#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Creation or Evolution ?
Add New Argument |
2
points
2
points
I think there is misunderstanding on both sides. Usually, theists don't have an understanding of science. Not all of them are like this but a good portion are. However, the same thing can be said about the non-theists. Science can only explain the natural, not the supernatural. So I guess my next question would be, have you considered the idea that there had to have been a creator outside of the universe since nature could not have created itself? It doesn't have to be one specific God, just some kind of deity. To me, the evidence points to the God of the Hebrew bible It doesn't have to be one specific God, just some kind of deity. Have you considered that this is a preconceived notion? There are many things that are supernatural that aren't a deity. Why can't it be something that isn't a deity? A supernatural singularity that started off the universe. It really only has to be one event that is technically supernatural. To me, the evidence points to the God of the Hebrew bible Unfortunately, archaeology doesn't seem to agree with that. There are many things that are supernatural that aren't a deity. Like what? Why can't it be something that isn't a deity? A supernatural singularity that started off the universe. It really only has to be one event that is technically supernatural. You're right when you say that it has to be supernatural. However, you are incorrect when you say that some kind of deity shouldn't have to be involved. An intelligence had to have created the universe since a supernatural singularity could not have created the universe we have by mere chance or physical necessity. The only other option is that a supernatural deity designed it the way it is Unfortunately, archaeology doesn't seem to agree with that. I don't see how archaeology refutes the God of the Hebrew bible. Would you mind explaining Like what? Ghosts and spirits. However, you are incorrect when you say that some kind of deity shouldn't have to be involved. I didn't say that. I said that a deity didn't have to be involved. An intelligence had to have created the universe since a supernatural singularity could not have created the universe we have by mere chance or physical necessity. This is a preconceived notion. The only other option is that a supernatural deity designed it the way it is Again, just something theists say because that's what they want to believe. I don't see how archaeology refutes the God of the Hebrew bible. Would you mind explaining Events written in the Hebrew Bible would appear in the different rock layers. They don't. Ghosts and spirits. How did you come to the conclusion that they were supernatural? I didn't say that. I said that a deity didn't have to be involved. My bad This is a preconceived notion. So you're saying that the universe was created the way it is by mere chance or physical necessity? Again, just something theists say because that's what they want to believe. How did you come to that conclusion? Events written in the Hebrew Bible would appear in the different rock layers. They don't. How so? How did you come to the conclusion that they were supernatural? They aren't part of science. So you're saying that the universe was created the way it is by mere chance or physical necessity? Yes. There is no problem with mere chance. How did you come to that conclusion? You didn't give any other reason. Sorry. How so? The things that were written would have caused permanent changes the the surface of the Earth that would have been preserved. We don't see it. They aren't part of science. According to who? Why couldn't they have a scientific explanation that we just can't understand yet? Yes. There is no problem with mere chance. Have you considered the physical constants? You didn't give any other reason. Sorry. So you can't come to a conclusion on your own? Someone else has to come up with one for you? The things that were written would have caused permanent changes the the surface of the Earth that would have been preserved. We don't see it. Like what? According to who? Why couldn't they have a scientific explanation that we just can't understand yet? It is considered to be outside the realm of scientific understanding. Ghosts are not considered part of nature. It can change in the future, but as of now it isn't. Have you considered the physical constants? Yep. If the physical constants were different life would have existed in a different way, it would still have existed. So you can't come to a conclusion on your own? Someone else has to come up with one for you? It is the only conclusion that could be drawn from the words you used. Like what? The flood. Yep. If the physical constants were different life would have existed in a different way, it would still have existed. So its easier to believe that our universe is as orderly and precise as it is by mere chance than an intelligent, supernatural being making it like that? It is the only conclusion that could be drawn from the words you used. Except I was asking you about your thoughts on what you were saying. Not my thoughts on what I was saying The flood. Is the earth not capable of changing since the flood happened? So its easier to believe that our universe is as orderly and precise as it is by mere chance than an intelligent, supernatural being making it like that? A universe that contains life must be ordered and precise in order for chaos to be avoided. If it wasn't orderly, chaos would ensue and life would never be able to start. Any particular order would have lead to some kind of life starting. Except I was asking you about your thoughts on what you were saying. Not my thoughts on what I was saying Those were my thoughts. It wasn't that you need to tell me anything. My thought was that the only thing I could conclude from what you wrote is that you don't have a reason. Is the earth not capable of changing since the flood happened? The Earth hasn't changed enough to remove the evidence of the meteor that killed all the dinosaurs millions of years ago, but has erased all of the evidence from a flood a few thousand years ago? Yes, I believe that the Earth is not capable of that kind of change. A universe that contains life must be ordered and precise in order for chaos to be avoided. If it wasn't orderly, chaos would ensue and life would never be able to start. Any particular order would have lead to some kind of life starting. Except that you said all this came into being by mere chance. If all this happened by chance, than life wouldn't be here. The amount of order that exists in the universe, especially regarding life, doesn't happen by chance. Those were my thoughts. It wasn't that you need to tell me anything. My thought was that the only thing I could conclude from what you wrote is that you don't have a reason. What was it that I said that made you come to the conclusion that you came to? Yes, I believe that the Earth is not capable of that kind of change. How powerful do you think the flood was? Except that you said all this came into being by mere chance. Yes, order and precision came around by chance. That doesn't mean anything. If all this happened by chance, than life wouldn't be here. False. If by chance order and precision came into existence life would be here. The amount of order that exists in the universe, especially regarding life, doesn't happen by chance. The amount of order that exists in the universe, especially regarding life, doesn't happen through God. What was it that I said that made you come to the conclusion that you came to? You said nothing. How powerful do you think the flood was? Covered the entire Earth for 40 days. Yes, order and precision came around by chance. That doesn't mean anything. How does chance create the level of order and precision that we have? Where's your proof? False. If by chance order and precision came into existence life would be here. Again, how does the level of order and precision that we have happen by chance? You said nothing. Sorry. I should have clarified. I was referencing your earlier statement that this is “just something theists say because that's what they want to believe.” Covered the entire Earth for 40 days. Does a flood covering the earth for 40 days necessarily cause damage to the earth, especially on the scale of the meteor that killed the dinosaurs? How does chance create the level of order and precision that we have? Where's your proof? Same amount of proof you have for God doing it. I think it happened and it has happened, therefore whatever I think is possible. Again, how does the level of order and precision that we have happen by chance? Anything without precision and order would rip itself apart. Sorry. I should have clarified. I was referencing your earlier statement that this is “just something theists say because that's what they want to believe.” Correct. That's because what I responded to was you basically saying nothing. Does a flood covering the earth for 40 days necessarily cause damage to the earth, especially on the scale of the meteor that killed the dinosaurs? Of course. The meteor covered a very small part of the Earth. A flood that covered the entire planet should not have disappeared especially with the little amount of time that the bible says has passed since the event. Same amount of proof you have for God doing it. I think it happened and it has happened, therefore whatever I think is possible. Where's your evidence for what you're saying? Are you saying everything is subjective? Anything without precision and order would rip itself apart. If thats true, how could the universe have started by chance? Chance by definition is neither precise nor orderly Correct. That's because what I responded to was you basically saying nothing. So asking you to give evidence for why you think something is true is a bad thing? Of course. The meteor covered a very small part of the Earth. You do know how physics works right? 6 mile wide asteroids don't just effect the area they crashed into A flood that covered the entire planet should not have disappeared especially with the little amount of time that the bible says has passed since the event. It may not seem like it SHOULD have happened but it did. Also if you actually read it, the flood lasted ever so slightly over a year. You could say that a good part of it was just water coming in and going out. I'm including that into the year Where's your evidence for what you're saying? Are you saying everything is subjective? I need just add much evidence as you provide, so nothing. If thats true, how could the universe have started by chance? Chance by definition is neither precise nor orderly That's not what chance means. Chance just means without design. You can have order and precision without design. Design just means there is a purpose. Precision and order do not have to be part of a purpose. So asking you to give evidence for why you think something is true is a bad thing? Asking for a higher burden of proof for someone else's thoughts is a bad thing. You do know how physics works right? 6 mile wide asteroids don't just effect the area they crashed into Funny thing about that, there is evidence all over the world. There is an iridium layer throughout the world because the meteor kicked up a whole bunch of dust. Do, no problem there. It may not seem like it SHOULD have happened but it did. Also if you actually read it, the flood lasted ever so slightly over a year. You could say that a good part of it was just water coming in and going out. I'm including that into the year A year compared to 40 days is 9 times longer. That means there was 9 times as much likelihood that the world that was entirely covered in water would show signs thousands of years later. You have made your position 9 times harder to defend. There is no sign that the entire Earth flooded for an entire year. I need just add much evidence as you provide, so nothing. Why are all your conclusions based off of what someone else says and not your own thoughts? You can have order and precision without design. Precision and order do not have to be part of a purpose. How did you come to these conclusions? Asking for a higher burden of proof for someone else's thoughts is a bad thing. According to who? There is no sign that the entire Earth flooded for an entire year. Here's a couple websites that should answer most if not all questions that surround the flood http://www.oldearth.org/floodlist.htm Why are all your conclusions based off of what someone else says and not your own thoughts? What makes you so special that I should give more effort than you? How did you come to these conclusions? I looked up the actual definitions of the words we are using. According to who? According to me. I am the one who said it aren't I ? Here's a couple websites that should answer most if not all questions that surround the flood Sorry, I didn't realize you didn't think the Bible was true. A local flood is what you believe? What makes you so special that I should give more effort than you? Who's asking you to give more effort? All I'm doing is inquiring about your statements and assertions. What is the issue? I looked up the actual definitions of the words we are using. You didn't know these earlier? According to me. I am the one who said it aren't I ? So you are the only one that needs to say that something is right? Sorry, I didn't realize you didn't think the Bible was true. A local flood is what you believe? What does your statement have to do with biblical truth? Who's asking you to give more effort? That would be you. All I'm doing is inquiring about your statements and assertions. What is the issue? I gave as much information as you and you asked for more. You didn't know these earlier? I am the only one using them properly so this question makes no sense. you are the only one that needs to say that something is right? So you are saying you hate dogs? That follows as much as your conclusion. What does your statement have to do with biblical truth? A local flood goes against a worldwide flood. A worldwide flood is described in the Bible. I still have yet to find evidence for macroevolution https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDJksG3gKw http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ http://evolution.berkeley. http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/ ...now you have. Here's why I don't think macroevolution could happen. While mutations do happen, they are rare. Even if you look at the mutations that do happen, 9 times out of 10, its going to be a harmful mutation which makes neutral or beneficial mutations incredibly rare. They don't happen nearly as often as people would like or as science would require it to happen. This is why the scientists say something like "give it enough time" as a caveat to what they are saying. While they may technically be right, it is still far too much time that would permit the natural processes to turn us into the complex life forms that we are. Also, there are genetic limits that are imposed on us as well as animals. Dog breeders have tried breeding dogs together to create some new varieties of dogs to make them a lot of money, but all they got was a dog. The same thing happened with fruit flies. They were experimented on to try and make them into something different but ultimately just became deformed fruit flies. You also need to take into account the fact that this change is cyclical. Particularly with the environmental conditions. Mosquitos that are sprayed with something like DDT die off unless they have a gene that makes them resistant to it. That mosquito then spreads those genes to the next generation until said population of mosquitos is DDT resistant. However, this is where the cyclical part comes in. Once DDT is not longer a part of their environment, the population eventually goes back to its DDT susceptible nature. Something else to think about. How is the fact that humans and chimps have DNA thats about 98% similar proof of common ancestry? How does homology prove that two animals came from the same ancestor? All this does is show evidence of a common designer, not a common ancestor. Lack of fossil evidence is also an issue. Evolutionists like to point to the Cambrian explosion, but the problem is that this is way too fast, even for biology. As explained earlier, mutations are rare and beneficial mutations are even rarer. Because of this, there is no way evolution could happen that quickly. Irreducible complexity is also a thing. How could chimps and humans have gradually evolved from a common ancestor if all the parts needed to keep them alive had to be there at the same time? While mutations do happen, they are rare. Humans will go through anywhere from 30-80 mutations in their lifetime. There are currently about 7.2 billion humans on the planet. Assuming the lowest average rate of 30, there will be at least 216 billion mutations in the human genome before everyone who is currently living dies. Doesn't sound too rare too me. Even if you look at the mutations that do happen, 9 times out of 10, its going to be a harmful mutation which makes neutral or beneficial mutations incredibly rare. Incorrect. First off, whether a mutation is beneficial, harmful or neutral depends primarily on the environment. The general rule of thumb is that the vast majority of mutations are neutral in the present environment, and only a few are beneficial or harmful. Here's the thing, the only ones that get weeded out are the ones that cause organisms to die before they can reduce. Everything else gets carried on. The good ones stick around. The neutral ones do too because they don't hurt. They could be around forever and may end up coming in handy later, especially if they are recessive genes (we'll get back to that soon). Even harmful one that kill later in life will stick around if the organism can stick around long enough to reproduce. So it is basically the exact opposite of what you are claiming. While they may technically be right, it is still far too much time that would permit the natural processes to turn us into the complex life forms that we are. First off, your premise is wrong, as I just pointed out. Secondly, time is not the only numeric factor we have to evaluate. It is also the number different populations in the species and ultimately every member of every population. Let's say you have a steady species population of 10 million for 100 million years, and they break off into 10 equally sized group. Each group now has a constant population of one million for 100 million years. That will almost certain give us 10 new species to work with, and in the real world, most of those will go on to form new species. Dog breeders have tried breeding dogs together to create some new varieties of dogs to make them a lot of money, but all they got was a dog. There are approximately 340 breeds of dog in the world, created through the span of approximately 10-30 thousand years. It takes more time than that to create a new species, especially since they often interbred with various wolf species until rather recently, thus reinforcing their original DNA to some extent. Also, I gave you numerous examples of observed cases of speciation in my links. We've actually found more than statistics predicted we should. A lot more, actually. However, this is where the cyclical part comes in. Once DDT is not longer a part of their environment, the population eventually goes back to its DDT susceptible nature. When the actual before and after DNA is tested in these scenarios we find two things. a). The genes that allowed them to be resistant were actually recessive genes that had existed in the for thousand of years. Because the gene wasn't harmful, it still popped up. Thus, the original population managed to survive because some percentage had the immunity. These were the only ones who survived, so they spread that gene, and the original gene would become recessive in a few generations. Given enough time, the recessive gene might get totally wiped out, but the scenario you describe takes place over the course of around 10 years. Once the immunity is no longer necessary for survival, it may pop back up, and may even become dominant again. Thus, we are seeing microevolution here, NOT macro. b) these are not contained environments. A new population that has the special gene recessive can come in and take over. Thus, once again, no new species are created, just an effect on different populations. Not macro. If it IS cyclical, as you say, we wouldn't have to come up with new flu shots every year, and snakes would have their legs back. All this does is show evidence of a common designer, not a common ancestor. Actually it provides evidence for both. But taken as a whole, evolution has massively more corroborating evidence than creation. Evolutionists like to point to the Cambrian explosion, but the problem is that this is way too fast, even for biology. We have cataloged speciation happening in about 300 years. The evolution intervals were around 20 million years. Faster than a lot of evolution, but perfectly feasible. See, evolution does not occur at a set rate. Its speed depends on the DNA involved and especially the environment. In a complex, busy, nutrient rich environment composed primarily of relatively simple organisms, evolution can happen quite rapidly. Irreducible complexity is also a thing. Even Michael Behe has admitted that has yet to properly demonstrate irreducible complexity in anything. Because of the way his argument is structured, no system can be identified as irreducibly complex if a solid, rational alternative explanation can be provided. We don't even have to prove that the explanation is right, only that it can't be debunked at this time. The thing here is that parts of a system evolve independently and usually at different rates, all in conjunction with all the other systems. No system appeared fully formed, and many systems could have performed radically different functions and multiple systems could have combined to form new ones. Every single system has been rationally explained, thus irreducible complexity cannot be shown to be valid as of yet. I do have some questions for you just because I'm curious to learn more in case there's a connection I'm missing. Where is the evidence for what you're saying? I apologize for giving a hefty task, but I only ask so I can better understand your evidence. For example, you mention that "humans will go through anywhere from 30-80 mutations in their lifetime." I remember learning that evolution occurs as the organism has offspring, not while the offspring is still alive. The organism uses whatever mutation it has and I believe you when you say that mutations happen during a lifetime. However, I do have a hard time believing that the mutation is taken advantage of while the organism is still alive. I see the evidence for macroevolution as an assumption, albeit a very good assumption, that attempts to extrapolate from microevolution. However, as good as it is, its still an assumption. I do find your arguments for macroevolution compelling and I do look forward to finding the connection between your arguments and the evidence you have. However, until I see the proof for macroevolution is beyond the shadow of a doubt, 100% correct, I am more inclined to see that it is false It is always good to be curious. You have my respect. Well, you already did, but still. For example, you mention that "humans will go through anywhere from 30-80 mutations in their lifetime." I'm glad you asked because it had been years since I learned this, and when I did research looking for a link, I learned something new. I probably won't be using this argument again, although I was not entirely wrong. http://www.livescience.com/ Where is the evidence for what you're saying? Ask specific questions, like you did above. I see the evidence for macroevolution as an assumption, albeit a very good assumption, that attempts to extrapolate from microevolution. Micro and macro do not use different processes. Otherwise we would need two sets of DNA. Its the difference between a baby and an adult. Or between a small cloud and a huge rain cloud. Let's say you went due north from your house and walked exactly one mile. You record how long it took. You take pictures of the environment all around you. The next day, you go north again, but this time you walk ten miles. You record how long it took, and take pictures again. Then you compare the two trips. One took ten times longer, and had different scenery. Yet, you used the exact same method of transportation and went the exact same direction. The one mile walk is micro and the ten mile walk is macro. That's all the difference there is. I encourage you to read all those link and watch that video (made by Christians for Christians). If you find you still have specific questions or concerns, ask and I'll see what I can find for you. However, until I see the proof for macroevolution is beyond the shadow of a doubt, 100% correct, I am more inclined to see that it is false Did you use that same approach regarding the existence of God? Science works by locating and removing bad ideas, things that are impossible. Whatever remains is possible, at least for the time being. As time goes on and we learn more and get better technology, we rule out more and more, but whatever remains is still the best bet we have at the time. Micro/macro are just evolution, pure and simple, and we know it happens because we've seen it, we've done it ourselves, and we can now read the changes in allele frequency over successive generations. The core of evolutionary theory has been around longer than almost every other paradigm concept, including big bang and plate tectonics. It has been studied more than any major theory except maybe atomic theory. It has been highly controversial from its inception, so numerous people have tried to prove it wrong. With all that time, all the new technology and techniques that have come out since the days of Darwin, with thousands of papers and experiments coming out from all over the globe, with so many people dead set on proving it wrong, and considering the fact that it literally only has to be proven wrong ONCE for it to be discarded, the fact that it hasn't lends massive amounts of credence to the veracity of the theory. God has never withstood even a fraction of that scrutiny. Ask specific questions, like you did above. Ok. I'll try to do that from now on. What do you think of the fossil record? I've always head the argument that since simple transitional forms are rare and complex transitional forms are usually what we see, then that means that there is no way that macroevolution could happen since the level of complexity required doesn't happen by chance or physical necessity Micro and macro do not use different processes. Otherwise we would need two sets of DNA. Its the difference between a baby and an adult. Or between a small cloud and a huge rain cloud. I think what I was trying to get at was that if macroevolution is just microevolution on a bigger scale, how would you know if you have never seen it happen? Thats why I thought it was an assumption. Did you use that same approach regarding the existence of God? I usually think of things like the kalam cosmological argument and the moral argument. Kalam because if there was a beginning to the universe, then there had to have been a beginner and to me, the God of the bible fits that description the best. The moral argument is used because if there is anything that s considered right or wrong, no matter how small, that implies that there is a standard out there. otherwise, it would just be your opinion against mine. I've always head the argument that since simple transitional forms are rare and complex transitional forms are usually what we see, then that means that there is no way that macroevolution could happen since the level of complexity required doesn't happen by chance or physical necessity Never heard that argument before and it makes no sense. What constitutes "simple" and "complex" transitional forms? Who made these delineations? For that matter, how are you defining "transitional"? It is very important to keep in mind, most of the older fossils tend to be skeletal only. Yet two different, closely related, species can have the same or similar skeletons. It would be better to see organs, skin color and such. Best, of course, would be DNA, but we obviously can't get that information. So fossils can be helpful and used to be at the center of evolutionary theory, but they were holding us back. DNA is much better, but we can only go so far back with it. So why not use the most obvious and conformable evidence? The numerous observed case of speciation. That is right where we SEE macroevolution happening. And it has happened way more often than we predicted it would. I think what I was trying to get at was that if macroevolution is just microevolution on a bigger scale, how would you know if you have never seen it happen? a) We have. Seriously, read those links and watch that video. Doing that would answer most of your questions better than I can. b) You really want to go this path? Okay, then...how would you know about God if you never saw him? Or that he created the Universe since nobody saw it happen? How do you know Heaven or Hell exists, if you've never been? How do you know we have souls if you can't identify them? Etc. The point is, you don't have to see something happen to know it happened. If fire starts, investigators can tell you how it happened without seeing the incident at all. We can't really see most of the aspects of atomic theory in action, yet we've used it to vastly improve chemistry and harness nuclear energy. So yeah, not much of an argument to begin with, but if you insist on using it, I will use it back on you. Kalam because if there was a beginning to the universe, then there had to have been a beginner and to me, the God of the bible fits that description the best. We had this debate some time ago, and you stopped responding, so I am not interested in going back into it. The moral argument is used because if there is anything that s considered right or wrong, no matter how small, that implies that there is a standard out there. It makes sense that the standard would be "what works for society vs. what is harmful to society". There is also evidence that we actually evolved sections of our brain that basically code for "morality". otherwise, it would just be your opinion against mine. Who says that's not how it actually is? But also, there doesn't usually have to be opinions. The way it is supposed to be is: you collect information, you think about it a while, confirm its accuracy, distribute it when possible and use it when necessary. Opinions rarely need to be relied on if your goal is "what is the best thing to do for all involved?" Sorry I got back to you so late. I was busy. What constitutes "simple" and "complex" transitional forms? I would say a simple form would be something that is pretty low maintenance biologically if that makes sense. Like a sea sponge for example. For complex, I would say something like a human or animal. In terms of transitional life forms, they would be something like an organism that looks like its transitioning to another life form whatever it may be. For that matter, how are you defining "transitional"? I would define transitional in the biological sense as an organism that is in the process of becoming another organism. It is very important to keep in mind, most of the older fossils tend to be skeletal only. Yet two different, closely related, species can have the same or similar skeletons. I think this is where a lot of people tend to be when they take sides for and against macroevolution. To a theist, the similarity in skeletal remains doesn't necessarily mean that we came from a common ancestor while a scientist would say otherwise. Based off of what the links you provided say, it would lead me to believe that macro just means that an organisms DNA would change just enough to where it wouldn't be able to successfully mate with a member of the same species. At least thats what it seems like. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. b) You really want to go this path? Okay, then...how would you know about God if you never saw him? Or that he created the Universe since nobody saw it happen? How do you know Heaven or Hell exists, if you've never been? How do you know we have souls if you can't identify them? Etc. You have a point. However, I would like to put forth the idea of faith. Theists take these on faith even though we may not have experienced ourselves. Not saying that there isn't evidence for it, just that we may not know what it is or understand it that well It makes sense that the standard would be "what works for society vs. what is harmful to society". Part of the problem though is that there is an underlying assumption in your statement that implies that there is a best and worst out there. If there was no best, how would you know whether or not something was actually working for society? How would you know if someone was being harmful? This is why I mentioned that if there was no absolute standard, there would be no objective morality. I would also posit that the absolute standard would have to exist outside of ourselves since morality in and of itself is an intangible concept Sorry I got back to you so late. I was busy. No worries. I would say a simple form would be something that is pretty low maintenance biologically if that makes sense. Like a sea sponge for example. One of the first rules of paleontology is that beings with hard parts are much more likely to fossilize. Ancient life forms with no hard parts are extremely uncommon in the fossil record. In terms of transitional life forms, they would be something like an organism that looks like its transitioning to another life form whatever it may be. If evolution is true, then you just described the entire fossil record. I would define transitional in the biological sense as an organism that is in the process of becoming another organism. How would that look? What specific characteristics would distinguish a transitional fossil from a non-traditional fossil? To a theist, the similarity in skeletal remains doesn't necessarily mean that we came from a common ancestor while a scientist would say otherwise. Although that is true, that wasn't the point I was trying to make. What I meant was, if we know that two distinct species can share a skeleton now, then how do we know that all the fossils we find that show the same skeleton are the same species? We might have actually found two or more species, but would never know it based purely on the skeletons. Based off of what the links you provided say, it would lead me to believe that macro just means that an organisms DNA would change just enough to where it wouldn't be able to successfully mate with a member of the same species. At least thats what it seems like. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Well, you should have said "original species, not same species, but yes, you are basically right. That is how we define different species of extant, sexually producing life forms. But it is highly problematic. Obviously, this method doesn't work with asexual life. Further, since fossils won't get up and mate with each other, we can't use this to differentiate between extinct species. Clearly, some are quite obvious, but there are many arguments over numerous cases ongoing today. As of yet, nobody has come up with a definition of species that works for all of life. Perhaps that could be because life doesn't actually have strict borders? Genetics suggests exactly that. It seems our need to draw strict lines may not be appropriate with biology. However, I would like to put forth the idea of faith. Why the heck would anyone really on faith? If you are wrong, but think you are right and never test it, then you will always believe a lie, and never let it be examined. Faith is mostly just an excuse to not have your beliefs challenged. If there was no best, how would you know whether or not something was actually working for society? If said society is thriving, people are healthy, the population is growing, everyone is happy; then maybe your doing a lot of right things. If the opposite....well that's when we come up with moral rules. If these rules work, they will likely be maintained. If not, no one will even know about them in few centuries. This is why I mentioned that if there was no absolute standard, there would be no objective morality. The absolute standard is the same standard we always use: "Does it work or not?" One of the first rules of paleontology is that beings with hard parts are much more likely to fossilize. Ancient life forms with no hard parts are extremely uncommon in the fossil record. Based off of todays findings, how many beings would you say became fossilized? If evolution is true, then you just described the entire fossil record. I was tempted to ask you what you mean by evolution then I realized that you already answered it. That did make me think of another question though. How would you know if a species is transitioning into another species instead just being another species entirely? If that makes sense How would that look? What specific characteristics would distinguish a transitional fossil from a non-traditional fossil? I would say that it would need to have characteristics of the original species plus maybe some characteristics of the species that its becoming Although that is true, that wasn't the point I was trying to make. What I meant was, if we know that two distinct species can share a skeleton now, then how do we know that all the fossils we find that show the same skeleton are the same species? We might have actually found two or more species, but would never know it based purely on the skeletons. I apologize. I see what you mean now. Perhaps that could be because life doesn't actually have strict borders? Genetics suggests exactly that. It seems our need to draw strict lines may not be appropriate with biology. I think first you would have to define what you mean by a strict border. When I think of strict border, I would normally think of a tiger trying to breed with a horse, which kinda sounds ridiculous, but its still just a thought. I think I do see where you were trying to go with it though because we have bred things like a tiger-lion mix, horse and donkey mix, and a dog-wolf mix. We have also gotten dogs from wolves. This is what it seemed like you were saying at least. However, part of the problem is that those species of animal are either sterile or extremely weak sexually during the first generation. Why the heck would anyone really on faith? If you are wrong, but think you are right and never test it, then you will always believe a lie, and never let it be examined. Faith is mostly just an excuse to not have your beliefs challenged. It sounds like you are more referring to blind faith. Blind faith is not what I was referring to. Take for example, the extent of your belief in macro evolution. You take the evidence for it on faith that it is true of macro evolution. I'm sure that if sometime down the road, it was proven false, then you would probably change your mind. I'm the same way. I think you remember at the beginning of our conversation me saying that macro evolution seemed like an assumption based off of extrapolations from micro evolution. I took that based off of faith based off the evidence I saw. This conversation is showing me more evidence. If said society is thriving, people are healthy, the population is growing, everyone is happy; then maybe your doing a lot of right things. If the opposite....well that's when we come up with moral rules. If these rules work, they will likely be maintained. If not, no one will even know about them in few centuries. Part of the issue is this. Hitler said he was doing the right thing by exterminating the Jews. This made him happy to do so. Ya a lot of the german citizens disagreed with him, but Hitler was happy. Ya for the most part the germans were thriving, healthy, and the population was growing. However, most everyone would say that Hitlers version of happiness was objectively wrong. If something is objectively wrong then that means that there is objective right. I thought it would be worth mentioning that what I mean by something that is objectively right or wrong is something that is right or wrong regardless of whether or not people think or feel otherwise The absolute standard is the same standard we always use: "Does it work or not?" Part of the issue with this is that pretty much everyone has their own definition of whether or not something works. We need to have a standard outside of ourselves to help measure ourselves by 1
point
Okay. YOU were created, I evolved .... O.K?? And there are a LOT of Republicans that feel the same way as those "dastardly Democrats" (I know a few, they just like to follow the accepted line), and , by the way, nobody says we evolved "from Apes". THAT is "nonsense" used by those who ridicule the evidence that is VERY hard to question. |