Go Back   Matt-Hughes.com Official Forums > General Discussions > The Woodshed

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-07-2009, 02:07 AM
shon8121
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Theory of Evolution

When it comes to polls, there are more Theistic-Evolutionists than there are Atheists (who usually accept Evolution) in America.

I am going to ask you all a question, and then I'm going to add some context...

Do you accept Evolution? Why or why not?


Keep in mind that the Scientific Definition for a "Theory" is: An explanation for a collection of facts. What is a fact? A fact is a confirmed observation.
Next, Evolution only means the change a population of Organisms experience over time... it has nothing at all to do with Abiogenesis (which is the Origin of Life) or the Big Bang.

So again I ask. Do you accept Evolution? Why or why not?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-07-2009, 02:47 AM
VCURamFan's Avatar
VCURamFan VCURamFan is offline
MMA, VCU, & Doctor Who
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Basketball Capital of the World
Posts: 14,324
Send a message via AIM to VCURamFan
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shon8121 View Post
When it comes to polls, there are more Theistic-Evolutionists than there are Atheists (who usually accept Evolution) in America.

I am going to ask you all a question, and then I'm going to add some context...

Do you accept Evolution? Why or why not?


Keep in mind that the Scientific Definition for a "Theory" is: An explanation for a collection of facts. What is a fact? A fact is a confirmed observation.
Next, Evolution only means the change a population of Organisms experience over time... it has nothing at all to do with Abiogenesis (which is the Origin of Life) or the Big Bang.

So again I ask. Do you accept Evolution? Why or why not?
I think anyone here would openly accept micro-evolution, which is the evolution within a single species (why we're taller than our great-grandparents, why there are multiple types of dogs, etc.). I do not, however, believe that there is evidence for macro-evolution (amoeba - fish - lizard - mammal - man).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-07-2009, 02:53 AM
J.B.'s Avatar
J.B. J.B. is offline
WAR CARDINALS!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Apache Juntion, AZ
Posts: 8,462
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VCURamFan View Post
I think anyone here would openly accept micro-evolution, which is the evolution within a single species (why we're taller than our great-grandparents, why there are multiple types of dogs, etc.). I do not, however, believe that there is evidence for macro-evolution (amoeba - fish - lizard - mammal - man).
Agreed
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-07-2009, 02:54 AM
shon8121
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

VCURamFan - That is a good point you brought up. I am glad you did so I can expand on this idea sooner rather than later.

Micro-Evolution is what most Creationists call "Adaptation". And sure, we can go along with that. It's clearly been observed.

Macro-Evolution has been defined as "species to species" transitions. But there are a great many misconceptions about Macro-Evolution.
Technically, no species gives birth to a new species. Macro, is just many instances of Micro over time.
Has this been observed?
Yes.
I recommend that people google "Ring Species" for observed Speciation in Nature.
Note that it is not the Speciation most desire to see... because that many changes cannot possibly occur in our lifetimes.

However, if you google "20 Year E. Coli Experiment" you'd quickly discover some huge changes Scientists have documented in Bacteria. E. Coli is defined as an oganism that cannot consume Citrate... as it's essentially poisoness. 3 separate and non-related mutations after some 20,000 generations were able to consume Citrate and thrive on it.

The moral of this story? We've not only observed Speciation, but we also have Fossils that show the Species to Species Transition we were unable to witness ourselves.

And soon I feel like I'm going to be discussing the DNA evidence which is truly the smoking gun for Macro-Evolution.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-07-2009, 04:36 AM
mscomc
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shon8121 View Post
VCURamFan - That is a good point you brought up. I am glad you did so I can expand on this idea sooner rather than later.

Micro-Evolution is what most Creationists call "Adaptation". And sure, we can go along with that. It's clearly been observed.

Macro-Evolution has been defined as "species to species" transitions. But there are a great many misconceptions about Macro-Evolution.
Technically, no species gives birth to a new species. Macro, is just many instances of Micro over time.
Has this been observed?
Yes.
I recommend that people google "Ring Species" for observed Speciation in Nature.
Note that it is not the Speciation most desire to see... because that many changes cannot possibly occur in our lifetimes.

However, if you google "20 Year E. Coli Experiment" you'd quickly discover some huge changes Scientists have documented in Bacteria. E. Coli is defined as an oganism that cannot consume Citrate... as it's essentially poisoness. 3 separate and non-related mutations after some 20,000 generations were able to consume Citrate and thrive on it.

The moral of this story? We've not only observed Speciation, but we also have Fossils that show the Species to Species Transition we were unable to witness ourselves.

And soon I feel like I'm going to be discussing the DNA evidence which is truly the smoking gun for Macro-Evolution.
-----Hey friend names malcom. I too was like you, loved talking science (guess i still do). I had a thread on evolution about 8 months back or so. I myself am finishing my phD in biochemistry......what science field are you in?

If you need a hand for evidence for evolution at the level of the gene, Im your man. My speciality is NOT evolutionary biology, but i know a fair bit. But you have to keep in mind that I do beleive god made man.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-07-2009, 04:56 AM
shon8121
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

mscomc - I am actually just extremely interested in Evolution. To tell you the truth, I really should be going to School for this because I'm sure I'd be very well prepared! Haha.

So when you say you believe god created man, do you mean you believe god directed the Evolution of man? Or do you simply mean he created Humans in their present form?

Speaking of "Genes". Have you heard about the (relatively) recent Mitochondrial DNA sequencing of Neanderthal bones? Scientists have concluded that they contributed no genes to the modern Human population. There was speculation that they and our direct ancestors the Cro-Magnons may have have had offspring, but we have no evidence of that as of yet. As it looks right now, they descended from Ardipithicus separately from us. Very intriguing.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-07-2009, 05:10 AM
mscomc
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shon8121 View Post
mscomc - I am actually just extremely interested in Evolution. To tell you the truth, I really should be going to School for this because I'm sure I'd be very well prepared! Haha.

So when you say you believe god created man, do you mean you believe god directed the Evolution of man? Or do you simply mean he created Humans in their present form?
Speaking of "Genes". Have you heard about the (relatively) recent Mitochondrial DNA sequencing of Neanderthal bones? Scientists have concluded that they contributed no genes to the modern Human population. There was speculation that they and our direct ancestors the Cro-Magnons may have have had offspring, but we have no evidence of that as of yet. As it looks right now, they descended from Ardipithicus separately from us. Very intriguing.
Gotta be careful man! if you wanna be a evo-biologist, you should know the human you are now is not the human you are 10 sec ago. Your cells and DNA are constantly mutating and turning over (cellular degredation and regeneration). I beleive that god made a human to start with yes. Do I beleive that human has changed genetically so much that its dna is not completely homologous to mine yes. But I beleive virtually all holy scripture mentions this.

you have to go back and look at many things:

1) true we now know how to study the level of the gene, but we dont know how: nucletiodes, the first genes, or how to read genes first came about. Right now, science has hypothesized that in early earth (like 60 billions years ago) quantum degeneration of an atom somehow fused to form a single cell.....which is already reallly realllllllly rare. Than we dont seem to know how we got to a functioning gene. Which is a pretty big gap.

2) Also have you seen the intricate details of a human cell? have you see how perfect it is? not just to look at, but thermodynamically and chemically, everything is so perfectly in sync. heres a link i posted for a good harvard medical school video of that -----
http://multimedia.mcb.harvard.edu/


3) Speaking of thermodynamics (men can go mad talking about this)....did you know the universe is soooooo thermo perfect, that if gravity at earth surface was even 0.1m/s (+ or -) what it is now....the universe couldnt exist? it wouldnt be stable?

-----There is alot more stuff. In the end, I dont beleive that chance was enough to make this all happen. I beleive there was a holy creator.

One more thing man. Not to change your mind on how you view religion. If you are atheist, that is cool with me man, so dont even sweat .....but i personaly have spent many years educating myself in the natural sciences. And some of my peers always mock me, why do i beleive in god? i cant see him, i cant hear him, or touch him...... I just tell them, i cant see an atom either, but i know its there.



Sorry for the long post. If you want more evolutionary evidence from the persepctive of: enzymes, bio-macromolecules, then i can help. If you are more into comparative anatomy (gorila skull vs human skull) sorry man, i aint that bright.


Take care, malcom
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-08-2009, 04:37 AM
rearnakedchoke
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VCURamFan View Post
I think anyone here would openly accept micro-evolution, which is the evolution within a single species (why we're taller than our great-grandparents, why there are multiple types of dogs, etc.). I do not, however, believe that there is evidence for macro-evolution (amoeba - fish - lizard - mammal - man).
i think this is the best answer ... agree 100%
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-08-2009, 04:39 AM
VCURamFan's Avatar
VCURamFan VCURamFan is offline
MMA, VCU, & Doctor Who
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Basketball Capital of the World
Posts: 14,324
Send a message via AIM to VCURamFan
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rearnakedchoke View Post
i think this is the best answer ... agree 100%
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-13-2009, 07:13 PM
rockdawg21's Avatar
rockdawg21 rockdawg21 is offline
I'm kind of a big deal
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 5,584
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VCURamFan View Post
I think anyone here would openly accept micro-evolution, which is the evolution within a single species (why we're taller than our great-grandparents, why there are multiple types of dogs, etc.). I do not, however, believe that there is evidence for macro-evolution (amoeba - fish - lizard - mammal - man).
Exactly what I agree as well. To tell me I evolved from a fish, whatever...

Mr. Garrison said it perfectly about how stupid that concept is:

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clip...term=evolution

"You're the retarted offspring of 5 monkeys having butt sex with a fish frog, congratulations."
__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.