in Genesis 1, God pronounces his Creation "good". Then He steps back and pronounces the whole thing "very good".
• Evolution, on the other hand, demands room for improvement.

It allows for improvement, but as far as I understand it, no improvement is required. It is beneficial, but not mandatory. Also, what defines improvement? Something becoming better. Just because something is good or very good doesn't mean it can't be better.

3. THERE WAS NO DEATH IN GENESIS ONE.

• The Bible portrays death as an enemy of God.
• [bible]1 Corinthians 15:26[/bible]
• Evolution, on the other hand, works by leaving a trail of death behind.

Life works by leaving a trail of death behind. Plant death, animal death, cell death. At the beginning of the world, there was cell death and plant death. You can't have hair or fingernails unless cells die. You can't avoid plant death if you're going to be a vegetarian. You can't be Abel and sacrifice animals to God and not have animal death.

When Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden tree, they immediately suffered spiritual death. Physical death came in hundreds of years. What happened to, "the day you eat of that tree, you will die"? Death was literal and death was immediate, just not the physical death that you're talking about. It was spiritual death, an unavoidable consequence until the physical death of Christ.

4. JESUS TAUGHT CREATION.

• [bible]Mark 10:6[/bible][bible]Mark 13:19[/bible]
• Jesus takes Genesis One literally --- in fact --- He wrote it.

Jesus created the universe. Jesus does not lie. Therefore, his universe does not lie. You say on a daily basis that it does. Please account for this problem.

 

[AV1611VET]

Taking two atheists once; you have to pay for three tickets (one for yourself, one for each of the atheists). If you take one atheist twice, you have to pay twice for both yourself and the atheist, which constitutes four tickets. Also, two round trips to the theatre uses up more gas than one round trip.

 

[juvenissun]

I've always wondered about the "Cambrian Explosion" (I'm not sure if that's even an accepted term). I'd like to know more about the theory of why there was so much speciation in a relatively short period of time. Or have I heard something from a bogus source again?

Cambrian Explosion is one of the obvious problems for the theory of evolution. We have the fact, but we do not know the reason. Environment can change fast. But life form could not react that fast, according to evolution.

Challenge (thought you were bored): If the Cambrian Explosion IS a problem to you, why do you (already) accept evolution?

 

[edrogati]

Cambrian Explosion is one of the obvious problems for the theory of evolution. We have the fact, but we do not know the reason. Environment can change fast. But life form could not react that fast, according to evolution.

Challenge (thought you were bored): If the Cambrian Explosion IS a problem to you, why do you (already) accept evolution?

I hold to Theistic Evolution; the changes occurred and the mechanisms were natural, but the reasons for those changes were supernatural and the mechanisms were supernaturally coordinated.

I'm wondering what Atheistic Evolution postulates. Since you are not someone who believes nature alone is responsible for what we see in the fossil record, I don't know that you could properly give me an answer.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

I'm wondering what Atheistic Evolution postulates. Since you are not someone who believes nature alone is responsible for what we see in the fossil record, I don't know that you could properly give me an answer.

I would rather you use the term naturalistic evolution. I believe in God but do not believe he has a direct hand in evolution, he set the gears in motion in the begining. Possibly a nit-pick, but i do think it is important to maintain the distinction between naturalism and atheism.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Cambrian Explosion is one of the obvious problems for the theory of evolution. We have the fact, but we do not know the reason. Environment can change fast. But life form could not react that fast, according to evolution.

Challenge (thought you were bored): If the Cambrian Explosion IS a problem to you, why do you (already) accept evolution?

If evolution had no gaps in knowledge, scientists would be out of a job. The question that would be relevant to your challenge is if that gap is large enough to threaten the viability of evolution. It isnt. It doesnt overturn the copious genetic, molecular, fossil, and other biological evidence.

 

[edrogati]

I would rather you use the term naturalistic evolution. I believe in God but do not believe he has a direct hand in evolution, he set the gears in motion in the begining. Possibly a nit-pick, but i do think it is important to maintain the distinction between naturalism and atheism.

I'm sorry. I hadn't thought about that. So, in a universe where the gears were set in motion, how do we specifically talk about the Cambrian Explosion?

 

[edrogati]

If evolution had no gaps in knowledge, scientists would be out of a job. The question that would be relevant to your challenge is if that gap is large enough to threaten the viability of evolution. It isnt. It doesnt overturn the copious genetic, molecular, fossil, and other biological evidence.

I'm not doubting that the genetic, molecular, fossil and other biological evidence is genuine. I'm just trying to understand what the general consensus is on the how specific to this particular event. Is there some geological evidence of extraordinary environmental pressure?

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

I'm sorry. I hadn't thought about that. So, in a universe where the gears were set in motion, how do we specifically talk about the Cambrian Explosion?

Nothing special just stick to the naturalism when we discuss the science and leave the supernatural speculation to your own personal interpretation. I have my beliefs about God but when i discuss science i stick to science.
I have previously stated my understanding of the scientific hypothesis for the cause of the cambrian explosion.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

I'm not doubting that the genetic, molecular, fossil and other biological evidence is genuine. I'm just trying to understand what the general consensus is on the how specific to this particular event.

I didnt say you were, i was responding to juvenissun's charge that not knowing the cause of the cambrian explosion should be fatal to one's acceptance of evolutionary theory.

Is there some geological evidence of extraordinary environmental pressure?

The arrival of hard parts and the increase of oxygen would have opened up host of unexploited niches, something that usually leads to evolutionary booms.

 

[edrogati]

Nothing special just stick to the naturalism when we discuss the science and leave the supernatural speculation to your own personal interpretation. I have my beliefs about God but when i discuss science i stick to science.
I have previously stated my understanding of the scientific hypothesis for the cause of the cambrian explosion.

Alright. I will honor your request.