Spirituality
04 Aug 15
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
21 Aug 15
Originally posted by KellyJayNo one who understands evolutionary theory would think that one creature could change into another creature during its' lifetime, no, if that's what you're asking.
You don't think that one
creature would have to over time turn into something else?
21 Aug 15
Originally posted by C HessThat wasn't what I was implying either, over time all of these changes were supposed to
No one who understands evolutionary theory would think that one creature could change into another creature during its' lifetime, no, if that's what you're asking.
take place what was why I was referring to a common a common ancestor that through
one creature we would see other of different kinds/types show up. I do not believe that
all life shares the same common ancestor.
21 Aug 15
Originally posted by sonhouseIf all life was going through these experiments and it is acknowledge that most of the
I think what really happened is life formed in different parts of the planet in different environments, like some starting out from chemical reactions of complex molecules helped along by underwater thermal vents a mile under the ocean while others developed in clay deposits with rain, light from the sun, and lightning providing energy to jump start simpler ...[text shortened]... ping on a typewriter, eventually something that LOOKS to be made from intelligence will show up.
mutations lead to something bad, then I do not see how life would become healthier and
change into more complex living creatures.
As creation has life beginning God created life and it was to reproduce after its kind, with
the beginning of the process that has no God involved it would have to be believed that
life would have started some where. Even if that were true, the beginning of life's numbers
would have been limited, not limitless, therefore these mutations over time would have
had to been good right away not bad, in the middle of a otherwise lifeless world, under
the harsh conditions of an early Earth. The opening of the process has so much going
against it, to suggest it could be done is mind boggling if there was some early days of
earth without God.
21 Aug 15
Originally posted by sonhouse"That is one point creationists don't understand, the sheer number of such experiments going on simultaneously around the world, like a trillion apes typing on a typewriter, eventually something that LOOKS to be made from intelligence will show up."
I think what really happened is life formed in different parts of the planet in different environments, like some starting out from chemical reactions of complex molecules helped along by underwater thermal vents a mile under the ocean while others developed in clay deposits with rain, light from the sun, and lightning providing energy to jump start simpler ...[text shortened]... ping on a typewriter, eventually something that LOOKS to be made from intelligence will show up.
You are pulling numbers out of the air here, you don't know the sheer numbers you
have to assume they were there to make the math work, not that there was something
to actually suggest they were there. I can say God did it, just because we are here
that doesn't make it so.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
22 Aug 15
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayI still can't quite discern what it is you're thinking, but every living thing only produce offspring of its own species. The common descent part comes from the fact that every organism is a modified version of its direct ancestor, and that some of these changes accumulate, both down the lineage of descendants, and through the populations.
That wasn't what I was implying either, over time all of these changes were supposed to
take place what was why I was referring to a common a common ancestor that through
one creature we would see other of different kinds/types show up. I do not believe that
all life shares the same common ancestor.
(The rest of this post focuses on sexual reproduction, as it works a bit differently for asexually reproducing species, or species who can reproduce both asexually and sexually - yes, such species exists.)
What would happen if two groups within a population of a species are separated so that they can't exchange genetic material?
Obviously, they will begin to accumulate changes that are unique to each group. This in itself need not be a problem, unless some of the accumulated changes in one group affects their ability to reproduce with the other. When that happens, even if the two groups meet again (many generations later), they will be unable to exchange genetic material. Where there was once one species, there is now two. Along this process, not one individual of the first species gave rise to one individual of the second. Even though they're still pretty similar, they can only grow further apart (genetically) from that point, as descent with modification is guaranteed to continue independantly in both groups.
The evidence to support the idea that this has happened repeatedly in the past comes from paleontology (fossils viewed in their natural ordering records this branching of species over time), embryology (similaritites in how different structures grow out of the same cells between species tells us a lot about common ancestry), and perhaps most revealing, genetics (where several lines of evidence comes from matching ERV and pseudo genes between species).
So, common descent is both logically coherent (it works theoretically), consistent with everything we know about living things (everything reproduces with modification, and isolation is guaranteed to allow two groups of the same species to accumulate exclusive traits), and supported by the evidence from past events and our current genetic and biological makeup.
It's pretty solid when you zoom out and look at the bigger picture.
22 Aug 15
Originally posted by C Hess"I still can't quite discern what it is you're thinking, but every living thing only produce offspring of its own species. The common descent part comes from the fact that every organism is a modified version of its direct ancestor, and that some of these changes accumulate, both down the lineage of descendants, and through the populations.
I still can't quite discern what it is you're thinking, but every living thing only produce offspring of its own species. The common descent part comes from the fact that every organism is a modified version of its direct ancestor, and that some of these changes accumulate, both down the lineage of descendants, and through the populations.
[i](The rest of ...[text shortened]... c and biological makeup.
It's pretty solid when you zoom out and look at the bigger picture.
I still can't quite discern what it is you're thinking, but every living thing only produce offspring of its own species. The common descent part comes from the fact that every organism is a modified version of its direct ancestor, and that some of these changes accumulate, both down the lineage of descendants, and through the populations. "
Yes common descent from a direct ancestor, where I differ is I don't believe all life shares
a common ancestor, I believe God started the process and the blood lines started at the
day of creation for them. This would mean cold and warm blooded creatures began as
cold and warm blooded creators, plants began as plants, male and females were also
started at the same time. This takes out all of the issues there would be having a simple
life form starting from accident some place and over time giving us oak trees, jelly fish,
ants, whales, and so on. The changes we see today does not dispel any of that, but the
thing that promotes a common ancestor for every life form is only found when someone
tries to connect the dots in the distant past.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
22 Aug 15
Originally posted by KellyJaySays who? Most mutations that we notice are bad. That's why we notice them. Most mutations are in fact neutral. We only notice neutral mutations when we study genomes in the lab. For instance, did you know that every single human being on this planet carries about 100-150 point mutations (base pairs that were not inherited from either parent)? For extremely few humans is this a problem. To be fair, it should be pointed out that 100 base pairs constitute a vanishingly small part of the total genome, and most (for many all) of those mutations are lost within the first few generations to follow. However, some do survive, and spread through the population, without having any direct effect on reproductive success. Accumulation begins.
...it is acknowledge that most of the mutations lead to something bad...
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
22 Aug 15
Originally posted by KellyJayNo, current genetics and anatomy also supports this idea. And what's wrong with connecting the dots? Obviously, we can't connect them any way we want but according to strict rules, imposed on us by nature itself. What is not right (scientifically) is to ignore these natural patterns because they don't fit with your preconceived notions of how things should be.
...the thing that promotes a common ancestor for every life form is only found when someone
tries to connect the dots in the distant past.
22 Aug 15
2 edits
Originally posted by C HessI didn't say anything was wrong with connecting the dots, but you have to realize that is
No, current genetics and anatomy also supports this idea. And what's wrong with connecting the dots? Obviously, we can't connect them any way we want but according to strict rules, imposed on us by nature itself. What is not right (scientifically) is to ignore these natural patterns because they don't fit with your preconceived notions of how things should be.
what is going on. Are they right, don't know, should the dots be connected at all, don't know.
We can see natural patterns in life today, that doesn't mean that one came from the other?
So are we really doing something that gives us info about the distant past, well many do
believe so.
I can only imagine that current genetics and anatomy could never support what I just said,
if they believed all life has a common ancestor.
I also imagine that they will connect the dots as they see fit to make look like they think
it should be done too.
22 Aug 15
1 edit
Originally posted by C HessDon't you ignore things that don't fit with your preconceived notions of how things should be?
No, current genetics and anatomy also supports this idea. And what's wrong with connecting the dots? Obviously, we can't connect them any way we want but according to strict rules, imposed on us by nature itself. What is not right (scientifically) is to ignore these natural patterns because they don't fit with your preconceived notions of how things should be.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
22 Aug 15
Originally posted by RJHindsI try not to, but feel free to point them out. For instance, if you tell me about soft tissue in dinosaurs, I will not ignore it (Schweitzer herself accepts deep time as true, and she didn't ignore her finding).
Don't you ignore things that don't fit with your preconceived notions of how things should be?
When I first heard of it, I acknowledged that it was a bit of a mystery, given all the evidence we already had for an old earth, and what we thought would be a maximum age that soft tissue could survive. Now we have a better understanding of how tissue can be preserved in iron from the dead organism's own blood, so I ask which is more likely to be true: that soft tissue can't be preserved for millions of years under optimal conditions, and that all the other evidence that exclusively points to an old earth are wrong, or the other way around?
The answer to that question guides me.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
22 Aug 15
Originally posted by KellyJayIn science, all truths are provisional. I accept evolution as true, because everything we know about the natural world either supports it, or fails to directly contradict it. It's not really up for grabs what the fossil record looks like, unless you can give a good reason why we shouldn't order the fossils according to age and location. It's also not up for grabs what species similarities in genetics and anatomy tells us, unless you can give a good reason as to why ERV's, pseudo genes and developmental structures in embryos all provide the same tree of evolution as the fossil record. It could all be coincidence, or some elaborate trick by your god, but scientifically, none of those answers are satisfactory, as we can't really do anything with them (we can't test them, nor build upon them).
I didn't say anything was wrong with connecting the dots, but you have to realize that is
what is going on. Are they right, don't know, should the dots be connected at all, don't know.
We can see natural patterns in life today, that doesn't mean that one came from the other?
So are we really doing something that gives us info about the distant past, we ...[text shortened]... anatomy could never support what I just said,
if they believed all life has a common ancestor.
22 Aug 15
1 edit
Originally posted by C HessLike I said I agree evolution is true, but I don't see going back to the point of a single life
In science, all truths are provisional. I accept evolution as true, because everything we know about the natural world either supports it, or fails to directly contradict it. It's not really up for grabs what the fossil record looks like, unless you can give a good reason why we shouldn't order the fossils according to age and location. It's also not up for g ...[text shortened]... atisfactory, as we can't really do anything with them (we can't test them, nor build upon them).
form. With fossils we have to assume they were related to one another to make the jump
that one fossils shows a clear path from one to another, but even using the fossil record
there are huge gaps where we don't see all the life forms that should have slowly been
turning from one form unto another. There are holes in the progression between life forms
that could be explained a couple of ways, one we just have not found them yet, or two
they were never there to find because they never existed putting to rest this progression
theory. Therefore I would not say the natural worlds supports a common ancestor for all
life, just the beliefs of those that take what is before them and make it fit.