evolution

Discussion in 'The Sanctuary' started by reggie jax, Jan 15, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    here's the case for evolution. this thread is specifically in response to coup but hopefully others who doubt the theory will also read it.

    i will make several assumptions about the beliefs of evolution's naysayers, including coup, based on his posts and based on the posts of other creationists. if these assumptions are flawed or do not apply to you, then please say so. i have yet to meet a creationist who does not share in these beliefs, and so my argument will be in part structured with a built in response to these objections. the assumed beliefs are as follows:
    1) microevolution is real, macroevolution is not
    2) this is because each respective 'type' of life cannot become another type. variation within the type is possible, but the type retains its 'essence.' i.e. macroevoultion is not only unsupported, but is actually impossible.
    3) macroevolution has never been observed in the fossil record

    let's begin.

    evolution by natural selection is essentially the grand unifying theory of biology. it works to make sense of the study taxonomists had struggled with for centuries. when a survey of life on earth (both living and extinct) is taken, a few conflicting facts present themselves:

    1) the overwhelming diversity of life. life's diversity is a fact that is pretty much universally taken for granted, so i will assume that no explanation here is necessary.

    2) the similarity among groups. despite the overall diversity, there's a varying degree of shared traits which is intuitively more prevalent among life forms that are deduced to be more closely related(i.e. mammals with other mammals, birds with other birds, etc). this traditionally means a similar morphological design (i.e. body plan) but it can also manifest in other types of similarities (behavior, development, etc.) these apparent shared traits are the foundation on which 'taxonomy' (the sorting of life into groups) is built.

    3) the uniqueness of each individual. a species is defined by its similarity, yet no two members of a species are identical. this applies to every form of life no matter how primitive. the similarity by which the species is defined is a statistical abstraction. the species itself actually consists of numerous related mating populations, which in turn can become more or less similar from the parent species depending on the isolation of the population in question. related populations generally maintain genetic stability as a singular species through what is known as 'gene flow,' i.e. immigration and emigration between the related populations. it is this phenomenon that darwin observed himself in the various bird samples that he collected in the galapagos.

    evolution by natural selection makes sense of these 3 seemingly contradictory facts of life. it accounts for the diversity through the many evolutionary niches that present themselves in nature, and the similarities among groups are accounted for by common descent. in fact the groups of life as we generally understand them are defined by such descent, and thus the intuition that these life forms are 'related' is vindicated. the unique identity of each individual is accounted for by their genotype, which is a unique structure that was shaped by the recombination of the genes of it's parents, who's genes had similarly been shaped by their parents and so on and so on. this process plays a crucial role in natural selection, which is essentially the genetic turnover of each generation. i.e. the individuals which survive to reproduce shape the genetic makeup of the next generation, and thus statistically favorable traits are naturally selected. no other theory of life can make such neat sense of these 3 facts.
    • Hot Thread Hot Thread x 1
    test
  2. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    now that we've got the general argument for evolution and its role out of the way, i will briefly present an overview of some of the evidence for the theory along with the methodologies from which this evidence is derived.

    1) paleontological evidence. the first piece of paleontological evidence for evolution is an overview of the fossil record itself. the chronological ordering of fossils in the earths strata is what you'd expect to find in a world where species evolve and go extinct.
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    it wasn't until the late 1700's that the dispute over whether or not a species could go extinct was scientifically settled. biological thinking was dominated at the time by essentialism, i.e. species were defined by their 'essence' which was constant(unchanging).

    extinction of course plays a vital role in evolution. it couldn't possibly work without it, and likewise the extinction of the majority of life forms that have been discovered to have lived on earth is quite hard to account for without evolution (the emergence of new species). it is even harder to do so with the premise that life is so perfect that it must be designed. but i digress.


    in addition to the overall chronological layering of said species, the fossil record has provided us with some direct macroevolutionary lineages:
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    2) morphological evidence. the inferred relationship between organisms based on similar body plans. this line of analysis successfully highlighted the relatedness of many of the taxanomic groupings before we had the genetic evidence to verify them. a study of morphology is what laid the foundation for the science of taxonomy.
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    What evidence is there for evolution?

    this line of evidence includes vestigial artifacts such as reduced hind legs on whales or wings on flightless birds. these appendages highlight the evolutionary past of the creatures which possess them.




    3) genetic evidence. a direct study of relatedness via DNA. all life on earth is defined by its DNA which is comprised of the same genetic material (polynucleotides) which utilizes the same universal genetic code (with a few rare, minor variations.) this is overwhelming evidence of common descent, as a universal code was predicted by evolutionary based thinking prior to any experimental evidence for such an idea:
    29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

    common descent dictates that a change in the basic genetic code has a strong likelihood of being lethal, thus a basic universal code is to be expected if all organisms are related. intelligent design has no such constraints:
    29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

    a designer would have the totality of possible materials at his disposal. this means alternative polymers, alternative genetic materials and codes which could lead to any number of results. this is not to say that the universal correlation of life argues against design, simply that it highlights the strong evidence that all life is related and thus derived from common descent. this is the best explanation for the correlation whether you choose to invoke a creator or not.
    test
  3. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    3a) phylogenetic trees:
    scientists use algorithms to scan genes and form rough 'family trees' of life. this is known as the discipline of phylogenetics.
    [​IMG]

    this is a rough model of the phylogenetic consensus. these phylogenetic trees are never perfect, and scientists are aware of that. there are several different methods of analysis, each of which has its particular strengths and weaknesses. scientists explore the accuracy of these models against each other and against themselves:

    29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Phylogenetics

    as you can see, there is no sure fire way to have a completely accurate phylogenetic tree, but by cross referencing independent tree derived from different methods and 'bootstrapping' results for weaknesses, geneticists can bolster their confidence in the derived results considerably.

    4) developmental evidence. it was once suggested by ernst haeckle that organisms recapitulate their evolutionary pathway during the stages of embryonic development. this idea turned out to be false, but embryos do provide an important insight into the evolutionary history of some organisms because of the appearance and subsequent regression of certain characters. the human tail is one such example.

    this happens because evolution inevitably changes the process of embryonic development in organisms over time - yet it cannot completely erase the past when the evolutionary relics are intrinsically tied up in the developmental plan of other vital characters. the pronephric duct of amphibian larvae would be one such example. without it, the amphibian's mesonephros (excretory organ) fails to develop.

    5) microbial evidence. microorganisms are much more rapïdly adaptable than more complex lifeforms and thus provide the most direct observations of evolution in action.

    Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab - life - 09 June 2008 - New Scientist

    i think now would be the appropriate time to delve into what is meant by 'microevolution.' i commonly hear microbial evolution written off by creationists under this title, yet the context in which they use 'microevolution' for higher organisms refers specifically to adaptions within a species. note that the example above contains a dramatic adaption that arguably transcends the boundaries typically set by the species in question.

    it should be noted that microbial life is much harder to classify in such a rigid manner that we classify higher organisms.
    - What Evolution Is by Ernst Mayr

    indeed microbial life tends to consistently point towards the fallacy which lies in the argument that life is made of essential 'types' which are incapable of diverging or forming other types. this ideology is a relic of 'essentialism' which dominated philosophy and science prior to the rise of evolutionary thinking and has been thoroughly refuted by the facts time and time again.
    test
  4. Nu'maaN

    Nu'maaN Anu'naki, Nuqqa.

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    25,674
    bookmarked this thread, and will be reading it through lunch break.

    i doubt that coup will even enter the thread.

    and if he does, he'll dismiss your posts without reading.

    :numaan:
    test
  5. Jay Bee

    Jay Bee Boricua

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,596
    ^^^i second that. commenting so i can find it easier later in my user control
    test
  6. NightmareEx

    NightmareEx The Beast

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2003
    Messages:
    5,134
    Bumping this so Coup can't act like he didn't see it or some stupid shit.
    test
  7. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    Juicy. I'm going to just love it when I break each point down...I'm literaly droolling right now. Finally, my time to eat.


    Good work Reggie. You got guts...


    I'm just getting back home from a long trip, I'll be working this thread out.

    I say that a lot don't I ? lol


    Good to see all you trolls again.
    test
  8. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    What are you scoffers of the Most High God gonna do, when coup breaks your egg shell ?

    Repent Ye. Believe the King.
    test
  9. Sir Bustalot

    Sir Bustalot I am Jesus

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    55,618
    I dont think you can 100% prove thats its 100% false
    test
  10. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    How you been friend busta ?

    I will show 100% that all the evidences and examples provided here are completely false and not supportive of the theory of evolution. I will show you that. This is my bread and butter. I've seen this ten thousand times. I have the answer. Christ is He, He is Christ. Believe Him.

    What will you do then my good fellow ?
    test
  11. Sir Bustalot

    Sir Bustalot I am Jesus

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    55,618
    sup coup dogg?!

    one request, could you also link sources of your info?

    and dont worry bout me mang, im not worried

    but if any of your answers come down to "cuz god said so" thats where i jump ship lol
    (and please remember im not an atheist)
    test
  12. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    I will cite everything.

    There are two kinds of people in my eye: Believers of Truth in the yolk of one Jesus Christ, the Most High God. The other, scoffers.
    test
  13. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    show me then.
    test
  14. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    I'll do my best reggie.
    test
  15. Nu'maaN

    Nu'maaN Anu'naki, Nuqqa.

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    25,674
    this is where you're fucking up.

    the world in all it's glory is not as simple as black and white.

    :numaan:
    test
  16. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    There is one Truth absolute. Black is the shade trying to cover it, white is what remains. It can never be buried in darkness. Truth will bust up any error all day long, it's pure. It's never changing.

    There are people who seek it and confirm it with their mind and there are those who reject it, twist it and scoff at it for vast reasons.

    Can't get much more simple than that. Truth is not confusing or difficult as we are made to believe. There is no glory in this world, store your treasures up in Heaven.
    test
  17. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    evolution is the only truth. repent and accept darwin into your heart.
    test
  18. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    serious question tho, what the deal with christians always capitalizing Truth? do you have it trademarked or something
    test
  19. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    lol

    The capital is to indicate it's absolute, that it's not bendable or debatable or even debunkable by man. truth with a lower is in the general sense of the word. like God and god. Ones absolute, the other can be general, even to indicate a pagan god of the Greeks for example.
    test
  20. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    lol...

    I'll get to this thread...It's going to be a lot of work. But I'll get it. And if I fail, I'll repent and accept Darwin into my life.
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)