Okay...I'm about to leave here and I'll probably not be back for a couple of days.

I'll be anxious to find the answer to my question posted here when I have access again.

Nice day to all (no name calling...or mud slingin').

Georgia

I'll state confidently that it's been occuring WAY longer than human history.

Common "ground" here, huh? (Pun intended)

WAT

Shhh, WAT, I'm trying to stick to observable facts... and bad puns, of course. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Well, if I understand you, then yes, male and female are evolving simultaneously.

But obviously offspring tend to resemble their parents. So the "20%" couple are going to tend to have children that are more or less "20%", to put it that way.

Actually, what happens is that the 20% couple has a bunch of children (more properly, the group to which they belong - evolution always occurs on groups, never on individuals). Some of the children are 20%, some are 19%, some are 21%, etc.

If the environment is such that being more than 20% X is an advantage, and that more-than-20% people leave more fertile offspring, then the percentage of X will tend to go up. If it is a disadvantage, then it tends to go down.

I hope you don't have the idea that there is some end result that evolution is working towards. It doesn't happen that way - whatever works gets selected for, and whatever doesn't tends to disappear, and the end result is never decided ahead of time (unless you want to invoke some form of intelligent design).

The end state of "being human" is no better (from the point of view of natural selection) than anything else that enables the production of viable offspring in a given environment.

Is that any clearer?

Regards,
rs0522

JustJ:

If I go 2 one mountaintop and find, say, a Streptelasma (a genus of Rugose coral) jutting out of a rock, I know that the rocks are Orovician in age, or 510-445 Ma. Streptelasma is an "index fossil", meaning it didn't live much earlier or later than a "narrow" range of prehistory, such that the age of the rock I find it in would likely be even more constrained than the age of the Ordovician. If I then go 2 another mountaintop, even one at the same elevation but on the other side of the globe (or nearby, but that doesn't necessarily make my point as well) and find, say, a Trigonia shell (a bivalve), I know that the rocks are Cretaceous in age (146-65Ma), though the particular shell might indicate a narrower range of time as well. I also know that the rocks at 2th mountaintops were once under water, but that they were underwater at very different time periods, so they don't suggest a "global flood".

Mt Everest's summit is composed of limestones formed under water before India slammed in2 Asia and started crumpling the continents upward 2 form mountains. I don't know off hand what the age of these rocks is, but they would at least predate the collision of the 2 continents about 50 million years ago.

There is no such evidence that would support a global flood.

-ol' 2long

Now there's an interesting statement, WAT. I suppose you might prefer "seeding" by some space race to account for life on earth?

What EXACTLY does evolution mean to you with respect to Origins? That God created?

If it's that, THAT would surprise me coming from you.

If it's NOT that, then WHERE and HOW did life begin so that you could focus on "just speciation," which by the way is too low a level to restrict yourself to for purposes of evolution.

I don't know enough chemistry to discuss origin of life beyond a layman's level of understanding - amino acids and all that "ooze."

Yep, abiogenesis is not part of evolutionary theory. Didn't you know this? Abiogenesis is an independent hypothesis. In evolutionary theory it is taken as axiomatic that an original self-replicating life form existed in the distant past, regardless of its origin. All scientific theories have their respective, specific explanatory domains; no scientific theory proposes to explain everything. Quantum mechanics does not explain the ultimate origin of particles and energy, even though nothing in that theory could work without particles and energy. Neither Newton's theory of universal gravitation nor the general theory of relativity attempt to explain the origin of matter or gravity, even though both theories would be meaningless without the a priori existence of gravity and matter. Similarly, universal common descent is restricted to the biological patterns found in the Earth's biota; it does not attempt to explain the ultimate origin of life.

So, for discussion of evolution, how first life arose on earth out of the chemistry isn't important. That's an entirely separate topic.

WAT

FH:

I know I've personally told you many times before that evolution and origins are not the same subjects.

-ol' 2long

I "GET IT" WAT.

It's assumed that life arose from non-life "axiomatically."

That is a fancy way of saying, By BELIEF, by FAITH in something unknown and unproven. But of course that "couldn't be," because then it's the equivalent of a, "gasp," religion.

You talk about creationists "taking liberties!"

You want us to believe that LIFE "just happened" and it's "not important" HOW it happened? You want to "limit" evolution to how the genetic code came into being and how it might have accounted for ALL life, and yet how LIFE started is "not important" because evolutionists simply ASSUME it began because they REJECT the alternative of a creator creating life on purpose and by will.

You don't, as an evolutionist, have that "option" WAT. I am NOT talking about a "why" in this case, I am talking about a "how." You MUST answer the how, verifiably and falsifiably. You cannot "reject creation" and then accept by faith that "it simply occurred because we choose to reject creation as the HOW life arose."

I will repeat myself, yet again. NEITHER creation nor evolution can be PROVED. They are taken by their proponents BY FAITH, and that IS a religious faith in either a creator or in nature.

You want your faith to be "accepted" while rejecting the faith in creation to be rejected "out of hand" as believing in the "supernatural" and "therefore" not science. I submit that your faith is "axiomatic supernatural" in that science has so far PROVED that Life DOES NOT arise from non-living things. Life requires life. Yet you want us to "take on faith" that life arose from non-life.

Talk about "cakewalking!"

FH - you obviously don't understand what I wrote above. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. But I don't know how more clear it could be.

Maybe after we finish up with speciation, we can tackle abiogenesis next. Then the Big Bang after that. But I don't have the requisite background knowledge in either chemistry nor quantum mechanics to be much of a participant. Evolution is WAY easier because there is soooooo much evidence and it's soooooo straightforward. Simple and elegant.

Why don't you just pretend that simple self replicating life arose somehow a long, long time ago and we'll go from there?

So what did you think of my offering on mutations?

WAT

Well, I was contemplating writing up a response of some thoughts for you, but it may simply be easier to take your example for how to deal with complex and difficult issues....simply ignore them and appeal to "Why don't you just pretend that self replicating life arose somehow a long, long time ago by the active will and design of a creator and we'll go from there?"

I think I understood what you were saying quite well, thank you.

Seems to me that you continue to argue for FAITH in the unknown without any proof while trying to argue that it's not "faith."

So what, exactly would be the purpose in spending time examining scientific data when you ultimately want the answer to be to
" just pretend? "

"Pretending" just seems SO scientific, don't you think?

FH - you're not promoting discussion very well.

My suggestion to separate origin from evolution was simply for ease of discussion - it has nothing to do with any avoidance on my part to NOT discuss origins and nothing to do with the fact that evolution is not a faith. Origins and evolution are two completely separate topics and it doesn't make sense to mangle the discussion by trying to dicuss both simultaneously. What's so hard about that to accept?

And drop the "evolution is your faith" crap. It's not any more than gravity is as I and others have explained already. Besides, who gave you the authority to decide what my faith was anyway?

WAT

FH,

""And drop the "evolution is your faith"" (notice I left out the nasty)

I must agree with WAT. You keep using the Biblical/Christian definition of Faith in your discussions and it doesn't work.

In Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, chapters 12 and 13, Paul indicated that "faith," "hope," and "love" are a related set of spiritual gifts granted by the Holy Spirit to each and every Christian.

You seem to be telling WAT that the Holy Spirit has granted him this spiritual gift.

TO WAT!!!?? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" />

ForeverHers -

Back at the beginning of the thread, you seemed to be saying that you have some piece of conclusive evidence that could demonstrate a young Earth beyond the possibility of refutation. Is this still true, or have we concluded that neither creationism nor the scientific theory of evolution could be proven?

Regards,
rs0522

IMHO, creation cannot be proven nor disproven by the scientific method. It's out of bounds for science as it includes the supernatural. Again.

Evolution has already been proven as the most viable natural explanation for speciation. - long before this discussion began. However, unlike creation, it is available to be disproved. Nobel Prize awaits.

FH - if you want to jump to a discussion of origins, fine with me. This requires we first establish an age of the universe and of the earth. I'll offer approx. 15 B years for the age of the universe and about 4.5 B years for the age of the earth as a starting point. I think these ages are well supported in scientific literature. Any suggested differing ages proposed should include an appropriate peer reviewed citation or new, unpublished information - and we'd feel priviliged to see it.

Next.

WAT

This is repeated over and over for the reasons I postulated earlier - an attempt to brand evolution as a faith so that creation can demand equal billing in schools.

WAT

From Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Faith
Main Entry: 1faith
Pronunciation: 'fAth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Old French feid, foi, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
synonym see BELIEF
- in faith : without doubt or question : VERILY


Belief

Main Entry: be·lief
Pronunciation: b&-'lEf
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English beleave, probably alteration of Old English gelEafa, from ge-, associative prefix + lEafa; akin to Old English lyfan
1 : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2 : something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
synonyms BELIEF, FAITH, CREDENCE, CREDIT mean assent to the truth of something offered for acceptance. BELIEF may or may not imply certitude in the believer <my belief that I had caught all the errors>. FAITH almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof <an unshakable faith in God>. CREDENCE suggests intellectual assent without implying anything about grounds for assent <a theory now given credence by scientists>. CREDIT may imply assent on grounds other than direct proof <gave full credit to the statement of a reputable witness>. synonym see in addition OPINION


WAT and Krusht – It would appear that you are both employing a typical “evolutionist” ploy and only “accepting” evidence that supports your evolutionary predilection, in this case how “faith” and “belief” is defined in order either restrict it to religion (faith in God) or FROM evolutionism (faith and belief in something unproven).

Why not simply read ALL of the “evidence” (definitions of what the word “faith” or “belief” means) and not pick just those you “like” and discard those that you don’t like?

While there is no doubt that I have faith and belief in God and in creation, it is equally without doubt that evolutionists also have faith and belief (by definition) in an object or natural process that is unproven. firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust, something that is believed especially with strong conviction.

1 : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2 : something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

BELIEF, FAITH, CREDENCE, CREDIT mean assent to the truth of something offered for acceptance. BELIEF may or may not imply certitude in the believer <my belief that I had caught all the errors>. [b]FAITH almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof[/b] <an unshakable faith in Evolution and Life arising from Non-life> {change of word from God to Evolution to simply change the Object of what the faith is in}

ForeverHers

I really don't understand your insistence on calling evolution a belief, much less a religious belief.


Not really. Evolution assumes life exists. What evolution describes is the process of speciation - or genetic changes that account for the wide variety of life that exists. I've always understood evolution to be bounded by changes that occur in life over time. It doesn't have to speak to the origin of life because it isn't a religion. It's not asking why these things happen -- it's just observing what does happen and making a predictive model of what we might expect to happen next.

That's science.

I've always been confused when evolution is called a religion. It doesn't have anything to do with morality, philosophy, or many of the traditional spheres of influence a religion operates in.


It's not that how life started isn't important! It's that evolution is the wrong branch of science to answer that question. Evolution describes the process for how life changes and, yes, it does assume life exists!


I think that evolution can be observed to have happened. Even you've spoken about 'micro-evolution' that creates observable differences in laboratory conditions. I don't think we'll see much macro evolution because our life spans are too short.


I think (hope) we can all agree that life exists. What happens to life or organisims as they struggle to continue to exist is what evolution explains. I don't think it requires faith to believe there is life on this planet.

Mys

Myschae - I appreciate the parsing you are trying to do, but consider this as it may apply to evolution of living things: which may have come first, the chicken or the egg?



Of course we all agree that life exists. But it DOES require faith regarding HOW it got here, by natural random chance processes or by creation.

Now, with things "not living," evolutionists, those who deny creation, routinely refer to the universe and all that is in it as evolving. If evolutionists use the term, why is it "inappropriate" for me to use it? There is, according to evolutionists, evolution of all things, not just living things. What WAT is arguing for, and Krusht and now you, is that ONLY biological life "evolves." That does require discussion and evaluation, but HOW living things "arose" in the first place is also a part of evolution that must be addressed.

To use a very poor analogy, but one that might suffice, if you were to have a child, it is "not enough" to simply ask how it grows and develops and changes. HOW the child got there in the first place is integral to the discussion unless someone wants to argue that the child simply appeared. LIFE gave rise to that child. It did NOT arise on it's own, therefore the "origin" of that life is an intergral part to any examination of that child.

Another chicken.

FH, that's not an evolution 2uestion at all. And it's not really an origins 2uestion either.


No, it doesn't. If we want 2, we can all agree that life got here, 2. Even that issue can (and is) dealt with scientifically, without the involvement of faith in a deity at all. Doesn't mean that it can't, just that it isn't scientific 2 look at the problem that way.


why must you insist on persisting 2 insist that evolutionist deny creation? What the he11 does that really mean, anyway? Creation is what I observe around me all the time. I certainly don't deny that I, or life on this planet, exist. That would be denying creation. I most certainly deny creationism, which is a very very different thing, with an extremely recent origination date (less than 30 years ago).


Well, I suppose stars and planets evolve 2, in the sense that they go through changes over time. But that isn't the same thing as the evolution of life. But that's not a big issue with me. Intelligence also evolves. Not just that of species, but individuals as well (like we see all the time here).

Now HOW life came about is an important issue, but from the science side it's a subject of "origins", not evolution. It's got 2 have originated in order 2 evolve, of course, but it does so after it's originated, not while. Hence, Origins is one subject and evolution is another. And whether the persuit of either conflicts with a belief in a deity is a whole 'nother way of thought al2gether, and not one I'm particularly concerned about (because I don't see a conflict, just wondrous creation around me).


Like the chicken/egg 2uestion, the answer is the parents.

And if you're going 2 ask what about the parents, the answer is their parents, and so on.

-ol' 2long