Okay so a lot of evidence exists to support the theory of evolution, Darwinian or otherwise.
This begs the question why was there a need in the grand scheme of things? We are taught that God created man perfect not that he evolved from amaeoba?..or is there a simpler explanation to this apparent contradiction.
I have my views, let here yours.
I'm still not convinced by the inter-species evolution theory...
Do enlighten us with your views.
Inter-species?..no please explain and relate to big picture
[quote]
Originally posted by Khairun Nisa:
**I'm still not convinced by the inter-species evolution theory...
Do enlighten us with your views.**
[/quote]
What theorie is this??
Thap,
God never said he created man instantly, it just says that when God decides something to happen he says Be. and it happens.
Also from the Scripture it's apparent that God's 'time' is not necessarily as long as our time.. It's much longer.
This Space For Rent
Okay consider the process of evolution, natural selection etc etc i.e. the best suited species to any particular set of circumstances survive and grow in number...mutation leads to a new set of traits....some are beneficial and so by natural selection get passed onto offspring etc etc and gradually over millions of years we get to witness a diverse set of species living in diverse environments with particular well suited traits….i.e. for e.g. a particular types of Benthic fish species evolving large bulbous eyes in order to glean light in the dark depths of the ocean.
Now then, fish that change all hues of the rainbow in order to attract mates and evade predators...otters using several tools, dolphins witnessed making primitive toys and playing with them....for me evolution or rather theories regarding it are a rare glimpse into the workings of God. Darwinian theory on the face of it and this blasé day and age ....when thought about and practically witnessed still amazes me.
the question is whether evolution was used as a tool of creation.
if a baby takes 9 months to be fully formed.. does in not preclude that there must have been some "route" it took for the creation of humans.
One theory has been disproved with availability of new technology - the human fetus does not look like other fetuses of birds/ reptiles/ amphibs. I had read in encyclopedias (a long time ago when i was a kid) that the human fetus's development phases goes through reptilian, amphibian and avarian phases - i.e. the fetuses of these types of creaturs are very similar to human fetuses.
[quote]
Originally posted by Thap:
**Okay consider the process of evolution, natural selection etc etc i.e. the best suited species to any particular set of circumstances survive and grow in number...mutation leads to a new set of traits....some are beneficial and so by natural selection get passed onto offspring etc etc and gradually over millions of years we get to witness a diverse set of species living in diverse environments with particular well suited traits….i.e. for e.g. a particular types of Benthic fish species evolving large bulbous eyes in order to glean light in the dark depths of the ocean.
Now then, fish that change all hues of the rainbow in order to attract mates and evade predators...otters using several tools, dolphins witnessed making primitive toys and playing with them....for me evolution or rather theories regarding it are a rare glimpse into the workings of God. Darwinian theory on the face of it and this blasé day and age ....when thought about and practically witnessed still amazes me.**
[/quote]
I think this evolution theory is nothing more than bull-****: according to this theory, one exits solely for the purpose of passing on ones genes. Well, if that is true than why create such different and complex creatures: we could all have stayed in the bacterium-stage: because bacteria are more efficient in passing on genes (the reproduce every 20 mins), and they are more siuted to different environments, more so than most animals and plants! What's the use of such complex creatures if a "lower-grade organism" (=bacteria or virus or fungi or whatever) can do it as well as anything else.
Furthermore, suppose there is a need to create a more complex being: why do there have to millins even billions of different species, why not a set of let's say 100, who have all the attributes which are now divided by those billions of species! much easier this way, if you look at it from an evolution-supporting point of view.
Nescio, et al.
I understand what you are attempting to say, why a need for evolution. Simply put mutation guides evolution replication of even a single-celled organism, such as Cyano bacteria is not perfect, genetic mutation does occur and is the root of evolution. For this random occurrence in the past undoubtedly created just one multicellular organism, which because of it's greater complexity was more active than it's single celled brethren....reproduced more rapidly, ate and converted matter to energy more effectively and kicked the whole thing off.
The fact that we have countless species at present is not necessarily a pattern of increasing species since the dawn of life, geologically speaking the Pre-Cambrian period was a time of a species explosion (Cambrian explosion) which created a great deal of species that evolved down cul-de-sacs and disappear from the geological record.
It is not a choice to have a hundred or a thousand or a million species, spontaneous mutation and changing environment are responsible for the extent of diversification.
Interestingly, there is no clear idea of why this explosion occurred in the Pre-Cambrian/Cambrian (~570 million years ago) when species went from relatively simple single and multicellular forms to a diverse set of strange (otherworldly species).
Going back to studying the subject, I remember images of the most weird creatures I have ever seen. A rock preserving the fossils of these is known as the Ediacara Fauna.
My own personal theory is that failing a large change in environment, an extraterrestrial source must be sought for.
There is strong evidence for microbes surviving on meteorites....did we get an alien visit all those eons ago? was this responsible for the explosion? are we a result...is this how God did it? Are we getting a glimpse?
Sorry no cut and pastes……..It’s more fun this way…..keep me on my toes.
Thap
[quote]
Originally posted by Thap:
**
I understand what you are attempting to say, why a need for evolution. Simply put mutation guides evolution replication of even a single-celled organism, such as Cyano bacteria is not perfect, genetic mutation does occur and is the root of evolution. For this random occurrence in the past undoubtedly created just one multicellular organism, which because of it's greater complexity was more active than it's single celled brethren....reproduced more rapidly, ate and converted matter to energy more effectively and kicked the whole thing off.
Thap**
[/quote]
I can't see why an animal like a sheep can be called a higher or more complex organism than a bacterium, because bacteria reproduce more effectively, more often AND are more suited to a lot of different environments: so, to say that a sheep evolved from a bacteria because of natural selection process is unclear to me. you defenitaly can't say that a sheep is a "better" organism than a bacterium (this is the purpose of evolution: to create "better" species = one who passes on its genes "better")
another point of interest: as TIME passes on it will be more difficult for the evolution theory to prove itself: They say that it takes thousands of years for the process to evolve, but as time passes along you reach a point when you have to ask yourselves: "why hasn't a mutation occured in all this time? we all are the same, or better our genetic code has stayed the same over this time"
for example: humans start to get eyes in the back of their head as well, or (perhaps more realistically) they get better arteries (because atherosclerosis is something which at the moment is a major factor limiting the human life ------> heart attacks.
in the 500 to 1000 years or so in which ppl have been studying nature, no mutation/evolution has occured/has come out into the open: all what is said about evolution is that it has taken place 10000 of years ago: why then why not now?
another point: it is clear that the human organ "appendix" is of no use to humans, except from causing appendicitis it has no (known) function: so in all those years why hasn't evolution made sure that the genes coding for the formation of the appendix have been removed from the human genome?
Nescio,
You have a lot of questions, I’ll try and address them as best I can.
Lets consider the common sheep and bacteria, yes bacteria do survive and thrive in many environments and many forms have survived unchanged for eons. However, even bacteria has gone through evolutionary change. Evolution is not simply mutation for the sake of creating a ‘better’ species. It is a gradual process that occurs at random. This is the key ** random mutation **. Random mutation leading to a single point occurrence of an organism that may or may not survive long enough to pass on it’s genes. Some mutations are not beneficial and the organism in question will be hindered, but not necessarily become extinct. Some mutations are indeed beneficial, for example early amphibians could lay their eggs in shallow water or even on land in pools, thus protecting them from predators in the ocean. These early amphibians unlocked the landmasses of the world for life to begin spreading out of the oceans.
Now back to the sheep, these along with numerous other animals are the product of mutation and evolution, in the wild they are adequately adapted to a life of grazing and reproduction. To say they are more advanced than bacteria is true, they are more intelligent and aware of their surroundings and do not simply live a life of reproduction. Bacteria are very well adapted to what they do, this is one reason many forms have survived relatively unchanged for millennia…they have found an ecological niche and exploit it to it’s fullest. Now what do mean by ‘better’ if you simply mean able to survive and reproduce then yes…bacteria are ‘better’ in this respect. But when talking about intelligence having motive and cognition of events than no they are most definitely less evolved than sheep.
On to your second point, proving evolution. This process can be slow taking millennia, or relatively fast taking days. Let me explain, the horse. During the Tertiary period (~65 million years ago to present) fossil evidence has highlighted the evolutionary changes in this animal. During the Eocene (~50 million years ago) the common horse was very different to what we know today, it was about the size of a dog and lived in heavily wooded areas, where it ate berries and evaded predators by hiding in the undergrowth, this species was know as Eohippus. During this time great climatological and environmental changes were taking place, the woodlands across the globe were retreating to open short green vegetation, the first appearance of grasses (Angiosperm). This event created the impetus for many animals to evolve. Eohippus throughout the Tertiary period became larger, no longer beneficial to be small as hiding in undergrowth was not an option. Eohippus fossil assemblages gradually led to Miohippus and a whole host of other intermediate forms until it evolved into the modern day horse. This is the conventional form of evolution we are all used to hearing about. Now there are many ways evolution occurs, another more rapid form can occur after drastic climate change (global storms, meteoric impacts, etc). I will hypothesise an example to highlight.
A huge volcano erupts and encircles the globe with fine dust particles obscuring the rays of the sun, corals in the oceans dependant on a particular level of light cannot photosynthesise and die, whilst some of the same species of corals contain a mixture of algae some forms able to use a more limited supply of sunlight survive. The species has evolved and now only species containing a mixture of algae will reproduce. This example highlights how evolution can occur in one generation….but it usually take a large event to instigate.
On your final point why haven’t we evolved?…we have. Take the races of man Negroid, Mongoloid and Caucasians. The mongoloids of North America have been all but wiped out. The Negroids of Australasia likewise. These are changes within the a species leading to the change of the species as a whole. Here the emphasis is not on mutation but on aggression and technology. This can also be an impetus for change and hence strictly evolution in the materialistic sense anyway.
Couple of points I missed, on the question of observing or proving evolution.....it occurs imperceptable over millions of years not thousands and in many forms...I hope I described the alternative above.
Having an appendix, is not life threatening in the majority of people. But if it was then the people born without one or a form that didn't get inflamed like many....then these would survive and the species would have effectively evolved. Understand?
I think many of your questions can be answered by better understanding the hypothesis....many people think they do but I assure you they don't.
Comments?
sorry I took so long to reply, but I haven't been here over the weekend.
[quote]
by thap:
Nescio,
You have a lot of questions, I’ll try and address them as best I can.
Lets consider the common sheep and bacteria, yes bacteria do survive and thrive in many environments and many forms have survived unchanged for eons. However, even bacteria has gone through evolutionary change. Evolution is not simply mutation for the sake of creating a ‘better’ species. It is a gradual process that occurs at random. This is the key ** random mutation **. Random mutation leading to a single point occurrence of an organism that may or may not survive long enough to pass on it’s genes. Some mutations are not beneficial and the organism in question will be hindered, but not necessarily become extinct. Some mutations are indeed beneficial, for example early amphibians could lay their eggs in shallow water or even on land in pools, thus protecting them from predators in the ocean. These early amphibians unlocked the landmasses of the world for life to begin spreading out of the oceans.
Now back to the sheep, these along with numerous other animals are the product of mutation and evolution, in the wild they are adequately adapted to a life of grazing and reproduction. To say they are more advanced than bacteria is true, they are more intelligent and aware of their surroundings and do not simply live a life of reproduction. Bacteria are very well adapted to what they do, this is one reason many forms have survived relatively unchanged for millennia…they have found an ecological niche and exploit it to it’s fullest. Now what do mean by ‘better’ if you simply mean able to survive and reproduce then yes…bacteria are ‘better’ in this respect. But when talking about intelligence having motive and cognition of events than no they are most definitely less evolved than sheep.
** The evolution theory says that a mutation is considered to make an organism "better" if this mutation allows that particular species to reproduce = pass on its genes more effectively. So the question remains whether the mutation which led to the sheep having motives and intelligence, allows the sheep to pass on its genes more rapidly and effectively. I doubt it. On the contrary, because sheeps and other animals become aware of their environment and cognition they get busy doing other things than only reproducing (I'm talking about humans in particular).
I don't see why for example sending space shuttles into orbit is helping an engineer passing on his genes. Or playing chess, or..... for that matter becoming a religious person.**
On to your second point, proving evolution. This process can be slow taking millennia, or relatively fast taking days. Let me explain, the horse. During the Tertiary period (~65 million years ago to present) fossil evidence has highlighted the evolutionary changes in this animal. During the Eocene (~50 million years ago) the common horse was very different to what we know today, it was about the size of a dog and lived in heavily wooded areas, where it ate berries and evaded predators by hiding in the undergrowth, this species was know as Eohippus. During this time great climatological and environmental changes were taking place, the woodlands across the globe were retreating to open short green vegetation, the first appearance of grasses (Angiosperm). This event created the impetus for many animals to evolve. Eohippus throughout the Tertiary period became larger, no longer beneficial to be small as hiding in undergrowth was not an option. Eohippus fossil assemblages gradually led to Miohippus and a whole host of other intermediate forms until it evolved into the modern day horse. This is the conventional form of evolution we are all used to hearing about. Now there are many ways evolution occurs, another more rapid form can occur after drastic climate change (global storms, meteoric impacts, etc). I will hypothesise an example to highlight.
A huge volcano erupts and encircles the globe with fine dust particles obscuring the rays of the sun, corals in the oceans dependant on a particular level of light cannot photosynthesise and die, whilst some of the same species of corals contain a mixture of algae some forms able to use a more limited supply of sunlight survive. The species has evolved and now only species containing a mixture of algae will reproduce. This example highlights how evolution can occur in one generation….but it usually take a large event to instigate.
**consider the example of the evolution of humans: my question: Did all humans evolve from the same monkey? or were there several monkeys living in different parts of the world which, on different occasions, evolved to become humans, some became indians some mongoloids and some caucasians?
if the first scenario is true: how come when this one monkeys was evolving to become a human (it took millions of years), that somewhere else on this planet another monkey didn't start becoming an human? I think he has an equal chance of developing the same mutation which led to first monkey becoming an human. and since it took millions of years for the first monkey to evolve, the second one had enough time to develop that same mutation.
moving on to the second scenario: if this is the case, then we should see that there are "humans" alive somewhere in this planet which are still in for example the Neanderthaler stage. but that isn't true (at least according to my info)
**
[/quote]
[quote]
The evolution theory says that a mutation is considered to make an organism "better" if this mutation allows that particular species to reproduce = pass on its genes more effectively.
[/quote]
Evolution makes an organism "better" over many millenia.. there are many mutations which though may make an organism better.. may not be able to survive in the "environment" - case and point .. the Neanderthals .. who were smarter than Homo Sapians .. but still died as they were not as violent.
[quote]
I don't see why for example sending space shuttles into orbit is helping an engineer passing on his genes. Or playing chess, or..... for that matter becoming a religious person
[/quote]
sending space ships would mean that man has left the confines of this planet.. and therefore would be able to survive if something untoward happens to Earth - watch Titan A.E. (or After Earth)
The lack of space on this planet also means that the innate desire to survive means that people realise that there will not be enough resources on the planet to cater for the ever increasing population .. and would want to look for pasteurds anew.. happened before - i.e. exploration by people from the begining of time to better place for survival. now as we have covered the whole planet.. the desire is still there to find new pasteurs.. and they are only outside the planet.
** My question still remains.. whether evolution was used as a tool of creation ?**
There is ample evidence to this.. there are of course creationists who would deny evolution and there are evolutionists who would deny creation..
any comments on this would be interesting.
[quote]
Originally posted by blackzero:
*Evolution makes an organism "better" over many millenia.. there are many mutations which though may make an organism better.. may not be able to survive in the environment" - case and point .. the Neanderthals .. who were smarter than Homo Sapians .. but still died as they were not as violent. *
[/quote]
(sorry, didn't get my discussion right.
I'll post again later)
[This message has been edited by NeSCio (edited January 29, 2002).]
THAP and co.,
if you look at the discussion thusfar, you have given quite smart answers to my questions, but several important questions are still left unanswered:
1. Why hasn't evolution in so many years made sure that our arteries are better protected against atherosclerosis? Or we can take some other disease: why haven't all humans become immune to for example TBC?
in light of this second point it is interesting to discuss the following matter. (I'm now focusing more on "homo sapiens sapiens"): Why does a child when he grows up take care or worry about his parents?????
Because from an evolutionary point of view, parents are "useless" once you have grwon up!!! (I know that in the Western world (=Europe and America) ppl not taking care of their parents is becoming normal, but there are a lot of places left in the world where ppl find it very important!)
well, my opinion about the evolution theory:
the evolution theory gives us (somethimes rather good) answers to some important questions! But these answers are based on numerous assumptions. Furthermore, there are A LOT OF questions which remain unanswered and in my opinion will never be answered by the evolution theory.
So whenever someone asks me why I don’t believe in the evolution theory but do believe in Allah / God, I say: To “believe” in the evolution theory u have to make a lot of assumptions, whereas if you believe in Allah / God, you only have to make one “assumption” and everything is accounted for ***(of course, for me, this last part is a fact rather than an assumption, but for the person (=non-believer) asking me it is an assumption)
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/smile.gif