Catholics agree that evolution (small "e", what I call micro-evolution) occurs as change over time WITHIN THE SAME SPECIES. The proponents of macro-Evolution have not offered anything but fanciful speculation that one species evolved into a completely different one...as apes to humans.

There is no such thing as "micro" and "macro" evolution. Species is defines as two animals that cannot interbreed (any more). How would your "micro-evolution" know when to stop?

Animals change via evolution. Occasionally these changes make the animals incompatible with their brothers. That is the moment when a new species has been created. How exactly would "micro-evolution" know that that is about to happen and stop changing the animals? Would G-d tell it?

The fact that you failed to read about evolution does not mean that "proponents" have not offered anything. Ignorance is NOT the fault of others.

Read Richard Dawkins. Come back when you understood his books. I myself took the trouble of studying Hebrew in order better to understand the Bible (that was one the reasons anyway). Thus any statements I make about the Bible represent my having read the book in two different translations (Luther, King James) and slowly reading through it in Hebrew. I also attended classes with a rabbi. Plus I read an English interpretation of the Qur'an (which is clearly based on the Bible). Any statements you make about evolution should represent a similar effort, I am sure. Tell me when you have undertaken the project.

How do you prove something that took billions of years in 150 years?

Some people look at the world and learn.

You can observe evolution in labs and you can find fossils that show that the same mechanism happened outside the lab.

If you really want an answer, feel free to buy Dawkins' books. He explains it very well.

I always thought the words "Each according to its kind" were very specific of whether species could make new species biblically. But, that might have been tampered with, so I should look at the world - and I see, gasp, humans produce more humans and doggies produce more doggies and kitties produce more kitties, etc. I guess in labs doggies produce something else. I will have to look at Dawkin's book and get back to you on that.

SC posts:

Really, the evidence that would prove that one species evolves into a completely different one would be the missing links, right?

As far as I know, the missing links are well----still missing.

Lula posts:

Leauki posts:

I use the terms "micro" and "macro" to make a point about the distinction between the two..

As far as I can tell, micro-evolution may never stop.

While macro-Evolution, that is ---evolving over a long period of time from one species into a completely different one---never started...

 

You are forgetting about the fall. The first of our species were pretty fine specimens, but something terrible happened to them. We have diseases we cannot cure, deformities, and bodies that die. Something terrible happened to our race and instead of getting stronger we are getting weaker and even the polar caps are melting...our world is coming apart.... 'There must be a better world somewhere' BB King.

I have often thought God is like an alien, no wonder God keeps away from our sort. We kill anyone who does not agree with us and we do it is in the name of that alien.

Sweet,
Aeryck.

Leauki posts:

Really? Would you kindly give me a specific example of this and when it naturally occurred in nature?

That's the way I understand it too.

Aeryck.

That's silly. Children need to be exposed to varities of views. Just because something is proven today to be true, does not mean that tommorrow it might be found to be untrue, and the next day true ... My own schooling was a pleasure. We had Scripture Union classes where we learned about how God did it, and Science classes where we heard about how he didn't.

I agree that 'world religions' is a GREAT idea. My boys got to learn all the major religions and do projects on them. It has broadened their appreciation of others views, something I had to teach myself years later. (it shows)

Aeryck.

ps. Teaching ID and Evolution aka. Charles Darwin as well as any other new idea, is very stimulating and closer to what it is like to be in a family...school has a lot to learn from us folks...yeah!

Lula posts:

Leauki posts:

Leauki,


You assert that I have failed to read about evolution while claiming you've read plenty....


So, tell us then...what have the proponents of Evolution Theory and of Darwinism offered as far as having anything concrete to substantiate their fanciful Evolution idea that one species evolved over a tremendous long period of time into a completely new and different one?



If the answer is in Dawkin's book, then let's hear it.

Damn this thread blossomed. I'll try to consolidate some of the major points and respond to them.

Mirco/Macro evolution. This was actually taught to me and is accepted. However, they're both the same thing. Micro and macro are just referring to time. Micro in a few generations, macro over millenia. It's the same thing as saying one week(micro) compared to a decade(macro). Micro evolution has been observed in experiment. All you do have to do is observe a few generations and the changes that the population undergoes. Resistance to antibiotics in bacteria is an example of this. Macro evolution can easily be seen when comparing things in the fossil record. Transitional fossils are the main evidence of this. I referred to this in a comment aways up there. The link is: WWW Link and shows several easy to understand examples. Basically these fossils show one species halfway through the transformation into another from a common ancestor. The Tiktaaklik is a great example and shows the transition from fish to amphibians.



Lula, you're willing to believe God had two people just pop into existence but reject the progression of people from similar beings? You also call evolution "junk science" just because it clashes with your religious beliefs? That reminds me when the Catholic church said the earth was flat and the center of the universe. It's the same religious bull headedness. One thing I don't understand is how you can refuse all of this in the face of overwhelming evidence. Rocks don't lie, nor do the fossils in them. Genetics also doesn't lie and has been developed to be quite an exact science. If similarities are shown on the genetic level and genetics is stable enough to be accepted evidence in court, then I really wonder why you can't accept that humans came from apes. Even a superficial glance can tell you that we're eerily similar.



Computer model constructed from actual electron microscope images. It wasn't just assumed, photographs and chemical analysis has been done to determine exactly what occurs in this motor that rotates the flagellum. A corollary has been identified in the bubonic plague bacterium. A simplified version of it thereby showing evidence that it evolved from that structure which acted as a syringe instead of a movable whip.



Why not? For a supposedly enternal being, a few million years is no big deal, especially if one knows the future, why intervene? It's kind of like watching an ant farm or aquarium. Put the critters in and let them live their lives. In this case, cyanobacteria. Who wants something that you have to constantly take care of for an eternity? You'd never get a nap in...so why not start things off and just let it go about it's business.

How I rationalize my Christian beliefs into science is that God started things off with that big ol' bang and things went from there. Let there be light- gases condensed into suns, solids into planets. Creating life? Prokaryotes-Eukaryotes-plants and animals. Easy stuff, really. Things poofing into existence does not happen. They have to come from something else. Paraphrasing the laws of thermodynamics, something can't come from nothing. So I fit God into the era before things came into being, once they were here, then they proliferated. Evolution fits right into that. The only problem ID people have is that it takes away that feeling of "specialness." Thinking that they're hot shit because God made them just the way they've always been. God created a lot in Genesis, but it doesn't go into detail, does it? Evolution can answer the how things came into existence.

I'm done writing for now...if there's anything else you want me to address, just tell me.

And Aeryck, slow up on the millions of comments. While I don't mind discussion, condensation of your thoughts is a wonderful thing.

~Zoo

ZOO WRITES:


I wish I had seen this. We know that over the years public schools have been teaching Darwinism as 'fact'. I know this from reading my children's science books. Both in print and Evolution iconic photos it's stated as 'fact' that man 'evolved' from the ape species.

Besides being flat-out wrong, it's only one side of the Origins debate.

As I've already stated, I believe my ancestoral line goes back to Adam and Eve who according to Genesis were wonderfully, intelligently created and designed by God Himself. This account comes from the Book of Genesis.



Why do you insist upon this? Why is it----in this day and age of academic freedom that the pro-macro-Evolution side which hasn't any empirical proof is teaching Evolution (as fact no less), while censoring the Creation side of the debate? What are you scaredy-pants afraid of?

First of all, there is proof of evolution. Don't insist that there isn't. That's why we study fossils. I've linked at least twice to the webpage that shows 5 examples of species divergence. Just click the link and click that picture to bring up the window with all the fun tidbits in it.

Second of all, Creation is not a valid SCIENTIFIC belief. There is no proof of God, no phenomenon that we can say for certain or even with little question that God is doing this, God exists, God is behind this. It's a question of faith, not fact and faith has no bearing when you're working in science. It's not an alternative theory, it's a religion.

What we're afraid of is teaching children that magic is science, and it's not.

~Zoo

We're scared of losing demonstrable science in the name of fanciful legends of yore.

Plegh.

Evidence of Evolution

The Evolution Evidence Page

Zoo posts:

Zoo,

Yes, this is sorta what I was saying when I wrote:



I think everyone understands that evolution takes X period of time. The distinction I was making between micro and macro though is "micro" is that of evolving within the species; while "macro" is that of evolving from one species into a completely new genetic species...as in ape to man. OUr genetic make-up may be close, but close is still no cigar. As far as I know, that ain't ever happened, even with your fish to amphibian link.

As far as I know, that ain't ever happened, even with your fish to amphibian link.

How can you say that didn't happen?  You have a fish, a few million years down the line you have a newt-like fish, few more million years you have a newt.  It happens gradually and you can't pick one reproductive cycle where the change is starkly evident. 

What you want to see is a lizard laying an egg and a bird hatching out of it or a chimpanzee having a human baby.  That ain't going to happen because it's impossible.  Given enough time and stages, then change is possible, but oh so very slowly.

You think it's odd for things things to change into something else?  I can show animals that change into completely different things and they're still the same species.  Butterflies...from egg to worm to cocoon to flying adult.  Frog, egg to squirmy fishy thingy, to hopping tetrapod.  Seriously, if things like this happen in a life cycle then why not over millenia?

~Zoo

Yes, I believe God created mankind..I can't prove it, so I believe that by Faith.

ANd yes, I understand that over time, humankind has slightly changed as far as our human characteristics are concerned.


I flatly reject Evolution Theory which teaches that apes evolved to brute man who evolved to modern day man(here you call it progressed from "similiar people").

I flatly reject Evolution Theory which teaches that apes evolved to brute man who evolved to modern day man(here you call it progressed from "similiar people").

I said beings, not people.  People, as we describe people, didn't exist until very recently.  Few tens of thousands of years.

Although, rejecting that based on faith, I can't change your mind because you're not considering it.  You're just rejecting it and that's not an argument.

~Zoo

Yes, of course, I understand your point here and agree. These creatures have the same genetic makeup throughout their transformation. Also, from egg to worm to cocoon to flying adult takes only a season of time. The very same can be said for human life...from the moment of conception, the embryonic cell has genetic makeup that doesn't change as it grows into the pre-born fetus to the new born baby, the crawling infant, the toddler and the adult. No one species (set of DNA) evolving into a completely new species with different DNA going on in these scenes.

No one species (set of DNA) evolving into a completely new species with different DNA going on in these scenes.

Actually, this is the only place where this can take place.  Gets right down to your gametes.  Chromosomes is where the fun happens.  A little defect can produce something negative, neutral, and in rare cases something positive.  This is where evolution by mutation happens.

In fact, this is the theory of how humans differentiated from apes.  Chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans all have 24 chromosome pairs.  Humans have only 23.  Seems we're not that similar, right?  Wrong. 

As explained in the show and I know this to be true from a shit load of genetics study.  There are sequences on the ends of chromosomes called telomeres.  Very distinctive repetive patterns.  In the middle of chromosomes are centromeres, these control genetic expression.  To make 23 chromosome pairs from 24 that means one chromosome must have fused with another.  If that happened one would expect that a telomere would be in the middle of one of our chromosomes.  Turns out that it is.  Chromosome number 2 contains a telomere remnant in the middle along with a defunct centromere as well as an active one. 

Genetics is boring, but it does prove itself time and time again.

~Zoo

Zoo posts:

SC POSTS:

I would submit that it's much more than this. Please consider the following part of a letter that I wrote to my children's teachers when they refused to teach both sides of the debate.

Did I really come from apes? These are mighty important questions for students still trying to figure out who they are. Up until now, Evolution Theory (ET) has been the only and last word on the controversial and weighty subject of the origin of life. What’s the big problem of having students taught both sides of the debate?

Microbiology and biochemistry have made stunning progress and brought revolutionary insights here. Real science is testable. Observable data has put into question and in some cases completely overturned unproven “macroevolution” that claims that life comes from nonlife and evolves from one species to another. Evolutionists can’t produce the transitional forms, the “missing links” to prove their theory.

It is critically important that knowledge which modern science has yielded be acknowledged in our classrooms because opinions about the origin of life affect the way people think and how they act.

From the Evolution perspective - If humans descended from animals, why not behave like animals? If nature is all there is, why believe in good and evil? If we evolved by the rationale of Darwin’s genetic philosophy, “survival of the fittest”, then getting rid of the unfit or unwanted is desirable. It’s just the law of the jungle from which we evolved. Mercy killing, forced sterilization, selective breeding of humans, while unpopular with some, would be very beneficial and logical. Communism, Nazism, secular humanism, and the practices of racism and abortion are dependent on the plausibility of Social Darwinism that everything, including man came into existence by chance and over trillions of natural events over billions of years, then we have no control over these events and are relieved of our responsibility to one another, including our responsibility to some Supernatural Creator.


If molecules to monkey to man idea is true, then man is the highest form of being. He can make up his own rules about right and wrong and produce his own moral and ethical laws. If humans evolved from apelike creatures, then some advanced higher than others, and are inherently superior. That was Hitler’s twisted logic. 50 million Americans, an entire generation, have been killed in the womb. From Evolution perspective, these killings are rationalized and justified. If humans are just evolved animals, isn’t it a women’s right to “terminate an unwanted pregnancy, if she and society would benefit?

If Creation is true, then we were made by God, and because of that God gets to make the rules. His standards decide right and wrong and His Laws are what we strive to live by.

Zoo posts:

LUla posts:

Zoo Posts:

Let's go over what Darwinism teaches and see if we end up with a rise in genetic makeup.


Darwinism teaches that we are descendants of ape-like 'ancestors' who as part of nature developed, step by step, from more primitive animals and lower forms of life all the way back to amoebas and molecules. In science text books, Darwinism is presented as an established fact of science which claims that over millions of years, all plants, animals and mankind evolved from a common ancestor and diversified from one species into completely new and different species.

We see pictures of peppered moths, Darwin's finches, and Haeckel's drawings of early embryos of fish to humans, sketches of horse 'evolution', and so-called homologous limbs from a bat's wing to a human hand. All these supposed similiarities are to indicate evidence all evolutionarily descended from an common ancestor. All of these are blatant misrepresentations drawn not from true scientific evidence but from pure Evolutionary faith.

Darwinian Evolution has been pumped into man's conscience since the mid 1800s. One idea after another has been presented, yet, they all have failed to provide evidentury substance. Natural systems degenerate from order toward disorder called entrophy.

Darwinian Evolution requires faith in the opposite.

Interesting letter, but you've taken it a step too far. Evolution is a process which exists in nature if left untampered with human interference. No animal out there is carving out its own path of evolution. They just live the way they feel like living and let it be at that. You won't find many animals killing their own kind in order to better their species.

Another mistake is thinking that evolution is something that makes a species "better" or "superior." This is not the case. An organism will only evolve to suit its environment, that's all. That explains why we have forms of life from microbes to humans. We just had different pressures applied to us. Evolution only causes change and shifts in complexity, not inherent worth.

~Zoo

No, it's not presented as fact. It's presented as the basic model we're working with today. Nothing else exists that can hold up to the same rigorous testing.

There is nothing else to go on and since it makes so much sense, we use it in organism classification. It is still questionable, but then again everything in science is. However, even if you suspect a discrepency in let's say gravity, you shouldn't teach that an alternative is that God's love is keeping us on the ground.

~Zoo

The "missing link" is a matra made up by Creationists. A "missing link" is a transitional fossil (a fossil of an animal that is of a species between two other species). According to avolution ALL species are between two other species, hence every fossil is a transitional fossil, hence all species are the so-called "missing" link.

You really should read more.



So how does "micro-evolution" know when to stop? Does G-d give it some signal: "Hey, you, animal, stop evolving, you are getting close to becoming a new species, hence you must stop evolving since there is no macro-evolution, by decree!"?



I wish you guys had the ability to look up stuff for yourself.

"Island genetics, the tendency of small, isolated genetic pools to produce unusual traits, has been observed in many circumstances, including insular dwarfism and the radical changes among certain famous island chains, like Komodo and Galapagos, the latter having given rise to the modern expression of evolutionary theory, after being observed by Charles Darwin. Perhaps the most famous example of allopatric speciation is Darwin's Galápagos Finches."

"Diane Dodd was also able to show allopatric speciation by reproductive isolation in Drosophila pseudoobscura fruit flies after only eight generations using different food types, starch and maltose. Dodd's experiment has been easy for many others to replicate, including with other kinds of fruit flies and foods."

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

Now, can anybody here demonstrate Creation in a lab? Without experiments, it's not science.

As for Dawkins' books, I'm afraid you guys have to read them yourselves. I won't summarise them and I can't. It's too complex a subject to teach in a Web forum.

I really wish you people would actually read about evolution before you dismiss it as impossible using a few mantras ("macro-evolution") that no scientists uses or complete misunderstandings of what evolution is ("random").

I am not an expert, but I can tell you a few things:

1. If you use the word "random" you are NOT talking about what science knows as evolution. Whatever arguments or points you might have against that random thing of yours, they are not arguments or points against evolution.

2. There is no such thing as a magic message to micro-evolution to stop just before two populations of animals have changed so much that they cannot interbreed any more (at which point they would be two species). "Micro-evolution" (i.e. evolution) will continue even when the populations cannot interbreed any more, hence cause two separate species to exist.

3. Speciation has to do with time. Species have common ancestors. There is no magic moment when a "new" species is created, there is only the moment when two populations of what was the same species cannot interbreed any more, hence forming _TWO_ species. The parent species at that point split into to. Call it family values if you will.

4. You can apply evolution to things other than animals and plants and it will work as well. Write a book, create two versions of it, throw away the copy that fewer people read and make two versions of the copy that people preferred. Repeat. If you do that for a few hundred (book) generations, you will likely end up with a better (fitter) book that more people want to read.