$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('anthem', '
')Of course I do not deny that. There is ample fossil evidence that many species existed in the past many millions of years and are now extinct. I hate to say "billions" because that implies more years than I'd agree with. I guess 3 or 4 billion is "billions" but when I say billions, I mean 10 billion or 100 billion. Organisms in existence today include some that have existed from the beginning and many others that appeared much more recently. Also, many species went extinct in the millions of years of Earth's history and extinctions continue today.
PeakOil is You
Evolution
Re: a story about God
by Eotyrant » Fri 10 Feb 2006, 06:40:22
This is the 'fact of evolution'; in truth what we are disputing is the mechanism. Whilst I disagree with your viewpoint, it is far, far better than wholly ignorant young earth creationism.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')es, I am disputing both of these propositions. While we really haven't discussed natural selection too much specifically, my thoughts are as follows. No matter how long natural selection operates, it does not produce new species. Weak or unsuitable specimens in a population, let's say antelopes, are eliminated by natural selection. However, the population continues to be antelopes. No new genetic information is added to the population; more favorable existing variations in the genetic code become more prominent in the population, but the genetic code remains the same. There really isn't any evidence that the unfavorable variations are actually eliminated. Variations in populations of particular species tend to ebb and flow around a central point.
When you are able to read the 'macroevolution' link, you'll see that speciation has been observed numerous times. The challenge for creationists is to state why small changes do not build up to large ones - there must be a proposed mechanism to prevent a new genus evolving.
The thing about the 'genetic information argument' is this; one, that largely only a change in information is required (not a gain) and two, information theory is all about novel information. An organisms genome may contain, say, 30 gigabits of information. However, when yo remove the junk, the obvious and the repeated code it may full to just, say 10 gigabits. Thus the 'new information' is simply using the space of the genome more efficiently.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')ould a fair summary of your belief then be that the variety of species suggested by the fossil record existed over a course of hundreds of millions of years, but that some species died out at various times thru extinction. To replace them, at times, unchanging (non-evolving, fully formed ) new species were added to the planet surface de novo (explaining a non-overlap between dinosaurs and humans)... ?
As far as I know, the geological and isotopic dating evidence suggests the earth is between four and five billion years old. The exact age probably isn't that important in this discussion, and seems to be in flux depending on who's talking, but I think the last I heard, the age was pegged at 4.5 or 4.6 billion years.[/quote]
As said before, whilst I do think it is silly, such a position is far less boneheaded than young earth creationism.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')s I stated above, many species, most prominently in many people's minds, the dinosaurs, existed for millions of years, and have gone extinct millions of years ago. Though not necessarily as "replacements", other species appeared on the Earth after the extinction of the dinosaurs. As far as I can tell from the majority of geological evidence, humans and dinosaurs did not co-exist on the planet, although there are some unexplainable human-looking footprints in strata older than would be otherwise predicted.
The Paluxy river tracks are not human prints. They are in fact highly eroded theropod tracks.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') am not a "young-earth" creationist, or any sort of creationist for that matter. I still fail to understand why most evolution supporters continue to lump all evolution doubters together as fundamentalist Bible literalists and creationism fanatics. I do not have a religious or political agenda in questioning evolution. As I stated in the very beginning of this thread, spirituality and supernatural topics do not have a place in a scientific discussion, yet several posters here have continually tried to frame the debate as science versus "crazy" religious fundamentalists and the ideas of those who question evolution as "mental fumblings" and even as something that "harms children"! Had to chuckle really at that; it sounded more like what a televangelist would say! Guess that's about all I have to say for the evening; gotta check on my children (I know they're safe though).
I suggest then you explore arguments from self-organizing complexity in addition to natural selecetion; not only are they complimentary, but the former takes a far more gestalt view than the latter, and may answer some of your doubts.
('self-organised complexity' is, in this sense, chaos theory applied to evolution, notably by Stuart Kauffman. He was the guy that Ian Malcolm (played by Jeff Goldbloom in Jurassic Park) was based upon.)
"Progress is a comfortable disease"
- E.E. Cummings
- E.E. Cummings
-
Eotyrant - Wood
- Posts: 33
- Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
- Location: UK
