NationStates

The Tofu Islands wrote:I firmly believe in evolution -- all the evidence points towards it. Intelligent Design is not a good alternative, because it makes no predictions that I know of.

My opinion on the creation story in Genesis is that it was the belief that the Hebrews had, so when they got around to writing up a holy book, they included it. As far as accuracy goes, it sucks.

Free Soviets wrote:but more importantly, there are a lot of very fat christians, so their religion just might have more religious weight than any other challengers.

Can I sig that?

Well yes, but to be honest, if I was around at that time, I would probably believed in it, as would most of you, because there was no alternative. It was the only way they could come to terms with how the world around them came about, and we shouldn't judge them on that. Particularly as there was no (real) form of science then.

The Tofu Islands wrote:I firmly believe in evolution -- all the evidence points towards it. Intelligent Design is not a good alternative, because it makes no predictions that I know of.

My opinion on the creation story in Genesis is that it was the belief that the Hebrews had, so when they got around to writing up a holy book, they included it. As far as accuracy goes, it sucks.

Free Soviets wrote:but more importantly, there are a lot of very fat christians, so their religion just might have more religious weight than any other challengers.

Can I sig that?

The Church has already openly admitted that Intelligent Design does not take precedence over the theory of evolution. The Church does believe in evolution, but popular belief prevents many people from knowing that.

The Tofu Islands wrote:

Free Soviets wrote:but more importantly, there are a lot of very fat christians, so their religion just might have more religious weight than any other challengers.

Can I sig that?

sure thing

I believe in microevolution (commonly known as natural selection, though this is not the only component of micro evolution) but not macroevolution (the belief that over millions or billions of years one species [such as a fish] evolves into another completely different and reproductively isolated species [such as a frog] through a combination of factors such as natural selection, mutations, etc.). My main reasons for this are my religious beliefs (I am a biblical creationist), my scientific knowledge, and logic.

If anyone wants more information I will be watching this thread and will respond to PM's on the subject.

Nobodishal wrote:I believe in microevolution (commonly known as natural selection, though this is not the only component of micro evolution) but not macroevolution (the belief that over millions or billions of years one species [such as a fish] evolves into another completely different and reproductively isolated species [such as a frog] through a combination of factors such as natural selection, mutations, etc.). My main reasons for this are my religious beliefs (I am a biblical creationist), my scientific knowledge, and logic.

If anyone wants more information I will be watching this thread and will respond to PM's on the subject.

You can't share the information publically? And by the way, macroevolution does too exist.

First off, I am a Christian but that isn't why I don't agree with evolution. I've actually looked into it and found many gaps in this theory and also had many pointed out to me. Two of the main ones are:
1-Transitional Species. From what I have seen there are many missing links in the evolutionary chain that haven't been accounted for. This following is just an example so it probably isn't accurate but the evolutionary chain shows something that looks like an alligator suddenly becoming an ape like creature with no inbetween steps.
2-The explosion of creatures at the beginning. The earliest fossil records show that they went from single cell organisms to a plethora of actual creatures. Now I'm not sure how evolution tries to explain that, but I thought evolution was supposed to be a slow process, not suddenly having many many new organisms appear all at once.

I don't have time to mention anymore since i'm heading out, but thought I'd put at least those in for consideration. I understand that evolution happens, but I don't think that it is possible for it to happen on such a wide scale as it apparently had to have done in order to get the diversity of life we have on the planet today. I can understand natural selection and even as Christian I have no problem with that, but those changes are MINOR to what needed to happen so that we changed from single cell organisms to humanoid beings.

Nobodishal wrote:I believe in microevolution (commonly known as natural selection, though this is not the only component of micro evolution) but not macroevolution (the belief that over millions or billions of years one species [such as a fish] evolves into another completely different and reproductively isolated species [such as a frog] through a combination of factors such as natural selection, mutations, etc.). My main reasons for this are my religious beliefs (I am a biblical creationist), my scientific knowledge, and logic.

If anyone wants more information I will be watching this thread and will respond to PM's on the subject.

What scientific knowledge and logic? If you had any scientific knowledge you would know that there is ample evidence that macroevolution has taken place. How anyone could say in the same sentence that they are a biblical creationist and that they use logic is hilarious.

Mt Id wrote:First off, I am a Christian but that isn't why I don't agree with evolution. I've actually looked into it and found many gaps in this theory and also had many pointed out to me. Two of the main ones are:
1-Transitional Species. From what I have seen there are many missing links in the evolutionary chain that haven't been accounted for. This following is just an example so it probably isn't accurate but the evolutionary chain shows something that looks like an alligator suddenly becoming an ape like creature with no inbetween steps.
2-The explosion of creatures at the beginning. The earliest fossil records show that they went from single cell organisms to a plethora of actual creatures. Now I'm not sure how evolution tries to explain that, but I thought evolution was supposed to be a slow process, not suddenly having many many new organisms appear all at once.

I don't have time to mention anymore since i'm heading out, but thought I'd put at least those in for consideration. I understand that evolution happens, but I don't think that it is possible for it to happen on such a wide scale as it apparently had to have done in order to get the diversity of life we have on the planet today. I can understand natural selection and even as Christian I have no problem with that, but those changes are MINOR to what needed to happen so that we changed from single cell organisms to humanoid beings.

1) There are hundreds of transitional species identified by both their descendants and antecedents.
2) The "explosion" took millions of years, point of fact it took longer than humans have existed.

Nobodishal wrote:I believe in microevolution (commonly known as natural selection, though this is not the only component of micro evolution) but not macroevolution (the belief that over millions or billions of years one species [such as a fish] evolves into another completely different and reproductively isolated species [such as a frog] through a combination of factors such as natural selection, mutations, etc.). My main reasons for this are my religious beliefs (I am a biblical creationist), my scientific knowledge, and logic.

If anyone wants more information I will be watching this thread and will respond to PM's on the subject.

The distinction between micro and macro evolution was invented by creationist who cannot deny the evidence for evolution. There is no difference in the mechanics of these two. If you believe a species can change a little, then it can change a lot more over a longer time period. And there is a difference between natural selection and evolution;natural selection is a mechanism of evolution, but it does not allow species to change by itself. You shouldn't let religion interfere with whether or not you think a scientific concept is real-that should come down purely to evidence, and on some occasions, logic.

Hetairos wrote:Well yes, but to be honest, if I was around at that time, I would probably believed in it, as would most of you, because there was no alternative. It was the only way they could come to terms with how the world around them came about, and we shouldn't judge them on that. Particularly as there was no (real) form of science then.

I know, however it shouldn't be taken as correct now that we know better.

---

Veilyonia wrote:The Church has already openly admitted that Intelligent Design does not take precedence over the theory of evolution. The Church does believe in evolution, but popular belief prevents many people from knowing that.

I don't like the way you treat "the Church" as one unified entity -- there are hundreds of different churches, with varying views. Also, I didn't say that the church believed in ID anyway, I just said that I didn't.

---

Free Soviets wrote:sure thing

Thanks.

---

Nobodishal wrote:I believe in microevolution (commonly known as natural selection, though this is not the only component of micro evolution) but not macroevolution (the belief that over millions or billions of years one species [such as a fish] evolves into another completely different and reproductively isolated species [such as a frog] through a combination of factors such as natural selection, mutations, etc.). My main reasons for this are my religious beliefs (I am a biblical creationist), my scientific knowledge, and logic.

If anyone wants more information I will be watching this thread and will respond to PM's on the subject.

You can't have one without the other. Macro-evolution is merely accumulated micro-evolution. As a population slowly changes it will eventually have diverged enough to be counted as a different species. I'd like to know the scientific knowledge and logic reasons for you believing this.

---

Mt Id wrote:First off, I am a Christian but that isn't why I don't agree with evolution. I've actually looked into it and found many gaps in this theory and also had many pointed out to me. Two of the main ones are:
1-Transitional Species. From what I have seen there are many missing links in the evolutionary chain that haven't been accounted for. This following is just an example so it probably isn't accurate but the evolutionary chain shows something that looks like an alligator suddenly becoming an ape like creature with no inbetween steps.

Of course there are "missing links". We have fossils, and the fossil record is far from complete. However, it is a very useful resource when studying the progression of life.

Mt Id wrote:2-The explosion of creatures at the beginning. The earliest fossil records show that they went from single cell organisms to a plethora of actual creatures. Now I'm not sure how evolution tries to explain that, but I thought evolution was supposed to be a slow process, not suddenly having many many new organisms appear all at once.

The speed at which evolution occurs is dependent on the speed at which species mutate and reproduce. For short-lived species (lasting, for example, a day or so) mutations can very quickly cause changes. For species with longer generations, however, it will be a much slower process. Also, the speed at which new organisms appear will vary a lot. If there aren't many unused habitats then there will be fierce competition, and less chance of adaptation. For untapped habitats, however, early species will have it much easier.

Mt Id wrote:I don't have time to mention anymore since i'm heading out, but thought I'd put at least those in for consideration. I understand that evolution happens, but I don't think that it is possible for it to happen on such a wide scale as it apparently had to have done in order to get the diversity of life we have on the planet today. I can understand natural selection and even as Christian I have no problem with that, but those changes are MINOR to what needed to happen so that we changed from single cell organisms to humanoid beings.

Any one particular change will be minor. The idea of evolution, however, is that changes accumulate and stay around. As for single-celled organisms to humanoid beings: this took around 3.5 billion years at least, it's not like it was overnight. It was the case of a massive number of small changes, each of which was no great leap.

Nobodishal wrote:I believe in microevolution (commonly known as natural selection, though this is not the only component of micro evolution) but not macroevolution (the belief that over millions or billions of years one species [such as a fish] evolves into another completely different and reproductively isolated species [such as a frog] through a combination of factors such as natural selection, mutations, etc.). My main reasons for this are my religious beliefs (I am a biblical creationist), my scientific knowledge, and logic.

what factors could stop 'macroevolution'?

Mt Id wrote:First off, I am a Christian but that isn't why I don't agree with evolution. I've actually looked into it and found many gaps in this theory and also had many pointed out to me. Two of the main ones are:
1-Transitional Species. From what I have seen there are many missing links in the evolutionary chain that haven't been accounted for. This following is just an example so it probably isn't accurate but the evolutionary chain shows something that looks like an alligator suddenly becoming an ape like creature with no inbetween steps.
2-The explosion of creatures at the beginning. The earliest fossil records show that they went from single cell organisms to a plethora of actual creatures. Now I'm not sure how evolution tries to explain that, but I thought evolution was supposed to be a slow process, not suddenly having many many new organisms appear all at once.

I don't have time to mention anymore since i'm heading out, but thought I'd put at least those in for consideration. I understand that evolution happens, but I don't think that it is possible for it to happen on such a wide scale as it apparently had to have done in order to get the diversity of life we have on the planet today. I can understand natural selection and even as Christian I have no problem with that, but those changes are MINOR to what needed to happen so that we changed from single cell organisms to humanoid beings.

I can only echo what Khadgar says. Also, just because we haven't found some species, it doesn't mean they never existed- They could have biodegraded or just been so few that we can't see them. Research 'Cambrian Explosion.'

Please can anyone who voted 'NO, for a reason not mentioned here' tell us what reason it was.

Mt Id wrote:1-Transitional Species. From what I have seen there are many missing links in the evolutionary chain that haven't been accounted for. This following is just an example so it probably isn't accurate but the evolutionary chain shows something that looks like an alligator suddenly becoming an ape like creature with no inbetween steps.

Then I'd have to say you're either not looking very hard or not looking in the right places. "Missing links" turn up all the time: this one was in the news just last week.

Mt Id wrote:2-The explosion of creatures at the beginning. The earliest fossil records show that they went from single cell organisms to a plethora of actual creatures. Now I'm not sure how evolution tries to explain that, but I thought evolution was supposed to be a slow process, not suddenly having many many new organisms appear all at once.

Khadgar hit the nail on the head with this one, but lemme emphasize it: the periods of time are huge -- millions and millions of years. Further, the notion that evolution is slow is only a general statement: some (and possibly all) organisms have "tricks" by which they can make relatively big changes in their genes in a short period of time. For example, exon shuffling.

First off, it seems that some people seem to think that speciation (sp? not in my spellchecker) is the same thing as macroevolution, or equates with macroevolution. In all actuality speciation is a process that occurs through microevolution. Due to the rather loose definition of "species", two different species can sometimes breed with each other and produce fertile offspring.

Second, it is impossible for natural selection, sexual selection, or breeding to produce new genetic information (in other words, they only serve to give a population the best set of genes already there to survive in its circumstances).

Third, mutations only act on genetic information already in the genome, so they cannot create a totally new organ (or other bodily function).

I hope that this addresses all the questions of all my equally biased (with me) colleges across the origins isle.

Nobodishal wrote:First off, it seems that some people seem to think that speciation (sp? not in my spellchecker) is the same thing as macroevolution, or equates with macroevolution. In all actuality speciation is a process that occurs through microevolution. Due to the rather loose definition of "species", two different species can sometimes breed with each other and produce fertile offspring.

Second, it is impossible for natural selection, sexual selection, or breeding to produce new genetic information (in other words, they only serve to give a population the best set of genes already there to survive in its circumstances).

Third, mutations only act on genetic information already in the genome, so they cannot create a totally new organ (or other bodily function).

I hope that this addresses all the questions of all my equally biased (with me) colleges across the origins isle.

Twaddle

I didnt read any of what anybody else said so Im just going to flat out say I dont believe in evolution. I believe creationism.

Nobodishal wrote:First off, it seems that some people seem to think that speciation (sp? not in my spellchecker) is the same thing as macroevolution, or equates with macroevolution. In all actuality speciation is a process that occurs through microevolution. Due to the rather loose definition of "species", two different species can sometimes breed with each other and produce fertile offspring.

Actually, it is the same as macro-evolution (and micro-evolution -- there isn't a distinction).

Nobodishal wrote:Second, it is impossible for natural selection, sexual selection, or breeding to produce new genetic information (in other words, they only serve to give a population the best set of genes already there to survive in its circumstances).

Natural/sexual/whatever selection doesn't produce genetic information (and I don't think anyone claimed it did), it determines what genetic information survives. Mutations are what produce and modify genetic material.

Nobodishal wrote:Third, mutations only act on genetic information already in the genome, so they cannot create a totally new organ (or other bodily function).

Mutations act on information in the genome, and garble it. This can lead to new information (if a segment is repeated, for example). As for the "totally new organ": this can happen gradually. First you get a very basic form that provides some minor benefits (or takes hold because the animal had other mutations that made it successful), then it changes over time until it provides major benefits.

I recommend going to talk.origins -- it has some good explanations of most of these things.

---

Chetssaland wrote:I didnt read any of what anybody else said so Im just going to flat out say I dont believe in evolution. I believe creationism.

And I'll say flat out that all evidence doesn't support you.

Out of curiosity, why? What led you to the conclusion of creationism over evolution?

Nobodishal wrote:First off, it seems that some people seem to think that speciation (sp? not in my spellchecker) is the same thing as macroevolution, or equates with macroevolution. In all actuality speciation is a process that occurs through microevolution. Due to the rather loose definition of "species", two different species can sometimes breed with each other and produce fertile offspring.

Correct. The liklihood of them able to produce (fertile) offspring is directly related to how evolutionarily close they are.

Second, it is impossible for natural selection, sexual selection, or breeding to produce new genetic information (in other words, they only serve to give a population the best set of genes already there to survive in its circumstances).

Sort of correct: it's true in the sense that selection just chooses what's there, but except under carefully controlled lab conditions, mutation happens at the same time.

Third, mutations only act on genetic information already in the genome, so they cannot create a totally new organ (or other bodily function).

No. Not at all. You, and every other living thing, occasionally create new genetic information -- sometimes little pieces of DNA, sometimes whole genes, somes entire chromosomes -- by mistakes in the process of copying DNA. This is normal. You can watch it happen in the lab, or find the results of it by looking for it in living things in the wild.

Going through a Catholic school I was taught about both Evolution, and "Creation." I personally believe in evolution, and the Big Bang Theory, but I believe that God interveined.

Chetssaland wrote:I believe creationism.

Why?

Nobodishal wrote:Third, mutations only act on genetic information already in the genome, so they cannot create a totally new organ (or other bodily function).

what do you mean 'only act on genetic information already in the genome'? this sounds like a garbled version of the 'evolution can't create new information' idea, only even worse since it admits of the existence of the way new genetic 'information' can be created.

Chetssaland wrote:I didnt read any of what anybody else said so Im just going to flat out say I dont believe in evolution. I believe creationism.

Feel free to never come back then.

I know everybody is gonna get all mad and the atheists are gonna attack me but, I'll be laughing when you guys are in hell. Of course I dont just believe in creationism because im told its true in church. Although some things in the evolution theory sound plausable, theres still the missing link(I know they found the thing that they say is the link. Probably another hoax or just not the link.), and for some reason I just have a hard time believing that animals just turned into new ones until poof a human, without God interveining. Plus how did the single celled things get there in the first place? Theres probably a theory for that I suppose.

And the bing bang makes no sense AT ALL

Chetssaland wrote:I'll be laughing when you guys are in hell.

That's mighty Christian of ya.

Hmm... memories.