Evolution, yes or no?

[Otohiko]

I dunno. Ask dwchang.

Is dwchang God?

1) Ask InSaNe KeYbLaDeR

2) Probably

Didn't read the whole thread, but WTF?

When did Otohiko make odd posts about me? I thought it was only someone-someone.

And no, I'm not God.

Satomi - By the very nature of God, I'd imagine we're not supposed to understand something like that. Isn't he/she supposed to be eternal and thus not created and was always there?

Sorry there D-Dubya... (ack! I said it again)

It was a... pun/failed attempt at killing another thread with irrelevant blabber

***

Yep, I failed.

***

I still want the thread to die though.

Wait a minute, you just used the "D" word.

/me stabs

DIE!!!! and you to Hsien!!!

I die in shame

[Warpwind]

I said I'd come an post my views on evolution here...

I'm glad jon differentiated between evolution and natural selection. The process of natural selection has been proved adequately to my mind. Specifically by some papers that I read about the Galapogos (sp?) finches which I think has already been mentioned.

Evolution itself is a harder sell. It is a theory and whilst there is evidence that supports it... it is less conclusive then that which supports natural selection. Now I'm going to speak as a geologist (since I am one) and talk about geological evidence that supports evolution and the flaws with such evidence.

Firstly the rock record which could otherwise be described as fossils that show a evolutionary trend over a period of time. One example that I am familiar with it the evolution of the horses' hoof. Fossils have been discovered that show the gradual progression of a cloven hoof (like a goats) to that of a single hoof. Problem one... the dating on these fossils is not perfect the constraints on the ages has some overlap between different evolutionary stages so it's uncertain wether it went... stage a, b, c or stage a, c, b. Someone arbitary said that since c is closer to the single hoof than b therefore b came before c. When the scientific evidence does not fully support that.

Problem two... mass extinctions are common in the history of the Earth(not just the one at the T-K boundary which wiped out the dinosaurs) and several species that have been extinct for several thousand years following a mass extinction reappear later on in the rock record. Why? if natural selection wiped them out why did something else evolve into them? If evolution is caused by genetic mutation can a whole species mutate the same way twice?

Problem three... fossils preserved in the rock record area tiny proportion of those that were acutally present. I mean a creature has to actually die in such a way that they are protected from erosion and not subjected to deep burial (intense heat and pressure that would destroy most fossils). Basically I'm just saying that we are trying to guess the size of an iceberg just by looking at what's visible above water.

All that said there is sufficient evidence for this christian to regard evolution as a significant theory that fits most of the current evidence and is a viable method of constraining age. Although I much prefer age dating via chemical methods. And if both fossils and chemical methods agree with each then we have a winner.

Meh, anyway I really should not be wasting time like this, I should be working...

[SSJVegita0609]

Ever Since Darwin: Relections in Natural History by Stephen Ray Gould

Very very VERY interesting and well-thought-out book. I highly recommend anyone interested in the subject to read.

BTW, Jon, the finches actually did diverge into different species, it just took freaking forever. However, that was merely an example of bottlenecking, which is evolution caused by created geological isolation due to some form of natural disaster (In this case the Hurricane that seperated them). Most evolution works mainly through mutation, did you know that species are constantly mutating? It's true, but only about 0.0001% of all mutations are anything of any significance. However, if one of those genetic mutations causes the individual of the species to survive more frequently then the rest of the species, then over time that trait will change the species. If you couple that together with the potential geographical and/or reproductive isolation, then you have one species turning into many. And this takes a long, long time mind you.

[SSJVegita0609]

*the name of the author is actually Stephen Jay Gould btw*

[post-it]

In order for Evolution to be practical, it would have to be a "continuously ongoing event" which reminds me; where are the half Man half chimps/Apes in the world ?

[El Banana]

They were completely replaced by the hairless apes we call human.

[SSJVegita0609]

On a side note:

It's a common-made mistake when people state that Humans came from Apes. This is incorrect. What actually occured is that humans and Apes came from a common ancestor. I'm telling you people, read Mr. Gould's book, its teh uber.

[GoldenGundam]

If so, who made God? Did something go 'poof' and suddenly God was there? Or did another God make him? and if so, who made that God?

According to popular religious belief, God always existed. Since our lives are based on beginings and endings, we cannot fathom the possibility of something that always had and always will exist, again by popular belief.

I think that we just randomly appeared. And God gave us some thing that we remember as a past. Sort of like the exact opposite of Big O.

[GoldenGundam]

Yeah, my basic answer is no.

[MistyCaldwell]

If so, who made God? Did something go 'poof' and suddenly God was there? Or did another God make him? and if so, who made that God?

According to popular religious belief, God always existed. Since our lives are based on beginings and endings, we cannot fathom the possibility of something that always had and always will exist, again by popular belief.

I'm being paraphrased now....should I feel special?