Evolution

  1. It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.








    -Lawrence Moran
    Last edit by Furball on Aug 2, '03
    •  
  2. 89 Comments

  3. by   donmurray
    The President and his dad think the jury is still out on that one, don't they? But hey, I love a jolly scrap!
  4. by   Shiva_Las_Vegas
    Well, this should be interesting.....

    I think I have some issue with the word "fact". I think it's because when I think of something as a fact, I think of it as a 100% absolute. With all those statements mentioned above, we may still find evidence that will modify those numbers. It's in the details, but because of the details, I don't know that I would say "That's a fact". But that's just my own opinion.

    I thought with science process, ideas start out as hypotheses, then theory, then law. Theories and laws can also be modified with new information. Honestly, I haven't done enough scientific reading to know much more than that. I know that there's a certain amount of research that has to go on before a hypothesis to turn into a theory and so on.......

    Here's what I have observed.

    Belief is a funny thing. There are people in the world, that no matter what the scientific evidence is.....they have their own belief about it and nothing that anyone can say or do will convince them otherwise.....ever. And that can apply to alot of different things....not just religion.

    I am not a creationist. I don't know if I would call myself an evolutionist as I haven't read a whole lot on the subject, but from what I know so far, it makes more sense to me than the story of creation in the Bible. Just my opinion.
  5. by   Tweety
    That's not what the Bible says.
  6. by   Furball
    Well, if you calculated the age of the earth according to the bible it's approx 6,000 years old.

    Christianity has a long history of standing in the way of science...Galileo ring a bell?
  7. by   Rustyhammer
    Originally posted by Furball
    Galileo ring a bell?
    No, that was Pavlov.
    -Russell
    Last edit by Jay-Jay on Aug 2, '03
  8. by   cwazycwissyRN
    Mans progress in time has been a controversial subject and will always be, regardless of how we may or maynot label ourselves. I have a hunch that in a mear 200 years from now, man will be arguing about us. Yes us. Just look, for 100s, no thousands of years man was content with the discovery of the wheel and fire. Progression was slooooooow. Then in just the last 100 years we progressed into cars, tv sets, computers, telephones, satelites, spaceships........gads the list is endless. So why now? What happened to change history so suddenly, why has our species changed so much in invention. Boy I can hear the theories now.
  9. by   jnette
    Originally posted by Furball
    Well, if you calculated the age of the earth according to the bible it's approx 6,000 years old.
    According to my understanding, the many biblical words used to describe "world" and those that relate to "time" are far different than what we perceive them to be.

    Example being: "world" translated from the original Greek (aion) should ALWAYS be "age" or "period of time".. whether long or short. It should never be translated as simply "world" as it refers to an unspecified period of time.

    The Greek word "kosmos" always refers to "world" and the true meaning is the social system, or order, arrangement, regularity. Thus said, when the Bible speaks of the "world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished".. we must understand that the social order on the earth only perished, and not the ground on which it lived.

    The Greek word "aionios" means "unknown time, time out of mind, eternity. always, perpetual, forever"... and corresponds to the Hebrew word "olam". In those places where it was translated "the world began" it should have been translated "TIME without defined limits as to a beginning or an end".

    A deeper study of the ORIGINAL languages of the Bible affords a more accurate understanding of much that we read/take at face value.

    Then, and only then, can we see that there is MUCH yet to learn before too readily dismissing as fable or nonsense the account of "creation".. and understand that creation was a continuous process which was occurring LONG before this earth or "man" was ever introduced. When WE speak of the "creation of the world" and see it written as such in Scripture, we need to dig a little deeper to come to know the true meaning of what is written.

    This is only fair if we want to doubt or mock... for it would be like reading a chemical formula and not trying to get the true "translation" of what we don't understand... "yep, it's all GREEK to me"... even THAT takes on new meaning, when you think about original texts... Perhaps if we were to be a bit more interested in getting to know the original Greek or Hebrew before we jump to chalking it up to nonsense......? To perhaps conduct an honest and in depth study before invalidating too quickly...?

    It is my opinion from what I have studied and gleaned from those efforts is that science and "religion" do not contradict each other at all.. but compliment each other.
  10. by   Jay-Jay
    Furball, it's the process that's the problem. What I studied in University was that evolution occurs through gradual random chance mutations. The problem with mutations is that while one may be favorable, most of them are not. You no sooner get a small change in the DNA that provides the organism with a 'superior' adaptation, than along comes a radiation particle that blasts the DNA, and mutates it into something totally different.

    If the above method were true for evolution, the fossil record would show slow, gradual changes. It does not. It shows sudden dramatic changes, followed by long periods of no change.

    Also, slow change would mean certain 'organs' still in the process of evolving would just not work in an intermediate stage. How do organs as complex as the eye reach a stage where they actually are useful to the animal, if they evolve slowly? Just doesn't work! The theory of evolution, which was crammed down my throat with almost religious zeal in university, DOES NOT WORK, as currently stated and taught in our colleges and universities. I do NOT deny evolution took place, and is taking place. However, I DO believe there is a 'force' guiding it. An intelligent, creative force, which constantly boggles my mind with the complexity and beauty of its creations. I have studied insects for many years, yet, still, again and again, I come across something that totally amazes me. Most recent example...an National Geographic article on a species of moth that lays its eggs inside ant burrows. The ants treat the caterpillars as if they are ant larvae, while the caterpillars fatten themselves on ant larvae.

    How could such a complex life style evolve by mere chance?
  11. by   Jay-Jay
    Originally posted by Rustyhammer
    No, that was Pavlov.
    -Russell
    :roll

    (Rusty, I wish Brian would not put the 'edit' button right next to the 'quote' button! I hit it by mistake when I went to reply to your post!) :imbar
  12. by   Jay-Jay
    One thing that fascinates me is that the 'older' languages such as Latin and Greek are more complex than 'newer' ones such as English. Now, if man did evolve from apes, and originally communicated mainly by grunting, hooting, etc., wouldn't the OPPOSITE be true?

    There is SO much more to this topic than "evolution is a fact"! Or, "creation is a fact...the Bible says it, I believe it, so there!"

  13. by   Joules


    This is a good example of evolution in action!!!!
  14. by   Tweety
    cwazycwissyRN, it is interesting the changes that have come about the last 100 years. They're probably going to say evolution is not true, because humankind did not "evolve" during that time. They self-destructed.

close