PDA

View Full Version : Human Evolution



djones520
09-13-2009, 05:56 AM
Constitutional tried to use a new fossil find in Georgia as a means to refute my beliefs, but my subsequent question regarding the topic was ignored, so I wanted to bring it back up because I'd like to know.

Where does the fossil chain of human evolution fit into your belief system?

We have a pretty established chain of differant species of hominids that stretches back roughly 7 million years (by todays accepted measurements). Throughout that chain, new species arise that show signs of development, mostly in the levels of bipedalism, tooth structure, and brain growth. Some branches are believed to have died out without producing viable off-spring, while others are believed to have eventually led to what we are today.

Each of these new species have a cut off point. What I mean by that is that they cannot be found past a certain age. This would leave one to the very reasonable assumption that most of the various species found and labelled have not lived alongside each other, or if they have it was over a relatively short period of time for the most part. This should for the most part cut off the idea that they are differant "humans" that God created alongside us, and has since gone extinct while we thrived.

So, as far as I can think, this leaves two options. That 1, the evolutionary theory is correct, or 2, God intentionally created these fossils and left them there for some reason, most likely as a test of faith.

Which of these do you follow? Or do you have a differant belief on the matter that I haven't thought of yet?

Now, for anyone else who wants to get involved, I'm not posting this to say I'm right and you're wrong. I just wanted to be "enlightened" on anothers beliefs.

NJCardFan
09-13-2009, 06:12 AM
Don't you know that the Cro-Magnon race was created when aliens mated with Neanderthals?

djones520
09-13-2009, 06:13 AM
Don't you know that the Cro-Magnon race was created when aliens mated with Neanderthals?

Shush, we don't need to inject that into the conversation. :p

FlaGator
09-13-2009, 07:05 AM
Constitutional tried to use a new fossil find in Georgia as a means to refute my beliefs, but my subsequent question regarding the topic was ignored, so I wanted to bring it back up because I'd like to know.

Where does the fossil chain of human evolution fit into your belief system?

We have a pretty established chain of differant species of hominids that stretches back roughly 7 million years (by todays accepted measurements). Throughout that chain, new species arise that show signs of development, mostly in the levels of bipedalism, tooth structure, and brain growth. Some branches are believed to have died out without producing viable off-spring, while others are believed to have eventually led to what we are today.

Each of these new species have a cut off point. What I mean by that is that they cannot be found past a certain age. This would leave one to the very reasonable assumption that most of the various species found and labelled have not lived alongside each other, or if they have it was over a relatively short period of time for the most part. This should for the most part cut off the idea that they are differant "humans" that God created alongside us, and has since gone extinct while we thrived.

So, as far as I can think, this leaves two options. That 1, the evolutionary theory is correct, or 2, God intentionally created these fossils and left them there for some reason, most likely as a test of faith.

Which of these do you follow? Or do you have a differant belief on the matter that I haven't thought of yet?

Now, for anyone else who wants to get involved, I'm not posting this to say I'm right and you're wrong. I just wanted to be "enlightened" on anothers beliefs.

I accept evolution as a method God may have used to bring about creation. However, I am more of a micro-evolutionist in that I believe evolution was used to improve species but I do not at this time see much strong evidence for evolution modifying one species until it became another species. For small simple life this is possible and has been demonstrated enough to be accepted, however, with more complex species I just don't believe that there has been enough time since the last mass extinction to create the diversity we see today. I see God's hand in creation of this diversity through means not yet determined by science.

djones520
09-13-2009, 07:11 AM
I accept evolution as a method God may have used to bring about creation. However, I am more of a micro-evolutionist in that I believe evolution was used to improve species but I do not at this time see much strong evidence for evolution modifying one species until it became another species. For small simple life this is possible and has been demonstrated enough to be accepted, however, with more complex species I just don't believe that there has been enough time since the last mass extinction to create the diversity we see today. I see God's hand in creation of this diversity through means not yet determined by science.

So you believe that we where not created in Gods image then?

FlaGator
09-13-2009, 07:16 AM
So you believe that we where not created in Gods image then?

Yes I believe that we are created in God's image, but I will ask, what do you think that means?

djones520
09-13-2009, 07:19 AM
Yes I believe that we are created in God's image, but I will ask, what do you think that means?

Well, it can't have been the physical, because our features have changed drastically over the millions of years.

Tempermant maybe? An ability for great compassion, but also great wrath?

FlaGator
09-13-2009, 07:24 AM
I also have a non standard view of the Genesis story. If you read Genesis there are in fact two creation stories. A general creation that refers to the creation of the universe, the flora and fauna and then mankind in general. The second creation deals specifically with the creation of Adam. I think that there might be a possibility of a creation with creation. This would explain a lot of things without the need to violate a couple of God's laws like who was Cain afraid of when he was exiled to the land of wandering and where did he find a wife?

FlaGator
09-13-2009, 07:28 AM
Well, it can't have been the physical, because our features have changed drastically over the millions of years.

Tempermant maybe? An ability for great compassion, but also great wrath?

I believe that is some of it but mainly I think that we most closely represent God's image in that we can think for ourselves, we can communicate our thoughts and by nature we love to create.

djones520
09-13-2009, 07:32 AM
I accept evolution as a method God may have used to bring about creation. However, I am more of a micro-evolutionist in that I believe evolution was used to improve species but I do not at this time see much strong evidence for evolution modifying one species until it became another species. For small simple life this is possible and has been demonstrated enough to be accepted, however, with more complex species I just don't believe that there has been enough time since the last mass extinction to create the diversity we see today. I see God's hand in creation of this diversity through means not yet determined by science.

Are you referring to the kingdoms as a whole, rodents, mammals, fish, etc... or the diversity within those?

I do think plenty of time has passed. With the many major climatological shifts that have happened in that period of time, so many forced changes shouldn't be unexpected. Then you take into account the shifting of the continents cutting many species off from each other, allowing for differant trends to be taken. The last 65 million years was nothing like the previous billions of years of life on this planet, so I don't see it being out of the question at all.

FlaGator
09-13-2009, 07:45 AM
Are you referring to the kingdoms as a whole, rodents, mammals, fish, etc... or the diversity within those?

I do think plenty of time has passed. With the many major climatological shifts that have happened in that period of time, so many forced changes shouldn't be unexpected. Then you take into account the shifting of the continents cutting many species off from each other, allowing for differant trends to be taken. The last 65 million years was nothing like the previous billions of years of life on this planet, so I don't see it being out of the question at all.

My understanding of this is that most random changes provide no benefit for the species being changed and more often than not lead to sterile offspring which can not pass on the change. While admittedly not a good example, the fruit fly experiments are very interesting in that all that they are able to produce are modified, sterile fruit flies. Nature works differently than in lab experiments but it does go to show how rare a true usable mutation really is in nature. Take for example thicker whiter coats for rabbits. In a world of random mutations this adaptation would case the death a lots of rabbits if it occurred in rabbits anywhere but in areas where there is snow for most of the year. From what I've read the rate of mutation is once every few generations and the rate of mutations that provide an advantage is something like once in every couple of hundred generations. With that in mind 65 millions years seems to be a relatively short period of time to go from a tiny rodent like mammal to a species that builds computers and puts people on the moon. On edit: I will add "without a little help along the way"

djones520
09-13-2009, 08:02 AM
My understanding of this is that most random changes provide no benefit for the species being changed and more often than not lead to sterile offspring which can not pass on the change. While admittedly not a good example, the fruit fly experiments are very interesting in that all that they are able to produce are modified, sterile fruit flies. Nature works differently than in lab experiments but it does go to show how rare a true usable mutation really is in nature. Take for example thicker whiter coats for rabbits. In a world of random mutations this adaptation would case the death a lots of rabbits if it occurred in rabbits anywhere but in areas where there is snow for most of the year. From what I've read the rate of mutation is once every few generations and the rate of mutations that provide an advantage is something like once in every couple of hundred generations. With that in mind 65 millions years seems to be a relatively short period of time to go from a tiny rodent like mammal to a species that builds computers and puts people on the moon. On edit: I will add "without a little help along the way"

It's not all just random changes though. Environment and need to adapt drives the major changes. To use the Darwin observation of the finches on the Galapagos Islands. Significant changes in their body structure occured in just a couple of generations, due to a simple drought.

As I referenced, over the last 65 million years our planet as undergone many global climate shifts. Take a look at the dinosaurs. During the entire Triassic period, there was very little shift in global climate. Almost no glaciation, period. The Dinosuars as a whole where at the least diverse state during this time. Move into the Jurassic, and then the Cretaceous. Global climate slowly began to cool. Glaciers began to form, and seasons began to establish themselves. These where still nothing at all like they are today, but the diversity in Dinosaurs began to explode. The Cretaceous had the biggest changes in global climate, and also saw the largest variety in animals on the planet.

Now, we have that mass extinction. We have rapidly shifting (relatively speaking) global climates. Regions of the world were some species are undergo drastic changes, that other regions that the species lives doesn't. With greater need comes faster evolution, and the last 65 million years has seen a scale of changes that this planet has rarely experienced in it's history, spurring that evolution.

djones520
09-13-2009, 08:04 AM
Also, if I don't end up replying to something it's probably just cause I went to bed. I'm a day sleeper right now.

expat-pattaya
09-13-2009, 09:14 AM
I have never understood why evolution was a hot issue. I am an atheist. However, I was raised Christian. I believe in evolution. One does not have to believe in evolution to be an atheist. :)

However, based on my upbringing in christianity, I don't see why evolution can not be accepted as part of God's plan by religious people. The concept of 7 days to make the earth. Well hell, we don't know how long a day is to a god. It might be a billion years of our time. And if he wishes to create a planet with a preordained outcome that follows an evolutionary path to get there I would suppose a supreme being would be clever enough to do it any way he wishes. And who is to say that the physical traits are "gods image"?

Should I ever accept the idea that a supreme being exists again, I don't think that will change my opinion that evolution formed and is forming the life on this planet. I just don't see any contradiction. The only difference to me is weather this is all random chance and science, or if a supreme being is controlling everything behind the scene. I reckon I'll find out for certain in less than 40 years if it is the latter. :D

Rockntractor
09-13-2009, 10:11 AM
I'm evolving into a gorilla There is hair growing out of my ears!!

MrsSmith
09-13-2009, 03:39 PM
I have never understood why evolution was a hot issue. I am an atheist. However, I was raised Christian. I believe in evolution. One does not have to believe in evolution to be an atheist. :)

However, based on my upbringing in christianity, I don't see why evolution can not be accepted as part of God's plan by religious people. The concept of 7 days to make the earth. Well hell, we don't know how long a day is to a god. It might be a billion years of our time. And if he wishes to create a planet with a preordained outcome that follows an evolutionary path to get there I would suppose a supreme being would be clever enough to do it any way he wishes. And who is to say that the physical traits are "gods image"?

Should I ever accept the idea that a supreme being exists again, I don't think that will change my opinion that evolution formed and is forming the life on this planet. I just don't see any contradiction. The only difference to me is weather this is all random chance and science, or if a supreme being is controlling everything behind the scene. I reckon I'll find out for certain in less than 40 years if it is the latter. :D


Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
God did not leave any "wiggle-room" on the length of a day.

Without God's hand in Creation, you have to accept the "fact" that immensely complex cells developed without assistance, and that RNA and DNA "just happened." That takes a lot more faith than believing the only eyewitness to the creation.

wilbur
09-13-2009, 03:57 PM
God did not leave any "wiggle-room" on the length of a day.

Without God's hand in Creation, you have to accept the "fact" that immensely complex cells developed without assistance, and that RNA and DNA "just happened." That takes a lot more faith than believing the only eyewitness to the creation.

On theism, one has to believe that a super mind capable of inventing complex cells, along with RNA, DNA, the laws of physics, and everything else.... "just happened" - and this being is generally posited to be more amazing, wondrous, and mystifying than even anything in this universe.

So however incredulous you have to be towards DNA and cells "just happening" naturally, you must be orders of magnitude more incredulous over the unexplainable existence of a being that's allegedly dwarfs everything in this universe (up to and including the universe), in its superb qualities.

So, no... the "faith" is all yours...

FlaGator
09-13-2009, 06:20 PM
God did not leave any "wiggle-room" on the length of a day.

Without God's hand in Creation, you have to accept the "fact" that immensely complex cells developed without assistance, and that RNA and DNA "just happened." That takes a lot more faith than believing the only eyewitness to the creation.

How does that work with God stopping the sun in the sky so that the day would last longer than the normal period? It seems that there is wiggle room should God choose to allow it.

FlaGator
09-13-2009, 06:32 PM
On theism, one has to believe that a super mind capable of inventing complex cells, along with RNA, DNA, the laws of physics, and everything else.... "just happened" - and this being is generally posited to be more amazing, wondrous, and mystifying than even anything in this universe.

So however incredulous you have to be towards DNA and cells "just happening" naturally, you must be orders of magnitude more incredulous over the unexplainable existence of a being that's allegedly dwarfs everything in this universe (up to and including the universe), in its superb qualities.

So, no... the "faith" is all yours...

I believe that God created everything but I also believed that he used the laws of nature (Laws he created) to establish life. I see no issue with evolution being a mechanism of God's choosing. Maybe he did create the Earth in 6 days and maybe this is a metaphor from something else. I do not know. I do know that God gave man intellect and challenged us to use it. God created the heavens and the earth and that creation is still unfolding before our very eyes. I enjoy science and I enjoy what it tells us about God's creation. I perfer to pursue God's mysteries with the tools God gave man, science, philosophy and theology. For some, as with Mrs. Smith, the Bbile fulfills her scientific curiosity and that is OK. For me however, the Bible is not a science book nor a history book. It is a book that God uses to reveal some of his character and his plans for man against the backdrop of history. I don't read a philosophy book to discover the nuances of calculus and I don't read a book on space flight to seek the character of God.

Teetop
09-13-2009, 06:38 PM
Constitutional tried to use a new fossil find in Georgia as a means to refute my beliefs, but my subsequent question regarding the topic was ignored, so I wanted to bring it back up because I'd like to know.

Where does the fossil chain of human evolution fit into your belief system?

We have a pretty established chain of differant species of hominids that stretches back roughly 7 million years (by todays accepted measurements). Throughout that chain, new species arise that show signs of development, mostly in the levels of bipedalism, tooth structure, and brain growth. Some branches are believed to have died out without producing viable off-spring, while others are believed to have eventually led to what we are today.

Each of these new species have a cut off point. What I mean by that is that they cannot be found past a certain age. This would leave one to the very reasonable assumption that most of the various species found and labelled have not lived alongside each other, or if they have it was over a relatively short period of time for the most part. This should for the most part cut off the idea that they are differant "humans" that God created alongside us, and has since gone extinct while we thrived.

So, as far as I can think, this leaves two options. That 1, the evolutionary theory is correct, or 2, God intentionally created these fossils and left them there for some reason, most likely as a test of faith.

Which of these do you follow? Or do you have a differant belief on the matter that I haven't thought of yet?

Now, for anyone else who wants to get involved, I'm not posting this to say I'm right and you're wrong. I just wanted to be "enlightened" on anothers beliefs.

Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection.

jinxmchue
09-14-2009, 12:49 AM
Other than "they look alike," what evidence is there that hominid fossils actually show an evolutionary line of progression?

And just an offhand thought I had the other day, which came first: heart (and blood vessels), blood, or lungs? A heart is pretty useless without blood to pump/move and lungs to re-oxygenate the blood and remove carbon dioxide. Blood is pretty useless without a heart to move it and lungs to re-oxygenate it and remove carbon dioxide. Lungs are pretty useless without blood and a heart to move the blood to them. They're kind of a "holy trinity" where the lack of any one makes the other two completely useless.

djones520
09-14-2009, 12:53 AM
Other than "they look alike," what evidence is there that hominid fossils actually show an evolutionary line of progression?

And just an offhand thought I had the other day, which came first: heart (and blood vessels), blood, or lungs? A heart is pretty useless without blood to pump/move and lungs to re-oxygenate the blood and remove carbon dioxide. Blood is pretty useless without a heart to move it and lungs to re-oxygenate it and remove carbon dioxide. Lungs are pretty useless without blood and a heart to move the blood to them. They're kind of a "holy trinity" where the lack of any one makes the other two completely useless.

I'll remember that next time I'm cutting the heart out of a fish...

wilbur
09-14-2009, 01:09 AM
Other than "they look alike," what evidence is there that hominid fossils actually show an evolutionary line of progression?

And just an offhand thought I had the other day, which came first: heart (and blood vessels), blood, or lungs? A heart is pretty useless without blood to pump/move and lungs to re-oxygenate the blood and remove carbon dioxide. Blood is pretty useless without a heart to move it and lungs to re-oxygenate it and remove carbon dioxide. Lungs are pretty useless without blood and a heart to move the blood to them. They're kind of a "holy trinity" where the lack of any one makes the other two completely useless.

Evolution of the Heart (http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/03/evolution-of-th-5.html)

While heart evolution is hardly a settled matter, evolution has been notoriously spectacular at answering the "chicken/egg" problems....

wilbur
09-14-2009, 01:11 AM
I'll remember that next time I'm cutting the heart out of a fish...

Think about it too, when you cut out their lungs... oh wait.