1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsHe merely made that conclusion from his observations. He refused to ignore the facts just because the Bible appeared to contradict them. He doesn't really need defending, but it would be good if you are simply honest about him and refrain from misquoting him and correct others who do.
If so, I may not be able to defend him after all.
Although he had some good ideas he went to far if he
said all life came from a common ancestor billions of
years ago.
So far I am impressed with your attitude, most other creationists on this site who have misquoted Darwin did so knowingly and when challenged tried to find a way out and failing that left without apology.
And it is hard for me to believe a Christian would propose such a theory.
I believe Darwin was a Christian and had many Christian supporters and has had ever since. The majority of Christians today accept the Theory of Evolution as fact.
Originally posted by RJHindsFirstly may i suggest you go and read up on the topic. I'm sure you would agree you can hardly have a debate about something if you don't even know what it is, or what it is supposed to do.
To Twhitehead:
I know some Christians who accept part of the theory
of evolution. They divide it up into what they call
micro- and macro- (whatever that is). They reject
one and accept the other. I personally don't see
any evolution at all. I see adaptations and mutations
but no evolution.
RJHinds
I personally don't see any evolution at all. I see adaptations and mutations but no evolution.
Here is the definition of evolution -
Evolution is the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of organisms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
Nobody can deny that evolution takes place, as you've already said you accept mutations occur and as a result of these mutations changes will arise in an animal. What you disagree on is how far these changes go, and that's what your friends mean by micro and macro. Micro evolution is what you would call 'variation within a kind', macro evoution is exactly the same process but extended over a long, long period of time.
Originally posted by RJHindsOn the Origin of Species is available on Project Gutenberg:
To robbie carrobie:
I found Darwin's work on the internet and the following is one of the paragraphs
in the last chapter. I was unable to find anything about billions of years.
"Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to the belief that all animals and plants have descended from some one prototype. But analogy may be a deceitful guide. Nevert ...[text shortened]... Am I wrong?
Anyway, It appears Charles Darwin did go to far in his conclusions.
RJHinds
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2009
The last chapter is indeed where I was thinking and yes, I put billions of years because the current estimate is that life started around 3.8 billion years ago.
He is not confused about species or kinds. He says that the evidence suggests (if you read the paragraph you quoted) that all life developed from a common ancestor. He supports that in the paragraph with examples of such evidence and there is far more throughout the book.
He did not go too far, he went as far as the evidence suggested at the time. Since then more evidence has been found (eg DNA) that further supports his conclusions.
To enforce this restriction on 'kinds', there would have to be some mechanism for comparing the results of a mutation with the original prototype of that kind and disable it if it would deviate by too much. Evolution would have to have a memory of the original. There is no evidence of this and no one has put forward a description of any such mechanism. Might be worth some thought though. I think evidence of the existence of such a system would give the 'intelligent design' crowd a lot of ammunition.
--- Penguin.
To Proper Knob:
Definiton of adaptation: "Biol. Modification of an animal
or plant (or its parts or organs) fitting it more perfectly
for existence under the conditions of its environment."
Definition of mutation: "Biol. a A sudden variation, the
offspring differing from its parents in some well-marked
character or characters, due to changes within the
chromosomes or genes. b The result of the above process;
a sudden produced variation."
From Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary.
I was raised by my grandparents due to a divorce and
my mother being unable to provide for me. And on my
grandpa's farm I never saw a pig give birth to anything
but a pig. A cow had a calf which grew up to be a cow,
or maybe a bull; but there was no chang in the kind of
animal. A chicken egg never hatched into a snake.
Now if I saw the later happen, I would call that evolution.
Now that is the kind of evolution the "theory of evolution"
insist upon. It just doesn't happen. Period. end of story.
RJHinds
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsWhat you have described there has absolutely nothing to do with evolution by natural selection.
To Proper Knob:
Definiton of adaptation: "Biol. Modification of an animal
or plant (or its parts or organs) fitting it more perfectly
for existence under the conditions of its environment."
Definition of mutation: "Biol. a A sudden variation, the
offspring differing from its parents in some well-marked
character or characters, due to changes wi y of evolution"
insist upon. It just doesn't happen. Period. end of story.
RJHinds
You may call that 'evolution', but that is NOT evolution, in fact it's quite shocking that you think that's what evolution is!!!
Originally posted by RJHindsYou do honestly believe that evolution suggests that an animal can give birth to a completely different species?
To Proper Knob:
Definiton of adaptation: "Biol. Modification of an animal
or plant (or its parts or organs) fitting it more perfectly
for existence under the conditions of its environment."
Definition of mutation: "Biol. a A sudden variation, the
offspring differing from its parents in some well-marked
character or characters, due to changes wi ...[text shortened]... y of evolution"
insist upon. It just doesn't happen. Period. end of story.
RJHinds
I suggest you read up a LOT more on evolution before you can even begin to criticise it.
6 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsRecall the exchange between you and earlier:
To Proper Knob:
Definiton of adaptation: "Biol. Modification of an animal
or plant (or its parts or organs) fitting it more perfectly
for existence under the conditions of its environment."
Definition of mutation: "Biol. a A sudden variation, the
offspring differing from its parents in some well-marked
character or characters, due to changes wi y of evolution"
insist upon. It just doesn't happen. Period. end of story.
RJHinds
I said:
Who told you that evolution says birds lay eggs and crocodiles hatch from them???
You said:
I was just being facetious in making the point that
all creatures reproduce their own kind and therefore
do not evolve somehow into another kind of creature.
There is no evolving at all. There is adaptation and
mutations but the genes prevent evolving.
RJHinds
What you post here is evidence that you were not being facetious but you actually believe this to be the case, which as others have told you is a gross mischaracterisation of evolution. Presumably you're just regurgitating the creationist propaganda that has been instilled into you from a young age.
Imagine a kettle of hot water left to cool to room temparature - at no point would you be able to discern that the water is any cooler than it was a second prior yet eventually it will be cool. Clearly this did not happen instantaneously! and the same is true of evolution - the transition from one species to another is not instantaneous. Not even close! Moreover such transitions that take place, incrementally over many many generations happen in response to changes in environment, predators, prey behaviour, competition within a species etc...
To summarise, evolution does not say or come anywhere close to saying that in one generation a chicken will give birth to a crocodile etc... Kent Hovind, Ray Comfort, VenomfangX (et al) have done you a great intellectual disservice on this matter.
Originally posted by RJHindsI know some Christians who accept part of the theory of evolution. They divide it up into what they call micro- and macro- (whatever that is). They reject one and accept the other.
To Twhitehead:
I know some Christians who accept part of the theory
of evolution. They divide it up into what they call
micro- and macro- (whatever that is). They reject
one and accept the other. I personally don't see
any evolution at all. I see adaptations and mutations
but no evolution.
RJHinds
The Catholic church accepts evolution in its entirety, as well as the scientific view of the age of the earth being between 4 and 5 billion years. The Catholic church does not divide evolution into 'micro' and 'macro'. The church just declares that Evolution was the mechanism used by God to create us.
That's a large number of Christians who accept the full scientific theory of evolution. Your sample is a tiny minority of Christians.
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by RJHindsI would call it magic.
A chicken egg never hatched into a snake.
Now if I saw the later happen, I would call that evolution.
As others have pointed out, you either know nothing of evolution or are deliberately setting up a massive deliberate strawman argument. I will assume the former as you have so far expressed a desire to be honest.
To summarize the Theory of Evolution:
1. all living things are subject to change over time. This change is gradual and where humans are not involved it is guided by natural selection, where humans are involved we can call it selective breeding.
2. all living things are believed to have descended from a common ancestor and in most cases it is possible to trace that ancestry and the relative relationships of currently living things.
Of course thats a very summarized view of two key points, the details are worthy of many books.
The only part you would could expect to have personally witnessed in your life time is the gradual change of life over the generations, and having lived on a farm you probably have witnessed this, or know from farmers that it is true.
4 edits
Originally posted by daisychainsawCreativity and altruism are hardly unique to humans.
Also. humans are cool because they have evoled differnt drives and instincts from everyother animal, as far as i know we are unique in our ability to be creative and to be trully alltruistic. I hope further evolution of humanity further evolves these unique drives.
People rarely give animals the credit they deserve. Perhaps it's due to a reluctance to give up a feeling of superiority.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/
"Altruistic behaviour is common throughout the animal kingdom, particularly in species with complex social structures."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cetacean_intelligence#Creative_behavior
"The experiment tested when and whether the dolphins would identify that they were being rewarded (by fish) for originality in behavior and was very successful...The same experiment was repeated with humans, and it took the volunteers about the same length of time to figure out what was being asked of them. After an initial period of frustration or anger, the humans realised they were being rewarded for novel behavior. In dolphins this realisation produced excitement and more and more novel behaviors - in humans it mostly just produced relief"
To Penguin:
From the Encyclopedia International on the article
"evolution" it states that the Russian investigator,
A. I. Oparin, in 1923, proposed the theory that
certain conditions had developed on earth that
were favorable to life and that certain simple
aggregates of matter that had the properties of
life were then able to develop into simple living
organism, which evolved into progressively more
complex forms.
There is no mention that God made the condtions
favorable for life and that he created the living
plants and creatures. Apparently we are expected
to believe it just happened somehow by chance.
And all the atheist shouted "Yea, there is no God,
God is dead!"
RJHinds
To Aqerq:
You guys can't take a joke when it comes to evolution.
Of course, I know evolution does teach that chickens
lay eggs and crocodiles and snakes hatch from them.
It was a joke to make fun of how silly it is to believe
that one kind animal somehow turns into another kind
of animal no matter how many trillions of years you
give it. It is impossible because God made it that way.
RJHinds