Originally posted by SharpeMotherFundy = fundamentalist.
What is a fundy? According to the dictionary there is no such thing. Do you agree with the fact that you must have faith in an element preexisting in order to believe in evolution?
I agree that the universe must have some sort of order for evolution to occur. You are sure to jump on this and say something like "ooo, oo, ooo, proof of God". Of course, it isn't, but there you go....
Originally posted by scottishinnzAs I said earlier, I have no evidence of God's existence. Therefore I can't say much to defend my supposition that He does. While I normally insist that there is tangible evidence before I can believe in something, in this particular case, I am more inclined to believe that we are here by design, instead of randomly. I don't claim to know much more than that. For example, why are we here? Why are we created, if indeed we were created.... etc.
What do you mean "who"? Who says there has to be a who? Is everything that dies murdered, or do some things die because they get caught in a snow drift, or can't runaway from a predator? Do atoms associate and dissociate with each other to be molecules because someone tells them, or can chemistry and probability take care of those things?
The poin ...[text shortened]... iousness to select between rabbits that can run faster than foxes, and rabbits which can't.
I maintain that things CAN happen randomly, yes, but to reach such an outcome, even allowing for the duration involved, is very remote in my opinion. But that is only my opinion. Again, I have no evidence to support it!
Originally posted by SharpeMotherI haven't gone so far as to define what God is. But I have the impression that He should be a loving, almighty, know-it-all being. I am not only rejecting the God of the bible, but my rejection is to all the religions.
So you believe that there has to be a creator (or designer) for everything that has been created, correct? Then what is your definition of who this god is? Is there a specific reason why you reject the God of the Bible as being the Designer?
It is my opinion that God should be a good being. He should reflect all the good qualities that He is trying to impose upon us all. But from the stories of the bible, I found that this was not the case. Far from it!
In another thread, I discussed this issue with whodey. I am disturbed by a God that drowned everybody - presumably even unborn foetuses - in the great flood because he was pissed with us humans. Maybe he deemed us ungrateful... or too sinful ... or whatever it was that greatly pissed him. But I can't bear the thought that a God who's supposed to be loving and forgiving, would kill unborn children. I mean, not unless you expect me to love Osama Bin Laden too.
whodey suggested that God probably foresaw an even worse outcome if he'd let those people to continue living. I thought that was a brilliant answer, but I still can't imagine what could have been worse than killing unborn infants.
That story about God putting Adam and Even to the test is also annoying to me. God should not do things like that. I don't appreciate all those explanation about giving us free will (not that I believe we have any!). If anything, all that story told me was that God craves for our attention.... he wants us to adore and worship him all the time. Once we disobeyed him, we are doomed forever. Well, this is not the God that I'd like to love, let alone worship.
Originally posted by ckoh1965I am glad that you acknowledge that it is merely your opinion that complex life cannot evolve. However, it has been shown many times, that even given a modest rate of "mutation" that a self-replicating unit can achieve great complexity relatively quickly.
As I said earlier, I have no evidence of God's existence. Therefore I can't say much to defend my supposition that He does. While I normally insist that there is tangible evidence before I can believe in something, in this particular case, I am more inclined to believe that we are here by design, instead of randomly. I don't claim to know much more than tha ...[text shortened]... y remote in my opinion. But that is only my opinion. Again, I have no evidence to support it!
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzYes, indeed it has been shown many times! I have no argument as far as that is concerned. I am just fascinated on how such changes can happen randomly, apparently without any intervention from anything? If billions of years ago, we only had fins or flippers, I just wonder what happened and what provoked this so-called mutations to take place so that we eventually changed the fins/flippers to hands and feet. This is of course just an example. I have no evidence that we had fins/flippers in the past! Does it seem strange to you that the changes that took place over the eons were mainly for 'improvements', and hardly otherwise? We didn't, for example, change from fins to no fins at all, so that we all crawl on our stomachs? If we are to base on the theory of random changes, then it should also be possible to change from bad to worse, and not only from bad to better and then good?
I am glad that you acknowledge that it is merely your opinion that complex life cannot evolve. However, it has been shown many times, that even given a modest rate of "mutation" that a self-replicating unit can achieve great complexity relatively quickly.
Originally posted by ckoh1965AAAARRRGHHHH!!!
Yes, indeed it has been shown many times! I have no argument as far as that is concerned. I am just fascinated on how such changes can happen randomly, apparently without any intervention from anything? If billions of years ago, we only had fins or flippers, I just wonder what happened and what provoked this so-called mutations to take place so that we even ...[text shortened]... also be possible to change from bad to worse, and not only from bad to better and then good?
No, no, no!!!! Mutations take place all the time, mainly due to environmental mutagens, like UV from the sun, or even the products of our own metabolism, or oxygen! There is no need for any intervention from anything! Likewise, most mutations are deleterious, the same way that most pregnancies are terminated naturally within the first 3 months. On very, very odd occasions, a beneficial mutation occurs, the frequency of this dependant upon how "good" or "bad" the gene is to start with. Of course, "good" and "bad" only refer to the survival value that a gene confers upon an individual within the environment it finds itself within.
Originally posted by scottishinnzLOL! You must be patient with me. I'm not normally easy to convince. I want evidence for almost everything before I can believe. As you can probably tell, I am ignorant on some of these scientific processes.
AAAARRRGHHHH!!!
No, no, no!!!! Mutations take place all the time, mainly due to environmental mutagens, like UV from the sun, or even the products of our own metabolism, or oxygen! There is no need for any intervention from anything! Likewise, most mutations are deleterious, the same way that most pregnancies are terminated naturally within the fi ...[text shortened]... ue that a gene confers upon an individual within the environment it finds itself within.
Hmmm... OK, well at least I've learned something new today. But just wondering, if mutations take place all the time - randomly - how come some species, eg crockodiles and snakes have not changed over millions of years? Shouldn't snakes have legs by now? Or is this mutation thing happening on some species only?
Originally posted by ckoh1965(tell me if I get this wrong, scottish...)
LOL! You must be patient with me. I'm not normally easy to convince. I want evidence for almost everything before I can believe. As you can probably tell, I am ignorant on some of these scientific processes.
Hmmm... OK, well at least I've learned something new today. But just wondering, if mutations take place all the time - randomly - how come some spec ...[text shortened]... Shouldn't snakes have legs by now? Or is this mutation thing happening on some species only?
You shouldn't think of mutations 'happening' to a species. They happen to individuals within a species.
Any one mutation will only have affected ONE snake and its offspring. So that one snakes offspring could turn into something else (with legs), but all the OTHER snakes would carry on producing little snakes.
Does that help?
Originally posted by ckoh1965Ah, okay, I would say in my defence something like "I'm not really impatient", but I am!
LOL! You must be patient with me. I'm not normally easy to convince. I want evidence for almost everything before I can believe. As you can probably tell, I am ignorant on some of these scientific processes.
Hmmm... OK, well at least I've learned something new today. But just wondering, if mutations take place all the time - randomly - how come some spec ...[text shortened]... Shouldn't snakes have legs by now? Or is this mutation thing happening on some species only?
Some species don't change for millions of years, and some do. The important thing to think about is the "selection pressure". Crocodiles are an excellent example. They are fast, ferocious and very tough. Basically, if they want to eat you, they probably will. They are pretty much an optimal design for living in that manner. Any mutation within the crocodile gene pool which deviates from normal crocodile design will probably be suboptimal to "normal" genes. However, for a second, imagine that something changes in the environment; let's say that all large food sources die out, and they are forced to live on fish alone. Any mutation that makes the crocodile faster and nimbler (although in reality they are both of those currently) will come to predominate, mainly because the genes for large, slow predators will die out.
Think about it this way - in high school, "nerd" genes are not a good thing. However, when the environment changes to the world of big business, nerd genes rule the roost!
Originally posted by orfeoIndeedy.
(tell me if I get this wrong, scottish...)
You shouldn't think of mutations 'happening' to a species. They happen to individuals within a species.
Any one mutation will only have affected ONE snake and its offspring. So that one snakes offspring could turn into something else (with legs), but all the OTHER snakes would carry on producing little snakes.
Does that help?
Normally a reproductive barrier is required too. Legs require many genes to be made, although it make take only one to switch between having legs and not having legs, if all the others are present anyways.
If you have one snake with a set of "leg" genes, then probably it'll die out. However, if you have a small group snakes with (recessive) leg genes, and legs tend to aid survival, then that group of snakes will probably evolve legs.
Originally posted by orfeoReally? Is that what mutation is all about!? Hmmm... maybe I must be mixed up between evolution and mutation? I must look it up soon.
(tell me if I get this wrong, scottish...)
You shouldn't think of mutations 'happening' to a species. They happen to individuals within a species.
Any one mutation will only have affected ONE snake and its offspring. So that one snakes offspring could turn into something else (with legs), but all the OTHER snakes would carry on producing little snakes.
Does that help?
I thought we've been talking about species changing features, such as becoming larger in size... or growing limbs... or gradually losing the 'tail' bones etc. What are those? Is that small changes, i.e. mutations... which is a part of evolution?
I am referring to the entire species over a long period of time. Say fish developing lungs and eventually can live on land etc...
Well, Scot, thanks for enlightening me on some of these scientific processes. I appreciate it, really! It will be something to think about. It is hard for me to believe that we are all here as a result of chance. My current position is that I am convinced that we are here by design, but I have no full explanation for it.
For example, to be fair, if I want to believe in a creator, then it follows that I must also ask who created that creator? Of course christians say that nobody created God; that He was the starting point. I don't buy this explanation. Either everything was created by something, or we just happened randomly. I guess I'm just too stubborn, huh?... hehehehe.
Originally posted by ckoh1965I appreciate your candour too.
Well, Scot, thanks for enlightening me on some of these scientific processes. I appreciate it, really! It will be something to think about. It is hard for me to believe that we are all here as a result of chance. My current position is that I am convinced that we are here by design, but I have no full explanation for it.
For example, to be fair, if I wa ...[text shortened]... d by something, or we just happened randomly. I guess I'm just too stubborn, huh?... hehehehe.
Some here attempt to discredit evolution by spreading lies, even though they know those lies to be untrue. Evolution is a very simple process; we have variation, on average in humans around 4 genetic mutations to genes per generation. Most of these mutations do no harm, but occasionally one or two of them result in a new developmental or biochemical process which leads to... well, whatever it leads to.
As for fish developing lungs, well lungs are really just modified gills anyway - we, humans, have gills you know?! Okay, we lose them during embryonic development, but it's a clue to our distant evolutionary past. And then, well, there are lung fish. You should google them!