How do you explain historical examples of evolution, such as breeding dogs? Isn't it possible that the way wolves evolved into chihuahuas is the same way apes evolved into humans? Since the only thing biologically seperating wolves from chihuahuas is their genetic material, and the only thing seperating humans from apes is genetic material, isn't it possible that we are related in the same way?

Before they all jump down your throat I will tell you you are using a lousy example. Wolves did not evolve into chihuahuas, men did alot of selective breeding to get them that way. Dogs and wolves are also not diferent species by some defentions, you can make fertile wolfdogs. Anyways alot of Creationists don't believe in domestication, they believe God made the farm animals the way they are specifivly for us. There is only one farm animal I can think of that can be proven made made beyond a shadow of a doubt, the turkey.

The domestic turkey is a good argument, in only a few hundred years it has been modified to the point where is is very noticably diferent from the wild variety. And in the past 40 or 50 years they have started cooking faster, I don't think better ovens can exsplain this becasue it is a diference of several hours. It shows that it is posible to dramaticly change a organism through artificle selection, and more importanly is not fruit fly or bacteria that people can dismis without a second thought.

Beacuse they still can't figure out where the neanderthals went, they can't figure out how we managed to "evolve" speech.

The very existance of Neanderthals kills literal creationism because they are not human, giant or angel but are inteligent.

I've always speculated that maybe both are right. We were created but then changed.

Well, i personally don't believe in "long term evolution", the idea that all things came from a single cell. But think it would be foolish to argue against adaptation.

Either way the Crationist vs Evolution argument doesn't mean much to me because i wouldn't claim to know how god creates. Creationists want to believe that god waves a magic wand and it is so. But to me its just as likely god created the single cell and sort of guided and molded it the way a chef spins and flips pizza dough.

The bottom line is i don't know, and the outcome of the argument isnt a keystone to my faith.

Well said, Bishop.

quote:Originally posted by theBishop:

, and the outcome of the argument isnt a keystone to my faith.

Nor is it a keystone TO my faith, but for me, it it a keystone of my faith.

When we start thinking that God's Word is metaphorical, where do we stop and how do we judge what is leteral and what is not. (although He does use metaphores, but most should be discernable from the text).

quote:Originally posted by theBishop:

But think it would be foolish to argue against adaptation.

I agree that it is foolish to argue against adaptation, since it is readily seen in nature today. The differences come when the concept of adaption is expanded to such a degree that fish become land animals and reptiles become birds.

How many times have you removed a fish from water and it developed lungs fast enough before it dies?

How many trees does a reptile have to fall out of, assuming it does not harm itself, before it grows wings?

quote:Originally posted by cerebraldisorder:

I agree that it is foolish to argue against adaptation, since it is readily seen in nature today. The differences come when the concept of adaption is expanded to such a degree that fish become land animals and reptiles become birds.

How many times have you removed a fish from water and it developed lungs fast enough before it dies?

How many trees does a reptile have to fall out of, assuming it does not harm itself, before it grows wings?



Is your understanding of evolution honestly so poor that you could actually believethat these are valid arguments?

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

Is your understanding of evolution honestly so poor that you could actually believethat these are valid arguments?

I apologize for my lack of understanding of evolution, for I was under the impression that it espouses that one species or type of animal randomly developed new traits and abilities in response to its environment. Feel free to enlighten me with a description of the mechanism for evolution.

Simplified explanation of the mechanism of the theory of evolution:

Organisms reproduce (either sexually or asexually) and pass on their traits to their offspring. Random mutations to the new organism's DNA occur(babies with extra arms, etc...). Those organisms with traits (including the mutations) that are beneficial live longer than their peers and have a better chance of reproducing and passing their traits (and thus the beneficial mutation) on to their offspring. After long periods of time, this leads to oganisms that are better suited to their environment.

Overall, it seems like a pretty sound concept to me. For the time being I accept this explanation rather than:

"God said so."

quote:Originally posted by techemer:

Simplified explanation of the mechanism of the theory of evolution:

Organisms reproduce (either sexually or asexually) and pass on their traits to their offspring. Random mutations to the new organism's DNA occur(babies with extra arms, etc...). Those organisms with traits (including the mutations) that are beneficial live longer than their peers and have a better chance of reproducing and passing their traits (and thus the beneficial mutation) on to their offspring. After long periods of time, this leads to oganisms that are better suited to their environment.

What is the probability of random mutations being useful? Are not most (i.e. 99%+) mutations either benign (not useful) or damaging to the organism involved?

quote:Originally posted by cerebraldisorder:

I apologize for my lack of understanding of evolution, for I was under the impression that it espouses that one species or type of animal randomly developed new traits and abilities in response to its environment. Feel free to enlighten me with a description of the mechanism for evolution.

I think he was criticizing your understanding of the evolutionary timetable. Of course a fish won't develope lungs fast enough to save itself, but after a million years, such a change would be possible.

-mike

quote:Originally posted by cerebraldisorder:

What is the probability of random mutations being useful? Are not most (i.e. 99%+) mutations either benign (not useful) or damaging to the organism involved?

If a mutation were to be harmful to an organism, it would lessen the chances of the organism's survival. Thus , seriously harmful traits are generally not passed on to future generations. A benign mutation would be irrelevant, as it would neither aid nor hinder an organism's chances of survival. Any useful mutation would

increase an organism's chances of surviving, thus improving the odds of passing on useful mutations to the next generation.

And yes, my previous post was referring to the evolutionary timetable.

quote:Originally posted by cerebraldisorder:

What is the probability of random mutations being useful? Are not most (i.e. 99%+) mutations either benign (not useful) or damaging to the organism involved?

The probability itself is actually quite small.

Random mutations take place either through environmental factors (ionizing radiation, free radical chemical substances, etc.) or through the once-in-100-million mistake which might occur during DNA replication.

Such a mutation usually results in a cell which dies upon division. If not, it might start to divide into a cluster of identical cells -- a tumor. Depending on the nature of the new type of cell, the tumor could be benign (slow-growing, generally harmless) or it could start to transport itself about the body and begin growing elsewhere (malignant).

Since we're talking about perhaps one letter in the genetic code of X billion or trillion letters, the change caused by a single mutation is likely to be subtle and generally unnoticed (e.g. maybe a mutation in humans might cause the lungs to grow an extra 1% of alveolar sacs, increasing oxygen intake capacity very slightly).

So, at best, these variations build up very slowly. The difference between one generation and the next of a particular organism is vanishingly small.

However, if you grant that the earth has been around for maybe 4.5 or 5 billion years, this is more than enough time for these small changes to add up to big things.

quote:Originally posted by Shiantar:

The probability itself is actually quite small.

Random mutations take place either through environmental factors (ionizing radiation, free radical chemical substances, etc.) or through the once-in-100-million mistake which might occur during DNA replication.

Such a mutation usually results in a cell which dies upon division. If not, it might start to divide into a cluster of identical cells -- a tumor. Depending on the nature of the new type of cell, the tumor could be benign (slow-growing, generally harmless) or it could start to transport itself about the body and begin growing elsewhere (malignant).

Since we're talking about perhaps one letter in the genetic code of X billion or trillion letters, the change caused by a single mutation is likely to be subtle and generally unnoticed (e.g. maybe a mutation in humans might cause the lungs to grow an extra 1% of alveolar sacs, increasing oxygen intake capacity very slightly).

So, at best, these variations build up very slowly. The difference between one generation and the next of a particular organism is vanishingly small.

However, if you grant that the earth has been around for maybe 4.5 or 5 billion years, this is more than enough time for these small changes to add up to big things.

Exactly.

quote:Originally posted by HARDMAN:

How do you explain historical examples of evolution, such as breeding dogs? Isn't it possible that the way wolves evolved into chihuahuas is the same way apes evolved into humans? Since the only thing biologically seperating wolves from chihuahuas is their genetic material, and the only thing seperating humans from apes is genetic material, isn't it possible that we are related in the same way?

They say: 'That's not macroevolution! It's just a simple example of microevolution! No new structures were born. --> Evolution sux'

Creationists don't often oppose breeding, but birth of new structures through mutations. You can argue about it with them for hours(It gets quite boring in hour or two)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution



[This message has been edited by jurainus (edited 01-21-2005).]