EVOLUTION - Page 2

Evolution like religion can be very broad.

I believe in evolution - but I don't believe it explains how we have become so advanced. In theory it is possible and in theory it is equally impossible. One thing is for sure which has always puzzled me is that we are not a part of the natural order of things, we are separate from it. Therefore, the theory of the aliens makes perfect since to me.

Not that evolution is false, but, If we have evolved from the apes, why are the apes still here?

Concerning the religious thing. Thanks for calling evolution religion rather than call it science. I like that.

But the book of Genesis. If you try not to make it an historical document and just read it not looking for facts. You would be amazed at what you might realize about yourself. Scripture was never meant to be historical documentation of facts. It is spiritual.

Get me that information on the books, I might check them out, thanks : )

I know this may sound like an attack on evolution after reading my post above, but it's not. Like I stated at the beginning of my post, all I was trying to state was my own personal opinion and other facts. I used the documented statements of others' opinions to bring forth different views.

My own personal opinion on evolution drives what was stated, but in no way am I scholarly on this subject. But we all have to make a choice (an educated choice based on the probability of the matter) if we think the matter is important. All I bring to this conversation is that any viewpoint -- scientific or religious -- must be looked at from all sides before making the best possible conclusion. Absolutism is something we can never attain in things that are lost, though we can be absolutely sure about some things that pertain to our every day lives. We can be sure that humans will die if we do not have oxygen to breath, and we can be sure about what we know our bodies are made of.

But we cannot be sure (absolutely) whether or not man decended from an ape, or if a man named Jesus rose from the dead, or if a Creator exists. All we have are the clues left for us to find so we can draw conclusions. After sifting through these finds, and understanding all viewpoints and perspectives on such questionable matters, only then can we make educated, unbiased, unprejudiced guesses.

I'm glad that you, Aura, have the same view point as I do when seeking for what is most probable. That page you linked to, defining the terms of laws and theories defines the way we all should think, but many don't. My viewpoints are not analogous with the absolutism you speak of. I do not impress on anyone that Christianity is absolute like the man on the website I linked to. Why? Because it's hard to prove to anyone that something is true when only probabilities for that something exist.

I have tried to promote the reasons for believing in Christianity -- logically -- on these boards in the past, but I haven't pressed them on anyone. People who don't believe as I do can skip my posts if they believe what I tout is a crock!

The best thing I can say is this: Most people -- including myself -- do not fairly assess any viewpoint, to come to a well thought out, justified, reasonable conclusion. Why do you think that so many people, believe in so many different conflicting things? Some don't even bring common sense logic to their beliefs, and defend them blindly. Why do you think that Christianity has split into so many factions, with so many belief structures? Then you got brands of Christianity -- like Mormonism or Jehoveh's Witness -- that don't even follow traditional, historical Christianity, and bring forth new and radical beliefs. It's the same in the rest of the world outside of religion. Humans are always going to hold to the beliefs that are suited best for themselves personally. That sucks, but what are you going to do?

"One thing is for sure which has always puzzled me is that we are not a part of the natural order of things, we are separate from it. Therefore, the theory of the aliens makes perfect since to me.

Not that evolution is false, but, If we have evolved from the apes, why are the apes still here?"
We did not evolve from chimps mind you. We evolved from an ancestor of both chimps and man.
Secondly, it is very possible for a species and its ancestor to coexist.
Australopithecus lived in southern africa while its descendants (homo whatnot...) lived in the north.

Are we part of the natural order? What is natural order? I believe we're as natural as it gets, we make mistakes like any other animal. But unlike other animals we can speak, learn and think.
It is these 3 elements and the things we do with them which tricks peple into thinking men are "unnatural".

Okay, stronclad, I see what you're saying. I thnk you might have misunderstood what I meant by "absolutism" in my last post. I wasn't targeting you in particular when I wrote that statement, it was more of a general expression of irritation.

okcity - I've read through the Bible, and although I don't consider myself a Christian, I do appreciate it and believe that the book is one of the best sources of wisdom available to us. My favourite books in it are Proverbs (for obvious reasons) and John (because of the way Jesus of Nazareth is portrayed). I also like Romans, Peter, and Job.

Maybe some of the Eastern Religions are more capable handling the evolution thing. Jews, Christians, & Muslims seem to want to fight.
Eldred

Dumteen wrote: "Are we part of the natural order? What is natural order? I believe we're as natural as it gets, we make mistakes like any other animal. But unlike other animals we can speak, learn and think.
It is these 3 elements and the things we do with them which tricks peple into thinking men are "unnatural"."

I'm digging deeper here *rolling up my sleeves* Pick up the book of Genesis and read it pretending that it is not a historical book of facts. Just a story. You will discover some things you might not have thought of. Gen 3:7 "And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked......." You won't find this in a science book. I ask you, Why do humans think they are naked? None of the other animals think they are naked? Because we are different. Beavers can build dams, but they can't make electricity. We are different, fact not fiction. What is difficult to understand is how and why?

Because a lot of people kept steering towards this question, I created this thread so we could all have an opportunity to put our cards on the table. And we're doing it, and I appreciate all the open mindedness.

Dumteen: Now I understand how apes can still be here even if we evolved from them - Thanks.

True, we are different. But it seems (at least to me) that parts of us are so animal like to think we are different is silly.
Like many social animals, social status is of incredible importance to us. Like all mammals (or animals with few offspring) parents will often take very large measures to protect there children (and prepare them) and just like animals lust, sex and love are a huge part of our society and desires.
We are different, yes, and it is a big difference, but I'm not convinced we need alien intervention. After all, even a small mutation in a few genes can result in large changes to an animal. A rat can become hairless, a person's colour can change, a fly can have 4 wings (or 8 legs).
A few similar mutations in men, could result in our intelligence.

In any case, alien intervention is perfectly possible, but I see no reason why it would be the case

Man! This really blows! I just wrote a whole responce and erased it. Oh well, here I go again.....

I HATE it when that happens!
I try to remember to cutpaste the response but sometimes you'll forget and then its "NOOOOOOOOOO!!"

HA HA HA..... It is pretty funny when it happens though!

DumbTeen wrote:

quote:

---

"True, we are different. But it seems (at least to me) that parts of us are so animal like to think we are different is silly.
"Like many social animals, social status is of incredible importance to us. Like all mammals (or animals with few offspring) parents will often take very large measures to protect there children (and prepare them) and just like animals lust, sex and love are a huge part of our society and desires."

---

I would just like to ask a question. Why do evolutionists think that just because there are similarities between the human species and animal species, that we must be decended in some way? Couldn't all these actions just be necessary? If there wasn't procreation, there would be no offspring. If we didn't protect and raise our children , they might possibly die. Does the fact that the majority of living creatures on this earth have an anus point to a connected ancestry? Is it logical to come to these conclusions?

Wouldn't it be more reasonable to think that because we live in such a confined world -- one with limited resources -- that all life must conform to the laws of this world? We know that living creatures (human and animal) need oxygen to breath. We know that we must eat to survive. Wouldn't it seem more logical to believe that because our lives conform to a specific way, and do not drastically deviate from that way, that we must serve a purpose?

quote:

---

"...even a small mutation in a few genes can result in large changes to an animal. A rat can become hairless, a person's colour can change, a fly can have 4 wings (or 8 legs)."

---

The majority of the supposed "mutations" you talk about here are not really mutations at all. They're actually human modifications. Hairless rats and four-winged, eight-legged flys are the result of humans tinkering with life. That's not evolution. And I assume when you talk about a person's color change you're talking about the child of two different colored parents (for example, a white mother and black father or vice versa). This isn't mutation or evolution either. This occurance is just the genetical information of both parents doing what it normally does. The information of both parents come together and create (or should I say build?) their child. A black/white baby is no mutation. This is what's supposed to happen. Do you really think this is such a "large change"?

jakereaney wrote:

quote:

---

"Maybe some of the Eastern Religions are more capable handling the evolution thing. Jews, Christians, & Muslims seem to want to fight."

---

The only thing that any of the Eastern religions would do is "tolerate" evolution. No on claiming one of the eastern faiths would really care if you believed in evolution or not, since they have differing views about what "truth" is. To the eastern faiths, all truth is either relative or an illusion. To them, what you believe in life and how you view the world through your eyes may differ from what anyone else believes or views. To them the world is an illusion so what you believe doesn't matter. The bad thing is that this reasoning caves in on itself because it asserts a truth claim itself -- the truth that there is no truth. How can you assert a truth, if there is no truth or all existence (even your thoughts!) is an illusion?

The reason that Jews, Christians and Muslims "seem to want to fight" is because they have a common-sense reasoning about what truth is. To them -- and the majority of the rest of the world -- truth is knowable. It's like the saying: "What you see, is what you get." They believe that the way they view the world is the same way everyone views the world. That if two men are standing, looking at a fig tree, they both see the exact same thing. It's pretty much just "telling it like it is." Most people would agree that eastern thinking is faulty to the degree that no one can really conform to its non-truth, illusory claims. If an easterner claimed that the food you ate was an illusion, and that the hunger you felt was not real, would you trust him and quit eating all together? No! Why? Because you and everyone else can assert that if you do not eat, you will die. The people of eastern religions cannot even hold tight to there own claims.

"I would just like to ask a question. Why do evolutionists think that just because there are similarities between the human species and animal species, that we must be decended in some way?"
Because the similarities happened to be shared by every other being on the planet.
Because our differences could have arisen in the same way the differences between other livings creatures had arisen.
There is no reason for outside intervention and there is plenty of evidence supporting evolution, within the fossil record as well as consequences from our knowledge of genetics.
I'll list a few if you wish.

"Wouldn't it be more reasonable to think that because we live in such a confined world -- one with limited resources -- that all life must conform to the laws of this world? We know that living creatures (human and animal) need oxygen to breath. We know that we must eat to survive. Wouldn't it seem more logical to believe that because our lives conform to a specific way, and do not drastically deviate from that way, that we must serve a purpose?"
I don't understand. The world has changed and will change. Static organisms never last long, and there are only a handful of "living fossils" such as the coelacanth (10$ says its spelled wrong) and animals which have changed little (sharks, crocodiles..).
The fossil record shows animals have been changing, that the animals of today are not the animals of yesterday.

"That's not evolution. And I assume when you talk about a person's color change you're talking about the child of two different colored parents (for example, a white mother and black father or vice versa)."
No I'm talking about negro albinos, perfectly natural.

"The majority of the supposed "mutations" you talk about here are not really mutations at all. They're actually human modifications. Hairless rats and four-winged, eight-legged flys are the result of humans tinkering with life."
True, but regardless they illustrate perfectly my point. Small mutations, small changes to a genome can result in huge changes to the organism.
A small change in a gene can lead to malformed blood cells leading to terrible oxygen distribution problems, 2 generations of incest-like reproduction can lead to effectively a new species to appear.
Humans all have 99.9% the same genes. Humans are hardly identical. Humans and chimps have 99% the same genes and they are very similar, but hardly identical.

And I'd also like to add where the fossil record and gene study coincide wonderfully lol.
The fossil record indicates that the "genetic tree" would go something like :
Jawless Fish > Amphibions > Reptiles > Birds
> Mammals > Primates
It so happens, that it is possible for a gene to "duplicate itself" in one species and then that gene will differentiate itself. All descendants of the animal with duplicated gene will have that gene.
It so happens that jawless fish have version A (I can't remember the exact names)
Amphibians have versions A and B.
Reptiles have versions A, B and C.
Birds have versions A, B, C and D.
Mammals have versions A, B, C and E.
Primates have versions A, B, C, E and F.

The point being they coincide remarkably and if there is no evolution then God has a remarkably wicked sense of humour.

Edit : the evolution tree didn't come out right.. Its supposed to show reptiles as ancestors of mammals and birds, not birds as ancestors of mammals.

A great key, I have found to understanding the Bible, is they and all that is mentioned in it, is and are God's. So what we chose and what we offer as negotiation is not always aspirited to one or any of need. Especially those who can have their own.

quote:

---

Why do evolutionists think that just because there are similarities between the human species and animal species, that we must be decended in some way? Couldn't all these actions just be necessary? If there wasn't procreation, there would be no offspring. If we didn't protect and raise our children , they might possibly die. Does the fact that the majority of living creatures on this earth have an anus point to a connected ancestry? Is it logical to come to these conclusions?

---

You're oversimplifying (to a very large degree) the details behind the theory of evolution strongclad. No disrespect, but I feel that having a long, drawn out discussion with you about evolutionist theory will be a waste of my time unless you educate yourself properly on that topic. Investing in your knowledge by taking formal courses in topics such as 'Human Origin' (usually in the department of archaeology/anthropology) or genetics at a local institution will give you a much more comprehensive overview than forums like these and typical internet sites. Don't mean to sound like a mom, but since it will be an investment in knowledge, the investment will be worthwhile. If you want to understand the details of the scientific/anthropological/archaeological reasoning behind evolution, I'm telling you now that you probably won't through forum discussion.

quote:

---

Wouldn't it be more reasonable to think that because we live in such a confined world -- one with limited resources -- that all life must conform to the laws of this world? We know that living creatures (human and animal) need oxygen to breath. We know that we must eat to survive. Wouldn't it seem more logical to believe that because our lives conform to a specific way, and do not drastically deviate from that way, that we must serve a purpose?

---

Sure, the most logical purpose is to survive. Like dumbteen mentioned, in no way do the practical requirements for survival imply a 'higher purpose,' if that's what you're getting at. Don't get me wrong, though. I do believe people's lives have a higher purpose than just existing and surviving.

quote:

---

The majority of the supposed "mutations" you talk about here are not really mutations at all. They're actually human modifications

---

Um. Evolution is basically a result of the sustainment of more favourable genes (depending on the environment) as well as genetic modification, also depending on the environment, over a long period of time. Man-made modifications are in essence tampering with genetic information. Some would call that speeding up evolution; others would call it messing up and even changing the natural evolutionary course. Either way, genetics are involved. On that note, you can't label the immediate passing of traits to children as 'evolution' in the way that evolution is generally described.

It is definitely true that a mutation in genetic information has the potential to bring about drastic changes in the organism. To give you a scale, I will repeat what dumbteen pointed out - human genetic info is only about 2% different from that of chimps, and look how physically/mentally different we are.

quote:

---

The only thing that any of the Eastern religions would do is "tolerate" evolution. No on claiming one of the eastern faiths would really care if you believed in evolution or not, since they have differing views about what "truth" is.

---

I wouldn't be so quick to defend any religion (Christianity included) by 'logic,' and 'truth'. At some point those things become inapplicable because unless someone has met God, and that can be objectively confirmed, your logic and truth will eventually have to give way to faith (the opposite of logic) in order to keep believing what you do.

'I just know it's the truth' or 'I feel that it is true' are more faith statements than truth statements.

As for your last paragraph, holy generalization batman. In my opinion, the teachings of Buddhism - an eastern religion - is more logical and practical than Judaism, Christianity, and Islam... whose teachings, by the way, originate from same texts - the Hebrew Scriptures. Common sense, eh? Those three religions are the source of some of history's biggest massacres (i.e. the Crusades) and political manipulation (i.e. the Papacy).

I really don't believe that you need to follow a religion in order to have meaning or purpose in your life. Again, no disrespect, but in my opinion the draw of religion is a predetermined 'life guideline,' 'something to believe in,' and for some - mediums through which people with the same beliefs can socialize and/or make plans to evangelize.

As for this sentence:

quote:

---

If an easterner claimed that the food you ate was an illusion, and that the hunger you felt was not real, would you trust him and quit eating all together? No! Why? Because you and everyone else can assert that if you do not eat, you will die. The people of eastern religions cannot even hold tight to there own claims.

---

Um, what eastern religion is that?