Evolution .. Both Theory and Fact

[Profpat]

I like that poem Greg;

I died from minerality and became vegetable
And From vegetativeness I died and became animal
I died from animality and became man
Then why fear disappearance through death
Next time I shall die
Bringing forth wings and feathers like angels
After that, soaring higher than angels -
What you cannot imagine
I shall be that

It was written ~2,500-3,000 years after Genesis.

I also like the theory you propose or support.

It's just that my Idea has everything necessary for evolution right at the start, thus if not Intelligent design then at least planned design.

Best,

Pat

[labelwench]

From the Wiki ...


Can evolution explain, (and have achieved) all that we see around us using no other mechanism than a random sequence of events? Using no other 'weighting' than the most successful will reproduce in greater numbers than the less successful and thereby dominate the gene pool.

cool bananas ... greg

I have not taken the time to read all of the posts on this thread, and have selected it based on it's first post as being somewhat appropriate for posting the following information, taken from this days' news. As I am aware of your interests in the origins and evolution of Man, Greg, here's any tidbit, a piece of the larger puzzle.....

A team of international researchers led by ancient DNA experts from the University of Adelaide has resolved the longstanding issue of the origins of the people who introduced farming to Europe some 8000 years ago.

A detailed genetic study of one of the first farming communities in Europe, from central Germany, reveals marked similarities with populations living in the Ancient Near East (modern-day Turkey, Iraq and other countries) rather than those from Europe.

Project leader Professor Alan Cooper, Director of the Australian Centre for Ancient DNA (ACAD) at the University of Adelaide, says: 'This overturns current thinking, which accepts that the first European farming populations were constructed largely from existing populations of hunter-gatherers, who had either rapidly learned to farm or interbred with the invaders.'

The results of the study have been published today in the online peer-reviewed science journal PLoS Biology.

http://www.sciencecentric.com/news/1...n-farmers.html

[Graybeard]

Thank you lorrina ........

Perhaps I had ancestors there ??

CLICK

cool bananas ... greg

[labelwench]

That someone made this beer commercial is a fact.

They may be taking a bit of 'artistic license' as regards 'evolution' yet I thought it was a rather creative way to promote a beverage that is the result of a natural process, fermentation.

'Cheers', Greg, and I hope that you and yours are managing to remain in safety and relative comfort while the weather in your locale remains unsettled.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lc6U7...eature=related

[Mr. Ignorant]

Evolution can explain a lot, but not everything, it seems.

There are two things about evolution that have always bothered me, although this is probably because of my own lack of understanding.

1. How can evolution explain eyes? Yes, having eyes has an evolutionary advantage, but getting them is not so easy. They didn't just suddenly come into existence, but gradually. First we started out with cells that were slightly more sensitive to light than other cells (every cell is sensitive to light), but that doesn't imply that something meaningful is done with that data. So these creatures may not have had an evolutionary advantage. In order for them to get eyes, quite some steps were needed. Since the light sensitivity cells had no particular evolutionary advantage, the genes causing the light sensitivity could've easily disappeared from the gene pool. But for eyes to evolve that step is needed. So how is this possible? Quite some luck was needed. This problem is only one of the many. Because of this I feel like evolution alone can't explain everything and some higher power is needed to give direction to the process. I'm not implying that evolution is false, only that it's incomplete.

2. You can only reproduce with a creature that has the same amount of chromosomes as you have. So how can new species come into existence this way? Sometimes a chromosome is "accidentally" added or removed, so it leaves a creature with one chromosome more or less. This has to happen at least twice. Then these two creatures just have to happen to find each other to mate with in order to increase their numbers. This seems very unlikely to me.

[Graybeard]

Hi Mr I ...... will try to reply in a day or two ...... busy

greg

[Mr. Ignorant]

I'll be waiting for your reply. Take your time.

[austintorn@aol.com]

“Chance is not the opposite of nature’s design; evolution of the species through the graduality of natural selection is the path to complexity; other ploys fall as flat as an imaginary line. A flatworm has but an optical system’s spark that can only sense but light and dark; thus, it sees no image, not even a part; whereas, nautilus has a ‘pinhole camera’ eye about as good as half a human eye that sees but very blurry shapes; thus they are examples of intermediate stages. And what of the salamander, who now has only indentations where its eyes once were?

“‘Rome’ can not be built in a day by chance; chance is not a likely Designer at all! really now, could a 747 ever be assembled by a hurricane blowing free through Boeing’s warehouse of all the parts? Let this not be the sum of Creationist’s conversational art!”

“Well, I’ll be darned,” replied the Imaginary Designer. “Natural selection is a good answer; it is a very long and summative process, one which breaks up the problem’s mess of improbability into smaller pieces, less, each of which is only slightly improbable, but not prohibitively so, thus it’s reasonable as the product of all the little steps, of which, would be far beyond the reach of chance—it’s rich! The Creationists have been looking askance, seeing only the end product, perchance, thinking of it as a single event of chance, never even understanding the great power of accumulation. Such they didn’t know much else—their fall, not having any other natural ideas at all, so, they outright claimed that ID did it, as the tree that can magically grow the all, namely Me.”

“So, ‘God’, you have now seen the light of the accumulative power’s might; this is the elegance of evolution’s ‘sight’.”

[Mr. Ignorant]

Have you written that yourself? I like how it's written. My complaint is that it's oversimplifying how Creationists think. It's easy to take them down that way, but not necessarily correct.

I'm still having some doubts about the eye problem. Anyway, even when chance alone could explain everything, it doesn't mean that it's the only cause of evolution. Just because something can explain something else, doesn't mean that's how it is. Evolution makes sense when you keep everything simple, but what do we know? We only have a limited amount of observations to work with. I would be skeptical about chance alone explaining everything. The simple answer usually doesn't suffice.

[austintorn@aol.com]

The writing was mine from my imaginary interviews with the Gods.

'Chance' is not the scientific alternative to Intelligent Design; natural selection is.

Fossils and DNA match in the 'what was' sections, so, evolution indeed happened.

Death, in fact, is/was the chooser of the wise from the silly, the pointed from the pointless, the best from the rest.

It all took so long because evolution is mindless.

Creationists are indeed simple; they stop at a word, 'God', halting all further thinking.

There's no way that some supposedly elemental Fellow can be fundamental. Look to the future for the complexity of a higher mind, not to the past and the simpler.