Theory of Evolution -- do you avoid teaching it?

[Greta]

except we have common dna in creatures that haven't actually descended from each other.

 

From each other, no. Both from a common ancestor, yes. That's what I meant by the example of me and my brothers.

 

which is how we can prove paternity: common dna doesn't prove descent.

 

I don't understand.

[Peek a Boo]

From each other, no. Both from a common ancestor, yes. That's what I meant by the example of me and my brothers.

I don't understand.

 

and we have common dna from every other human, even ones that don't share a common ancestor.

[Greta]

and we have common dna from every other human, even ones that don't share a common ancestor.

 

But ALL humans DO share common ancestry, if you go back through enough generations. Hey, isn't that something that evolutions and creationists should agree on? :001_smile:

[Peek a Boo]

But ALL humans DO share common ancestry, if you go back through enough generations. Hey, isn't that something that evolutions and creationists should agree on? :001_smile:

 

we MIGHT share a common ancestor --still theory. :)

 

Even creationists have issues about "mankind" as it was created and Adam as the one put in the garden ;)

 

But for the purposes of this thread, I'm sticking w/ scientific answers and avoiding religion. :D

[Greta]

we MIGHT share a common ancestor --still theory. :)

 

Nope, I'm gonna have to stick with fact on this. Since, as I said, reproduction is the only method of transferring genes to another organism, genetic relationships prove descent.

 

Even creationists have issues about "mankind" as it was created and Adam as the one put in the garden ;)

 

Interesting. I'd like to hear more about that, but ....

 

But for the purposes of this thread, I'm sticking w/ scientific answers and avoiding religion. :D

 

I can certainly respect that.

[Peek a Boo]

Nope, I'm gonna have to stick with fact on this. Since, as I said, reproduction is the only method of transferring genes to another organism, genetic relationships prove descent.

 

 

 

except that if take into accounts the experiments that brought about amino acids from electrical charges + chemicals in the atmosphere, you could have had any number of critters develop independently, without descent. Since the same sort of amino acids developed and combine in specific, common ways according to their structure, there will of course be many similarities, no?

[Greta]

except that if take into accounts the experiments that brought about amino acids from electrical charges + chemicals in the atmosphere, you could have had any number of critters develop independently, without descent.

 

True, and that's where genetic relationships could show us which modern critters are descended from which of those ancient critters.

 

Since the same sort of amino acids developed and combine in specific, common ways according to their structure, there will of course be many similarities, no?

 

I'm not a biochemist, but my understanding is that, yes, some basic principles of chemistry are going to govern the formation of the amino acids themselves. But how those amino acids are formed into unique sequences on the DNA/RNA strands, that's where it gets interesting, and that's how we determine genetic relationships.

[Phred]

I agree that it implies that pattern, but we still have no irrefutable PROOF that it did happen as we claim. Lining up the fossils makes sense, but it still might be WRONG.

How? How does lining up fossils and your insistence that they might not line up that way change the fact that life evolved? If one of those fossils is out of place... how does that repudiate the theory?

 

Peek, can you tell me what the Theory of Evolution states? Can you tell me why the word, "theory" does not mean "guess"?

 

THAT's where I leave the die-hard proponents of the ToE: i like the theory, i teach the theory, I will make sure my children KNOW the ToE, but we don't teach that it is irrefutable FACT. We simply don't know.

We do know. What you're saying is that you want to believe that mankind did not evolve, is that correct?

 

We DO know that there are lots of species that did remain virtually [not completely] unchanged for millions of years, so it's not "certainly inconsistent" to assume that other life forms might have done the same.

Like men? Is that what you're getting at here?

 

I will not be surprised to see us eventually gather so much evidence that we DO have irrefutable *proof* of evolution and descent. But we don't have that now.

We do have that now. As has been stated the only way that genes can be transferred from one creature to another is by reproduction. We share 95-98% of them with chimpanzees. How do you explain this? How do you explain ERVs? How do you explain cladistics? How do you explain the fossil record leading up to human beings that fits in perfectly with common descent?

 

How do YOU explain these things if not by evolution?

[Phred]

except that if take into accounts the experiments that brought about amino acids from electrical charges + chemicals in the atmosphere, you could have had any number of critters develop independently, without descent. Since the same sort of amino acids developed and combine in specific, common ways according to their structure, there will of course be many similarities, no?

No.

 

Remember the dice? All those throws? You're assuming that once the chain of life begins then the throws of the dice are going to be the same. That's not true. If there had been two different sets of life on the planet each starting from an original ancestor then the throws of the dice would have been different too. Each would have taken widely divergent paths and we'd have two completely different types of life on the planet.

 

We don't. Your hypothesis has been falsified. Especially if you're trying to say that we have one branch of humans descended from one type of ancestor and one from another. That's simply not possible nor has it been evidenced in any of the studies done of worldwide DNA. We all come from the same basic melting pot of genes. Humanity is very homogeneous.

 

It seems we all came from one common ancestor, one basic melting pot of life someplace back in the mists of time. And that basic DNA went on to replicate and become all the life we find on earth today.

 

And no, it didn't just *poof* into existence.

 

This isn't an evolution conversation any longer btw... it's now abiogenesis which is completely other. If you'd like to discuss it I'll certainly try but we should branch it off.

[Peek a Boo]

How? How does lining up fossils and your insistence that they might not line up that way change the fact that life evolved? If one of those fossils is out of place... how does that repudiate the theory?

 

I'm not saying it does. I'm simply saying that just because evolution MAY have happened doesn't mean it DID. THAT's the part that i don't teach as FACT.

Peek, can you tell me what the Theory of Evolution states? Can you tell me why the word, "theory" does not mean "guess"?

 

yes, Phred. I'm not arguing about whether it's a viable Theory. I understand there's a lot of work that went into intepreting data to form the Theory. I'm simply stating that we don't have FACT --PROOF-- that evolution did indeed occur the way scientists are assuming, or that it even DID occur.

 

 

We do know. What you're saying is that you want to believe that mankind did not evolve, is that correct?

 

No. I'm saying we have no hard data that proves evolution of man [or anything historical]. We have lots of evidence that infers it, but no proof of actual descent.

 

 

Like men? Is that what you're getting at here?

 

Like anything. I'm leaving my questioning open to any life forms. Is that clear?

 

 

We do have that now. As has been stated the only way that genes can be transferred from one creature to another is by reproduction. We share 95-98% of them with chimpanzees. How do you explain this? How do you explain ERVs? How do you explain cladistics? How do you explain the fossil record leading up to human beings that fits in perfectly with common descent?

 

How do YOU explain these things if not by evolution?

 

again: good questions.

If evolution didn't happen, how do YOU explain them?

Or are you not open to evolution being somehow incorrect?

There's a lot of inferring. I'm waiting to see more hard evidence that doesn't require inference. We might not have enough in our lifetime.

 

Remember the dice? All those throws? You're assuming that once the chain of life begins then the throws of the dice are going to be the same. That's not true. If there had been two different sets of life on the planet each starting from an original ancestor then the throws of the dice would have been different too. Each would have taken widely divergent paths and we'd have two completely different types of life on the planet.

 

No --I'm not talking about chance. I'm talking about very specific orderly consistencies. Things react in certain ways for certain reasons --it's why we can make inferences based on the ToE: certain things are expected to happen in certain ways.

 

Considering that certain types of structures would be more suited to life on earth, it doesn't seem like chance that similar sequences would occur and thrive. The throws of the dice may have been different, but the general environment would have eliminated many of the "wildly divergent" ones so that --again-- certain sequences thrived while others didn't.

 

and yes, we are now talking about abiogenesis. :)

But since questioning the ToE tends to fall back to "where did it all come from if it didn't evolve" then of course we're forced back to the beginning.

 

and since we obviously can't accurately recreate The Beginning of life on earth, we'e stuck with "the ToE is the best model we have based on what we know."

I agree that it is that.

I simply disagree that it MUST be FACT. I allow that it very possibly IS fact, but not that it is irrefutable fact.

 

as you said: IT SEEMS.

 

we can branch it off if you want, but i gotta run and won't be back till tomorrow.

[Tea Time]

We do have that now. As has been stated the only way that genes can be transferred from one creature to another is by reproduction. We share 95-98% of them with chimpanzees. How do you explain this? How do you explain ERVs? How do you explain cladistics? How do you explain the fossil record leading up to human beings that fits in perfectly with common descent?

 

 

Not my field of expertise, but this piques my interest. I'm hoping someone else knows more and can clarify what I am getting at.

 

ToE folks have their fair share of infighting, just like other folks who share an otherwise similar set of beliefs. We hardly ever hear about that because it undermines their credibility (erroneously) because people think that if they do not agree, then their whole theory must be false. This is nonsense, but it is the way people think. It is applied to Christianity, too. If Christians don't agree on everything, then the whole thing must be false. But, that is the way people tend to think. What are ya gonna do?

 

I read one of the things that is beginning to be a bone of contention between ToE folks is the picture of an evolutionary "tree" where genetic material is transferred only by reproduction. Apparently there is some indication that genetic material can be transferred across species by way of bacteria. In fact, there is a lot of research going on about the influence of bacteria on other forms of life. Apparently there are more "bacteria" cells in the human body than human body cells, and these cells have more influence than we might think. Yikes! We are walking, talking biospheres!

 

The idea is producing a picture of evolution that is much more like an intricate "web" than a tree where everything comes down to a nice, tidy common ancestor. Not sure about all the implications, though, but I thought it was interesting. You never know what is around the next bend!

 

Some links about this idea, but not the one that was specific to evolutionary theory, but I imagine it would be easy to find. It does mention the influence on the human genome:

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080603085914.htm

 

http://pharmagossip.blogspot.com/2009/04/what-should-big-pharma-be-researching.html

[Phred]

Not my field of expertise, but this piques my interest. I'm hoping someone else knows more and can clarify what I am getting at.

 

ToE folks have their fair share of infighting, just like other folks who share an otherwise similar set of beliefs. We hardly ever hear about that because it undermines their credibility (erroneously) because people think that if they do not agree, then their whole theory must be false. This is nonsense, but it is the way people think. It is applied to Christianity, too. If Christians don't agree on everything, then the whole thing must be false. But, that is the way people tend to think. What are ya gonna do?

 

I read one of the things that is beginning to be a bone of contention between ToE folks is the picture of an evolutionary "tree" where genetic material is transferred only by reproduction. Apparently there is some indication that genetic material can be transferred across species by way of bacteria. In fact, there is a lot of research going on about the influence of bacteria on other forms of life. Apparently there are more "bacteria" cells in the human body than human body cells, and these cells have more influence than we might think. Yikes! We are walking, talking biospheres!

 

The idea is producing a picture of evolution that is much more like an intricate "web" than a tree where everything comes down to a nice, tidy common ancestor. Not sure about all the implications, though, but I thought it was interesting. You never know what is around the next bend!

 

Some links about this idea, but not the one that was specific to evolutionary theory, but I imagine it would be easy to find. It does mention the influence on the human genome:

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080603085914.htm

 

http://pharmagossip.blogspot.com/2009/04/what-should-big-pharma-be-researching.html

There are all sorts of ways that microscopic bugs transfer DNA. And it's not reproduction. We, on the other hand, pass along our genes in one way and one way only... reproduction. As do all mammals. Reproduction. It just didn't seem germane to introduce all these other things when trying to make a point. I have maybe a paragraph before someone gets bored, not a couple of weeks. So please excuse my trying to be brief and give the cliffs notes version of things.

 

Evolution is a big messy web. Not a linear progression. Some of the branches die out. Others continue to form new lines. It's all part of evolution. There's no doubt it has happened, is happening and will happen as long as there are living things.

 

No doubt.

Edited September 28, 2009 by Phred

[sunshine]

Radiometric dating of various radioactive isotopes is conducted upon elements such as uranium-lead, potassium-argon, clorine-36 and others. You can learn more about it here if you wish.

 

 

Looked them up and read them. Thank you. BUT, and you know there was gonnna be one :), the proof that these methods are infallible and accurate cannot be determined for well over another 100 or so years. Maybe by then I will have evolved into something else and won't care. Ok I know that was snarky but I am hormonal right now! Do other creatures get migraines and hormonal rages?? Hmmm, I wonder.

 

Like I said, to believe these theories, you have to come to the table with a desire to believe. Either way.

[Phred]

ToE folks have their fair share of infighting, just like other folks who share an otherwise similar set of beliefs. We hardly ever hear about that because it undermines their credibility (erroneously) because people think that if they do not agree, then their whole theory must be false. This is nonsense, but it is the way people think. It is applied to Christianity, too. If Christians don't agree on everything, then the whole thing must be false. But, that is the way people tend to think. What are ya gonna do?

I wanted to speak directly to this point. There is lots of fighting about the ToE in the scientific community. There is no fighting about whether or not evolution has occurred. There is massive fighting about HOW it occurred. Fast, slow, fast and slow, what pressures are involved, when what took place...

 

Thing is, in the scientific community you can make your name in one of two ways. You can either discover something or you can find out someone else was wrong. Finding out that Darwin was wrong would win someone a Nobel prize and worldwide fame and fortune. It's just that evolution is something so obvious, so true, that no one even tries to disprove it anymore. It would be like trying to prove that objects don't fall.

 

Life evolves. We evolved. Peek's claims that we don't have proof are simply false.

 

But here's what I'd like to do. Let's pick one animal. One organism and I'll try to find the proof that it has evolved and provide it. Then Peek can show me how that evidence is faulty. One modern animal, a bird? Whale? Horse? Human?

 

What'll it be?

[Phred]

Looked them up and read them. Thank you. BUT, and you know there was gonnna be one :), the proof that these methods are infallible and accurate cannot be determined for well over another 100 or so years. Maybe by then I will have evolved into something else and won't care. Ok I know that was snarky but I am hormonal right now! Do other creatures get migraines and hormonal rages?? Hmmm, I wonder.

 

Like I said, to believe these theories, you have to come to the table with a desire to believe. Either way.

No, I don't agree with that Sunshine. We know the halflives of these isotopes exactly. So when bits of these substances are trapped within rock we can very accurately measure the amounts of the isotopes that are present and how much of the remainder is present. We don't have to wait 100 years.

 

Or won't nuclear power work for another 100 years? It's all the same process in one form or another.

[Greta]

Considering that certain types of structures would be more suited to life on earth, it doesn't seem like chance that similar sequences would occur and thrive. The throws of the dice may have been different, but the general environment would have eliminated many of the "wildly divergent" ones so that --again-- certain sequences thrived while others didn't.

 

Unless I am misunderstanding what you're saying here, I think you might be misunderstanding. :) How's that for a nice clear sentence?

 

You're absolutely right that certain structures/features are advantageous, and we see them cropping up again and again in organisms that aren't (closely) related. Wings have evolved in many different insects, in reptiles (now extinct), in birds, and in mammals (bats). Eyes have evolved on around 50 separate occasions. Yes, structures like eyes are very advantageous, so they thrive.

 

But the sequences that code for these structures are NOT THE SAME.

 

You have to remember that the genetic code is actually arbitrary. There's nothing magical or intrinsic about "ATTCGAAGCT" that means "blue eyes" (I'm sure you realize this is a grossly over-simplified example).

 

What I mean is, creature A's eye may be very similar in structure and appearance and function to creature B's, but they have wildly different genetic sequences that code for those eyes, so that tells us they evolved separately. On the other hand, creature C's eye is very similar to creature D's, and 99.9% of the genes that code for those eyes are identical, so that tells us that creatures C and D both inherited their eye genes from the same source.

 

I'm having a much harder time putting this into words than I thought I would. Is that making any sense? Would someone who is more eloquent care to jump in here and bail me out? :D

[Greta]

There are all sorts of ways that microscopic bugs transfer DNA. And it's not reproduction. We, on the other hand, pass along our genes in one way and one way only... reproduction. As do all mammals. Reproduction. It just didn't seem germane to introduce all these other things when trying to make a point. I have maybe a paragraph before someone gets bored, not a couple of weeks. So please excuse my trying to be brief and give the cliffs notes version of things.

 

Yes, exactly. As I was writing that I was thinking "sombody's going to bring up that bacteria thing, I just know it". :D But I decided to skip it anyway, because it isn't relevant to the way *humans* and other animals reproduce. I was just trying to keep it simple. It is a really interesting topic, though! Not one I know much about, but interesting.

[Greta]

ToE folks have their fair share of infighting, just like other folks who share an otherwise similar set of beliefs. We hardly ever hear about that because it undermines their credibility (erroneously) because people think that if they do not agree, then their whole theory must be false.

 

I'm always surprised to hear people say things like this, because as I was getting my degree, I got the very clear impression that there were LOTS of arguments and debates going on among zoologists (that's what I was studying, but it's probably true in other fields as well). And no one was shy about it, because everyone wants to put their own argument out there and defend it and get the credit for being right! :D Maybe people don't hear about it, not because there's some kind of cover-up, but simply because the average person doesn't honestly pay much attention to what's going on in science.

[Tea Time]

Yes, exactly. As I was writing that I was thinking "sombody's going to bring up that bacteria thing, I just know it". :D But I decided to skip it anyway, because it isn't relevant to the way *humans* and other animals reproduce. I was just trying to keep it simple. It is a really interesting topic, though! Not one I know much about, but interesting.

 

But it is not simple. That was really my only point. Often times people arguing for evolution want to over simplify it to get agreement or to convince "nonbelievers†and that is counterproductive, IMO. But, I did not suggest this refuted evolution in any way. Perhaps I was not clear.

 

I'm always surprised to hear people say things like this, because as I was getting my degree, I got the very clear impression that there were LOTS of arguments and debates going on among zoologists (that's what I was studying, but it's probably true in other fields as well). And no one was shy about it, because everyone wants to put their own argument out there and defend it and get the credit for being right! :D Maybe people don't hear about it, not because there's some kind of cover-up, but simply because the average person doesn't honestly pay much attention to what's going on in science.

 

You completely missed my point. I never said anything about "cover-up."

 

I don't know why you are jumping to so many conclusions about that comment, none of which has anything to do with my statement which was a statement of simple logical fact that I think people tend to forget when hearing about various controversies:

 

When people of a certain belief system disagree with one another, it does not follow that the entire belief system must necessarily be false.

 

But I am feeling misunderstood and maligned. I'll just pass from this conversation. :tongue_smilie:

[Greta]

But I am feeling misunderstood and maligned. I'll just pass from this conversation. :tongue_smilie:

 

Whoa, slow down there. Misunderstood? Quite possibly. Maligned? Hardly! I thought we were having a mutually pleasant chat. I wasn't upset and had no negative feelings at all about what you had said. I sincerely apologize if I misunderstandood you but in no way shape or form was I attempting to misrepresent what you said.

 

 

But it is not simple. That was really my only point. Often times people arguing for evolution want to over simplify it to get agreement or to convince "nonbelievers” and that is counterproductive, IMO.

No, it IS simple. Humans transfer their chromosomal DNA to other organisms by way of reproduction. That is not an OVER simplification. That is a fact. I was not trying to dumb anything down or make it sound simpler than it is in order to get agreement. I was simply trying to keep the conversation on a certain course. People do that you know. Not going off on a tangent is not the same as obscuring the information to get an agreement.

You completely missed my point. I never said anything about "cover-up."

 

I don't know why you are jumping to so many conclusions about that comment, none of which has anything to do with my statement which was a statement of simple logical fact that I think people tend to forget when hearing about various controversies:

 

When people of a certain belief system disagree with one another, it does not follow that the entire belief system must necessarily be false.

I didn't note my agreement with your main point (last sentence above), and for that I humbly apologize. I can see how that made my post come across the wrong way. I was only trying to say that in my experience, quite a lot of arguing goes on among evolutionists. So I was surprised when you commented that "We hardly ever hear about that." I heard about it all the time. Edited September 28, 2009 by GretaLynne

[Phred]

Unless I am misunderstanding what you're saying here, I think you might be misunderstanding. :) How's that for a nice clear sentence?

 

You're absolutely right that certain structures/features are advantageous, and we see them cropping up again and again in organisms that aren't (closely) related. Wings have evolved in many different insects, in reptiles (now extinct), in birds, and in mammals (bats). Eyes have evolved on around 50 separate occasions. Yes, structures like eyes are very advantageous, so they thrive.

 

But the sequences that code for these structures are NOT THE SAME.

 

You have to remember that the genetic code is actually arbitrary. There's nothing magical or intrinsic about "ATTCGAAGCT" that means "blue eyes" (I'm sure you realize this is a grossly over-simplified example).

 

What I mean is, creature A's eye may be very similar in structure and appearance and function to creature B's, but they have wildly different genetic sequences that code for those eyes, so that tells us they evolved separately. On the other hand, creature C's eye is very similar to creature D's, and 99.9% of the genes that code for those eyes are identical, so that tells us that creatures C and D both inherited their eye genes from the same source.

 

I'm having a much harder time putting this into words than I thought I would. Is that making any sense? Would someone who is more eloquent care to jump in here and bail me out? :D

I don't know that I'm any more eloquent but...

 

What we're talking about is called "convergent evolution". Thoughout history we see the same basic templates coming to light. Wings for flight. Armor for defense. Eyes to see. Legs to walk. We see chameleons and cuttlefish that both can change the color of their skin and both in completely different ways. Bats and birds can both fly, one with skin and one with feathers. The octopus and the human can both see and both see in color yet the octopus has a much better eye. Ankylosaurus and the turtle both have almost full body armor.

 

The Berkely evolution site says this very well:

 

Since a phylogenetic tree is a hypothesis about evolutionary relationships, we want to use characters that are reliable indicators of common ancestry to build that tree. We use homologous characters—characters in different organisms that are similar because they were inherited from a common ancestor that also had that character. An example of homologous characters is the four limbs of tetrapods. Birds, bats, mice, and crocodiles all have four limbs. Sharks and bony fish do not. The ancestor of tetrapods evolved four limbs, and its descendents have inherited that feature—so the presence of four limbs is a homology.

Not all characters are homologies. For example, birds and bats both have wings, while mice and crocodiles do not. Does that mean that birds and bats are more closely related to one another than to mice and crocodiles? No. When we examine bird wings and bat wings closely, we see that there are some major differences.

Bat wings consist of flaps of skin stretched between the bones of the fingers and arm. Bird wings consist of feathers extending all along the arm. These structural dissimilarities suggest that bird wings and bat wings were not inherited from a common ancestor with wings. This idea is illustrated by the phylogeny below, which is based on a large number of other characters.

Bird and bat wings are analogous—that is, they have separate evolutionary origins, but are superficially similar because they evolved to serve the same function. Analogies are the result of convergent evolution.

Interestingly, though bird and bat wings are analogous as wings, as forelimbs they are homologous. Birds and bats did not inherit wings from a common ancestor with wings, but they did inherit forelimbs from a common ancestor with forelimbs.

[Greta]

I don't know that I'm any more eloquent but...

 

Yes, thank you, that was great! The only thing I would add, because I think this is the point Peek was confused on, is that homologous features have the same (or similar) genetic sequences, but analogous ones do not.

 

In other words, it is NOT that the same genetic sequence appeared in this other (analogous) group as well.

 

So the appearance of analogies does not obscure the picture we have of genetic relationships.

 

Now am I making sense or am I making it worse? :D

Edited September 28, 2009 by GretaLynne

[sunshine]

Just some information that has been instrumental in solidifying my beliefs:

 

http://www.CreationOnTheWeb.org

 

"Evidence For A Young World" by Dr. Russell Humphreys (nuclear Physicist

 

"The Ultimate Proof Of Creation" by Dr. Jason Lisle (astophysicist)

 

"Stones and Bones: Powerful Evidence Against Evolution" by Carl Wehland (this address radiometric dating)

I am completely horrible at explaining scientifically why I believe, so I thought I would give these resources that puts it out there in detail. I can hardly verbalize what I did yesterday so I am an utter failure at verbalizing this important topic without sounding like an idiot :D

 

Now, I am getting alot of slack from my family about continuing this debate and have been caught on this forum one too many times by them, I think I receive more patience from ya'll than my own family!:glare: but I guess they just want to eat and have a few clean clothes so I better stay off this wonderful thread!! Until I can't help myself again......

[Lovedtodeath]

 

Peek, can you tell me what the Theory of Evolution states? Can you tell me why the word, "theory" does not mean "guess"?

I can. Because the meaning of the word theory has undergone a drastic change. It once meant the same thing as hypothesis.;)

[Greta]

I can hardly verbalize what I did yesterday so I am an utter failure at verbalizing this important topic without sounding like an idiot :D

 

Hey, not at all! I'm the one just stumbling and bumbling my way through this conversation, not doing a very good job of expressing my thoughts at all, but I enjoy it. Even though we disagree I have enjoyed and respect your contributions.

 

Now, I am getting alot of slack from my family about continuing this debate and have been caught on this forum one too many times by them, I think I receive more patience from ya'll than my own family!:glare: but I guess they just want to eat and have a few clean clothes so I better stay off this wonderful thread!! Until I can't help myself again......

 

:001_smile: I understand. And I believe I read in another post that you have (had) a migraine. I know first hand how miserable that is, and I'm sorry. I hope you feel better!

[Greta]

Tea Time, I think part of the problem we're having here is we're looking at this whole bacteria thing in completely different terms.

 

My understanding is that there are viruses and/or bacteria capable of transferring genetic material between single-celled organisms. Since this was not relevant to my discussion about how animal DNA gets reproduced, I didn't bring it up. Not because I was trying to obscure by over simplifying, but because it simply was completely irrelevant. It's interesting. It's just not pertinent.

 

You seem to be under the impression that there are bacteria capable of transferring animal chromosomal DNA from one individual to another -- or am I misunderstanding you? If that's not what you were saying, then I apologize for misunderstanding you yet again, and I guess we have no disagreement here. If that is what you're saying, then I would like to hear more about it, because I've never heard of such a beast before. The links you provided are very interesting, and they do talk about the multitude of bacteria that live on/in us, but they do not talk about bacteria moving our DNA from one individual to another, nor do they talk about bacteria affecting our DNA in any way.

Edited September 28, 2009 by GretaLynne
fumbling again, trying to clarify.

[Tea Time]

Whoa, slow down there. Misunderstood? Quite possibly. Maligned? Hardly! I thought we were having a mutually pleasant chat. I wasn't upset and had no negative feelings at all about what you had said. I sincerely apologize if I misunderstandood you but in no way shape or form was I attempting to misrepresent what you said.

 

 

No biggie, a bit of hyperbole there. I do think some assumptions were made about where I was coming from, but that is okay, we all do it at times.

 

No, it IS simple. Humans transfer their chromosomal DNA to other organisms by way of reproduction. That is not an OVER simplification. That is a fact. I was not trying to dumb anything down or make it sound simpler than it is in order to get agreement. I was simply trying to keep the conversation on a certain course. People do that you know. Not going off on a tangent is not the same as obscuring the information to get an agreement.

 

 

Okay, I thought there was a little more to the theory than this, I guess. I wonder why this thread is 68 pages long then. Personally, I find it hard to defend evolution when it is viewed too simplistically. It is hard to understand how one species can change into a completely different species. That is too big of a leap. You can never find direct evidence that "proves" this happened. One needs to see it is a bit more (a lot more?) complex. But I think we may be in violent agreement. Not sure what we are arguing about or why.

 

I didn't note my agreement with your main point (last sentence above), and for that I humbly apologize. I can see how that made my post come across the wrong way. I was only trying to say that in my experience, quite a lot of arguing goes on among evolutionists. So I was surprised when you commented that "We hardly ever hear about that." I heard about it all the time.

 

 

Did you change this? I had to leave for a while and this is not what I originally was going to respond to. I'm getting delusional or something. Anyway, it was another tangent, so just as well.

[Spy Car]

It is hard to understand how one species can change into a completely different species. That is too big of a leap.

 

I don't understand why you say this. One can see many species today that have barely diverged, and while they won't inter-breed in the wild CAN inter-breed in controlled environments. Lions and Tigers are one such example.

 

Two different species, with an obvious common ancestor.

 

Bill

[Greta]

Okay, I thought there was a little more to the theory than this, I guess. I wonder why this thread is 68 pages long then. Personally, I find it hard to defend evolution when it is viewed too simplistically.

 

Oh, wait, miscommunication again. Sorry. I'm not saying EVOLUTION is that simple. I'm saying the way that human DNA gets transferred from one individual to another is that simple: reproduction. Period. That's it. Peek was saying that genetic relationships don't prove descent, and I was saying they most certainly do because reproduction is the only method (among multi-cellular organisms) for transferring genetic material.

 

It is hard to understand how one species can change into a completely different species. That is too big of a leap. You can never find direct evidence that "proves" this happened. One needs to see it is a bit more (a lot more?) complex. But I think we may be in violent agreement. Not sure what we are arguing about or why.

No, unfortunately, we're in (hopefully non-violent :D ) disagreement there. It isn't that hard for me to understand, though it must be harder than I realize, because so many people have a problem with it. We can all see the amazing changes that humans have made by the selective breeding of certain plants and animals. Pretty radical changes! In relatively short time periods! You add up those kinds of changes over enough generations, and it isn't hard for me personally to see how an organism could change into something quite different. The basic mechanism is the same, whether we're talking about minor differences or major ones. I don't know, just doesn't seem like that much of a leap to me. Have you ever read Climbing Mount Improbable? I don't agree with Dawkins' theological stance, but he's pretty darn good at explaining evolution, and that book is a good one for this particular issue.

 

Did you change this? I had to leave for a while and this is not what I originally was going to respond to. I'm getting delusional or something. Anyway, it was another tangent, so just as well.

I did. I got my feathers ruffled and sounded too snarky. :blush: When I re-read it I changed several things to tone it down. I don't remember specifically what I changed in that paragraph, though. But if you remember and you want to respond, that's fine. Edited September 28, 2009 by GretaLynne
redundancy

[Tea Time]

Tea Time, I think part of the problem we're having here is we're looking at this whole bacteria thing in completely different terms.

 

My understanding is that there are viruses and/or bacteria capable of transferring genetic material between single-celled organisms. Since this was not relevant to my discussion about how animal DNA gets reproduced, I didn't bring it up. Not because I was trying to obscure by over simplifying, but because it simply was completely irrelevant. It's interesting. It's just not pertinent.

 

You seem to be under the impression that there are bacteria capable of transferring animal chromosomal DNA from one individual to another -- or am I misunderstanding you? If that's not what you were saying, then I apologize for misunderstanding you yet again, and I guess we have no disagreement here. If that is what you're saying, then I would like to hear more about it, because I've never heard of such a beast before. The links you provided are very interesting, and they do talk about the multitude of bacteria that live on/in us, but they do not talk about bacteria moving our DNA from one individual to another, nor do they talk about bacteria affecting our DNA in any way.

 

I keep getting logged out. As if I don’t have enough trouble trying to keep a train of thought!

 

Actually my original interest in the bacteria information was not at all related to its relevance to evolutionary theory but to the implications for disease (as noted in the first article I posted). I did not bookmark the article that was referring to it in relation to evolution, unfortunately, but I thought it was interesting. I have not seen much else about it, but I have not looked either. I did get the impression, from that one article, that there are implications for the DNA of animals, so that is why it was a controversial (among evolutionists) and stuck in my mind. But again, it was just something I read in passing that I thought was very interesting. I did not completely digest it. Now I wish I had. Or I had stayed out of this discussion!

 

Oh, okay, I see your point about bacteria moving DNA from one individual to another (like bees pollinating people??? LOL? Hummm... I'm thinking my next sci-fi novel in the making). I think it was more along the lines of changing the DNA within an individual so that the offspring might be altered from the original DNA pattern handed down from the parent. Big difference. So the implication is that bacteria might be responsible for changes in DNA, not just mutating genes. Is this conceivable?

 

I think we are posting at the same time, so, hello there. :lol:

[Greta]

I think it was more along the lines of changing the DNA within an individual so that the offspring might be altered from the original DNA pattern handed down from the parent.

 

Wow, that's interesting too. Never heard of that before either. Yeah, that would be different than the creepy sci-fi thing that I thought you meant. :D Thank goodness, right? But I guess it's potentially creepy in its own way.

 

If you ever happen to run across that article you were thinking of again, I would love to read it. I'll do some browsing on Science Daily and see if I can find anything.

I think we are posting at the same time, so, hello there. :lol:

 

Oh, howdy! :001_smile: But how did you know I was posting at the same time? I think these boards must have a lot of features I haven't discovered yet.

[Tea Time]

No, unfortunately, we're in (hopefully non-violent :D ) disagreement there. It isn't that hard for me to understand, though it must be harder than I realize, because so many people have a problem with it. We can all see the amazing changes that humans have made by the selective breeding of certain plants and animals. Pretty radical changes! In relatively short time periods! You add up those kinds of changes over enough generations, and it isn't hard for me personally to see how an organism could change into something quite different. The basic mechanism is the same, whether we're talking about minor differences or major ones. I don't know, just doesn't seem like that much of a leap to me. Have you ever read Climbing Mount Improbable? I don't agree with Dawkins' theological stance, but he's pretty darn good at explaining evolution, and that book is a good one for this particular issue.

 

LOL! Yes, but technically that would be proof of (semi) intelligent design, not random evolutionary changes. As far as I know we have never successfully created a totally new species, but maybe it really is just a matter of degree of difference. So we have hard proof that ID occurs because we know that one species can influence another’s development for specific reasons of their own choosing. Whether or not that could have occurred at some other point in history would be almost totally impossible to prove, I would think, yet it could have happened. Aliens. It is always the aliens you know.

 

I don't find the idea hard to imagine at all either, so we are in, thankfully, non-violent agreement there. I was referring to the fact that a lot of people do find it difficult to make that leap, not me personally.

 

But we are speaking of an unimaginable amount of variety, which is exactly the difficulty that Darwin was having in his mind when he grappled with this problem. The idea of a common ancestor is easy to understand, but the vast, vast variety is harder to explain. Isn’t there a point where the fossil record sort of shows an astronomical leap in variety that is difficult to explain? But again, I tend to work from a conceptual understanding. I do not think it is good for a conceptual person, like me, to go into this field, which is why I defer to greater minds than myself. I have found some mentors who believe in evolution whose opinions I value, and I defer to their authority where I have found my own studies too limited.

 

One thing I can't do is believe that I could possibly have it all figured out with no surprises around the corner. As Socrates noted, not in these words, the more I know, the more I realize I don't know.

 

I can see you posted again, which is how I know you are working at the same time as I am. I will definitely keep my eye out for that article, or one like it. Now don’t steal my sci-fi novel idea, people, or I will get you!

[Tea Time]

I don't understand why you say this. One can see many species today that have barely diverged, and while they won't inter-breed in the wild CAN inter-breed in controlled environments. Lions and Tigers are one such example.

 

Two different species, with an obvious common ancestor.

 

Bill

 

I say this because people express their difficulty in believing. Read my post again. I did not say I was one of them. When I defend evolution, I remember that this leap is hard for some people to make. Sorry the post was unclear.

 

Have you read about the mules that have produced offspring when they are not supposed to be able to? Very interesting. All manner of crazy things happen, even more so when people start manipulating things.

Edited September 28, 2009 by Tea Time
clarification

[Spy Car]

I say this because people express their difficulty in believing. Read my post again. I did not say I was one of them. When I defend evolution, I remember that this leap is hard for some people to make. Sorry the post was unclear.

 

Have you read about the mules that have produced offspring when they are not supposed to be able to? Very interesting. All manner of crazy things happen, even more so when people start manipulating things.

 

These things happen because these species have barely diverged in evolutionary terms, not because people are "mad scientists" (granting the existence of some mad scientists :D).

 

So I don't understand the problem those who are having a difficult time understanding (not you) are having. Many species have barely diverged. And sometimes there is reason debate if two species have in fact diverged, and shouldn't be considered "one".

 

Bill

[kiana]

These things happen because these species have barely diverged in evolutionary terms, not because people are "mad scientists" (granting the existence of some mad scientists :D).

 

So I don't understand the problem those who are having a difficult time understanding (not you) are having. Many species have barely diverged. And sometimes there is reason debate if two species have in fact diverged, and shouldn't be considered "one".

 

Bill

 

And then there are really interesting things like "ring species", where a population can breed with its nearest neighbours, but can't always breed with populations further away. i.e. group A can breed with groups B and C, but not with D ... but B and C can breed with D! How cool is that?

[Lovedtodeath]

I don't understand why you say this. One can see many species today that have barely diverged, and while they won't inter-breed in the wild CAN inter-breed in controlled environments. Lions and Tigers are one such example.

 

Two different species, with an obvious common ancestor.

 

Bill

I think the misunderstanding is the definition of the term species. Here ya go Tea Time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

 

So in my belief Darwin was absolutely right about the origin of different species. What I have a problem with is when we go higher and higher up the chain.

Edited September 29, 2009 by Lovedtodeath

[Phred]

I think the misunderstanding is the definition of the term species. Here ya go Tea Time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

 

So in my belief Darwin was absolutely right about the origin of different species. What I have a problem with is when we go higher and higher up the chain.

In simpler terms... us?

[Lovedtodeath]

In simpler terms... us?

No, I mean families and /or orders.

 

The original one or two animals of a family or order were created separately, then they evolved into different species. (It could be one as some animals do reproduce without a mate.)

[Phred]

No, I mean families and /or orders.

 

The original one or two animals of a family or order were created separately, then they evolved into different species. (It could be one as some animals do reproduce without a mate.)

The Platypus.

[JillZ]

I have no reason to add or take away from the science OR scripture in regards to this topic as what is available is plenty to keep me in awe.

 

:iagree:

[Greta]

LOL! Yes, but technically that would be proof of (semi) intelligent design, not random evolutionary changes.

 

:D I never thought of it that way. Amount of intelligence involved aside ;), it is, as I'm sure you know, generally referred to as artificial selection. This happens in much the same way as natural selection, which is the primary, though not only, force driving evolution (which, btw, [i'm really sorry to correct you, but it's a "thing" with me] is not random.).

 

As far as I know we have never successfully created a totally new species,

 

Well, one that comes immediately to my mind, since four of them are living here in my house (yes, it's insane) is the domestic dog, which is quite rightly classified as a different species as its wolf ancestor. When I look at our chihuahua and think about her wolf ancestry, it's rather amusing. But I digress. I think quite a few new species have been generated in the agricultural world.

 

So we have hard proof that ID occurs because we know that one species can influence another’s development for specific reasons of their own choosing. Whether or not that could have occurred at some other point in history would be almost totally impossible to prove, I would think, yet it could have happened.

 

Well, it's actually not that hard to prove, it happens very frequently, and it's pretty interesting stuff. I'm reading Dawkins' newest book right now, and he talks about this in one of the first few chapters: the way bees, moths, and other insects as well as hummingbirds and sunbirds have selected ever more attractive and fragrant flowers, eventually resulting in a huge variety of some pretty impressive blossoms. I'll spare you the detail, because it's all there in the book, but it's really fun stuff.

 

Aliens. It is always the aliens you know.

 

As a die-hard sci-fi geek, I am quite open to the possibility that aliens started the whole thing. :lol:

 

Of course, then there's the question of how the aliens evolved. :D

 

I don't find the idea hard to imagine at all either, so we are in, thankfully, non-violent agreement there. I was referring to the fact that a lot of people do find it difficult to make that leap, not me personally.

 

Oh, cool.

 

But we are speaking of an unimaginable amount of variety, which is exactly the difficulty that Darwin was having in his mind when he grappled with this problem. The idea of a common ancestor is easy to understand, but the vast, vast variety is harder to explain. Isn’t there a point where the fossil record sort of shows an astronomical leap in variety that is difficult to explain?

 

Evolution can happen in fits and starts. Things may proceed rather slowly and gradually for awhile, and then when there's a major change in the environment, that stimulates a change in selection pressures. I think what you're referring to is the major events which caused huge extinctions, and then in that relative void, gazillions (don't you love my technical jargon) of new species develop in what seems the blink of an eye? Evolution can occur (relatively) rapidly in those circumstances, but we also have to remember that the fossil record records geologic time, not human time, so what looks like "instantly" to us can actually be thousands of generations.

 

But again, I tend to work from a conceptual understanding.

 

What do you mean by conceptual -- or what type of understanding would you contrast this with?

 

One thing I can't do is believe that I could possibly have it all figured out with no surprises around the corner. As Socrates noted, not in these words, the more I know, the more I realize I don't know.

 

No argument here. I am delighted and surprised at the way our knowledge of biology has grown so much in just the few years since I graduated college. Well, I guess that's been more than a few years, but that's kind of a depressing thought. I'll keep calling it a "few". :) I really should do a better job of keeping up with the science news, because there is so much amazing stuff going on.

 

I can see you posted again, which is how I know you are working at the same time as I am.

 

Oh, okay! I thought you meant you could see I was in the process of working on a reply. How does she know that?

[Tea Time]

I never thought of it that way. Amount of intelligence involved aside, it is, as I'm sure you know, generally referred to as artificial selection. This happens in much the same way as natural selection, which is the primary, though not only, force driving evolution (which, btw, [i'm really sorry to correct you, but it's a "thing" with me] is not random.).

I only meant random in the sense that, under "normal" circumstances, it is not directed in any way by reason or a mind. Natural selection follows "rules," but it is not thought to be under the influence of a "purpose." When people interfer in the process, they do so for a purpose.

 

Well, one that comes immediately to my mind, since four of them are living here in my house (yes, it's insane) is the domestic dog, which is quite rightly classified as a different species as its wolf ancestor. When I look at our chihuahua and think about her wolf ancestry, it's rather amusing. But I digress. I think quite a few new species have been generated in the agricultural world.

 

 

This occurred before we did any interfering in the process. We adapted to them, too, one might say. But I see what you mean by saying that dogs are a different species than wolves. When you look at animal breeding and the agricultural world, you have to hope that it is intelligent design.

 

Well, it's actually not that hard to prove, it happens very frequently, and it's pretty interesting stuff. I'm reading Dawkins' newest book right now, and he talks about this in one of the first few chapters: the way bees, moths, and other insects as well as hummingbirds and sunbirds have selected ever more attractive and fragrant flowers, eventually resulting in a huge variety of some pretty impressive blossoms. I'll spare you the detail, because it's all there in the book, but it's really fun stuff.

 

 

Referring to above, I have to be a stickler here. This is not what I meant by a species influencing another species as humans have done. When I say "specific reasons of their own choosing," I am referring to reason, like thinking kind of reason. Humming birds and sunbirds may have helped create art, but they have never created art.

 

What do you mean by conceptual -- or what type of understanding would you contrast this with?

 

 

Hummm... this is hard to explain. People think about things differently. Which should be a good thing, but it is hard for people to accept.

 

Some people are good with details, math computations, statistics, getting to the nitty-gritty. That isn't me. I grasp "wholes." I see the big picture, but I am well aware that the devil can be in the details, so I have to defer to those who do better with details to make sure I don't lose sight of important intricacies with my sweeping conclusions. But I have seen people that are great with details who can't "see the forest for the trees." They will be able to tell you all manner of things, but will not see how they are significant in any way. And a lot of times they can't see the far removed implications of things. They seem, from my POV, to have blind spots that they are not interested in filling. I know my blind spots, and I work hard to get them filled in, but not everyone does.

 

Regardless of how fascinating it is to look at and study the natural world through science, some of us just can't stop wondering if there was an artist. I find it very frustrating that people sometimes treat that like some kind of mental defect. If it is, we are in good company. Consider these quotes from G.K. Chesterton (who I think was also a conceptual/global thinker):

 

"But there are some people, nevertheless - and I am one of them - who thinks the most practical and important thing about man is still his view of the universe. We think that for a landlady considering a lodger, it is important to know his income, but still more important to know his philosophy"

 

"The riddles of God are more satisfying than the solutions of man."

 

I think the world is a better place because we have both science and religion. But still, there are those that will only tolerate one or the other. I fear those people. This is probably more than you were interested in hearing! :D

[johnandtinagilbert]

I'm intrigued by the notion of 'avoiding evolution.' (The Noeo science thread got me thinking.)

 

I'm wondering what this means to those of you who 'avoid' it.

 

Is it must macro-evolution (as in 'gazillions of incremental changes finally leading up to earth as we know it') that you avoid? Or do you also not teach micro-evolution (as in 'head-lice are evolving and now cannot be killed with most over-the-counter lice killers').

 

Do you discuss it at all? Or is it a taboo subject altogether?

 

Is your choice primarily based on your faith beliefs, or on scientific research?

 

Were you taught evolution as a child?

 

I ask this because I don't think I know anyone who doesn't accept evolution as a plausible theory. So, it's a stretch for me to understand what seems to be a trend in some home-schooling circles.

No time to read the entire thread, but wanted to answer your question.

No, I have never avoided it, but I have always countered it with what we believe.

Yes, I was taught evolution, big bang. I remember the pictures that we came from apes and also studies that we came from birds.

It has never been a tabu subject for us, even in grades K I taught, "Some people believe this....we believe this...and this is why." I really do try to present things scientifically. My children, at this point, are able to counter (if you will) evolutionary thinking.

I do intend to focus next year with my older boys using a heavy, high school centered program using creationist and intelligent design materials in a spine book fashion before they head off to college, so I know they can defend their faith before they enter college and the science of their beliefs will be tested.

Nicely asked question, btw, thank you.

[Greta]

I only meant random in the sense that, under "normal" circumstances, it is not directed in any way by reason or a mind. Natural selection follows "rules," but it is not thought to be under the influence of a "purpose." When people interfer in the process, they do so for a purpose.

 

Thanks for explaining. I understand now what you meant. I hope we can find a better word than "random" though because I think it reinforces a common misconception about how evolution works.

 

This occurred before we did any interfering in the process.

 

Hmm, well that wasn't my impression but I certainly can't swear to anything. Might have to look into that.

 

Referring to above, I have to be a stickler here. This is not what I meant by a species influencing another species as humans have done. When I say "specific reasons of their own choosing," I am referring to reason, like thinking kind of reason. Humming birds and sunbirds may have helped create art, but they have never created art.

 

No, I don't mind you being a stickler at all! I appreciate you clarifying for me. I certainly wasn't implying that hummingbirds and insects have selected for beautiful flowers because they appreciate beauty! I was only suggesting that their actions, whatever the intention behind them (in this case, getting nectar to eat) have influenced the evolution of many species of plants. I'm not saying that they set out to do so. Merely that they did so. I didn't mean to propose it as an example of "intelligent design", just as an example of the actions of one species influencing the evolution of another.

 

Hummm... this is hard to explain. People think about things differently. Which should be a good thing, but it is hard for people to accept.

 

Some people are good with details, math computations, statistics, getting to the nitty-gritty. That isn't me. I grasp "wholes." I see the big picture, but I am well aware that the devil can be in the details, so I have to defer to those who do better with details to make sure I don't lose sight of important intricacies with my sweeping conclusions. But I have seen people that are great with details who can't "see the forest for the trees." They will be able to tell you all manner of things, but will not see how they are significant in any way. And a lot of times they can't see the far removed implications of things. They seem, from my POV, to have blind spots that they are not interested in filling. I know my blind spots, and I work hard to get them filled in, but not everyone does.

 

Regardless of how fascinating it is to look at and study the natural world through science, some of us just can't stop wondering if there was an artist. I find it very frustrating that people sometimes treat that like some kind of mental defect. If it is, we are in good company. Consider these quotes from G.K. Chesterton (who I think was also a conceptual/global thinker):

 

"But there are some people, nevertheless - and I am one of them - who thinks the most practical and important thing about man is still his view of the universe. We think that for a landlady considering a lodger, it is important to know his income, but still more important to know his philosophy"

 

"The riddles of God are more satisfying than the solutions of man."

 

Thanks for sharing this. :001_smile: I had heard of "global" thinkers before, but I didn't realize that "conceptual" carried a similar meaning.

I think the world is a better place because we have both science and religion. But still, there are those that will only tolerate one or the other. I fear those people. This is probably more than you were interested in hearing! :D

 

No, I agree with you wholeheartedly there! I dream of a time when reason and faith coexist equally and peacefully. :001_smile: