?Please explain Evolution to me in simple terms

by Guest with Questions 125 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Paralipomenon

  Good answer Nvr.
  
  Warlock: We can't properly determine if there's ever been life on mars (suspicions are pointing to there was at one point) I don't see how we could tell what's on planets at the animal level in the next solar system over.
  
  Evolution is a theory without all the answers. It's the process that keeps it looking for confirmation that it is valid.
  Creationism is a theory too, but it doesn't feel the need to prove and refine itself.
• 

  AlmostAtheist

  Now, this brings up another question: What is man evolving into?

  It's a good question. But it also suggests the idea that man is "highly" evolved, or is the "most highly evolved" creature. That isn't true in any evolutionary sense. There is no "more evolved" or "less evolved". Today's worms are as evolved as today's humans.

  AIDS isn't airborne, but it could become so. If so, then we all may contract it. Some people, for some unknown reason, don't die when they get it. In short order, all the humans without this immunity would be dead. The only ones left will reproduce and their children will also be immune.

  In that scenario, man is evolving into an AIDS-resistant version of today's man.

  Humans screw up natural selection by fighting the selection'ing. We take care of other humans, even if they are unable to survive on their own. That's not a bad thing, don't get me wrong. But natural selection, if given the chance, would let our blind/lame/preemie babies die. We stop that, and so the genes behind those problems stay in our gene pool.

  Again, I'm not saying we're screwing with the 'natural plan' by taking care of our less-healthy fellow-beings. There is no "plan" -- just a description of what happens if nobody intervenes. We intervene, so we aren't as susceptible to natural selection. (But in the case of a horrific plague, we'd be unable to intervene and natural selection would take over.)

  Dave
• 

  RAF

  What I'm saying about evolution is that you have to stay vague about the subject ... I'm not against, I'm not for ... but yet nobody can proove from what we evolved from ... but if you take the genetic as an argument you have to include the pig as a possibility (and who knows what about those possibilities, because you have to think about it to check it or you found out by hazard since we don't have to look alike to be very close genetically ... That's all what I'm saying !

  The probleme in such debate is that people think that you are either on the right or theleft (if you don't believe in evolution you believe in creation account for instance, same for 9/11 its not about validating the whole conspiracie theorie it's about explaining what doesn't seem right in the explainations) ... again not for or against (that's being influenced) ... No I'm questioning ... (I can be on a side but it doesn't mean that I accepte everything from this side or deny everything to the other side) I just need it to be coherent (to me at least ... so of course this stays subjective).
• 

  AlanF

  Warlock wrote:

  : So Alan, what did you expect from a fool and ignoramus????

  I entirely agree with your self-assessment.

  : So, Alan, the universe is millions or billions of years old, with stars and planets and whatever else, and the evolutionary process started here on earth? Just here?

  Obviously, no one knows. With an unbelievably large amount of raw material in the universe, and an unbelievably large number of possible interactions in that raw material, and most likely a great deal that mankind is completely ignorant of with respect to what raw material exists and how it behaves, no one can say what is possible and what isn't beyond what we actually observe. Since we observe in the historical record that evolution occurred on the earth, we know that it's possible on the earth. Beyond that is speculation.

  : Such a "stupid" question on my part can surely be answered by someone with your superior intelligence.

  No, it cannot be answered by anyone, because it's such a stupid question. I already gave you enough to go on to figure it out for yourself. Evolution, like photosynthesis, is a process, not an entity. An entity can travel from place to place; a process cannot. Can you comprehend this? If so, you have your answer. If not, then I cannot help you.
  
  : Or is it just a "stupid" question because YOU can't answer it?

  No one can answer such a stupid question because it's inherently unanswerable. Let me give you some parallel questions, and perhaps then you might admit to understanding.

  Weather is a process. Can weather migrate from planet to planet, even in principle? How about from one continent to another?

  Erosion is a process. Can Erosion migrate from planet to planet, even in principle? How about from one continent to another?

  The evolution of language is a process. Can the evolution of language migrate from planet to planet, even in principle? How about from one continent to another?

  Here are other examples of extremely stupid questions:

  Can an all-powerful God make a stone so heavy that he can't lift it?

  Can God make 2 + 2 equal 7?

  Can you explain why these are stupid questions?

  Really, though, I don't think you don't understand the above. I think that for religious reasons you're simply too stubbornly doctrinaire to admit that you do, and so you refuse to admit that you understand.

  AlanF
• 

  AlanF

  RAF wrote:

  : ... but yet nobody can proove from what we evolved from

  What would you take as proof?

  AlanF
• 

  AlmostAtheist

  From the primordial "soup" came life, and from the most simple one celled organism which evolved over millions of years, came every animal on earth, culminating in man.
  
  So when I speak of "evolution", this is what I mean, and I sure don't believe that.

  That's actually two different things. The first is the idea that life sprang from non-life. The discussions around that are often referred to as "abiogenesis". (To be followed, no doubt, by "abioexodus", "abioleviticus", and so forth...)

  There is no "Theory of Abiogenesis", like our "Theory of Evolution". We have tons of facts and evidence to develop and support evolution, but there's precious little to work with on beginning-of-life. Certainly nothing that would allow anyone to declare it a theory in the scientific sense.

  Once life exists (or at least an object that can replicate itself), then evolution can happen.

  and I sure don't believe that.

  Let me ask you, if a bird's food supply depended largely on his eyesight, would you agree that the birds with the best eyesight would find the best food? And if the environment was rather short of food, it follows that the best-sighted ones would survive and the worst-sighted ones would die.

  The remaining birds would collectively have better eyesight than the population prior to the starvings, agreed?

  And these would mate and produce offspring that ALSO had better eyesight than the pre-starved population, agreed?

  That is evolution. You've just witnessed one of the bazillion steps necessary to turn primordial-ooze-replicators into well-visioned-birds.

  (I'm guessing it's that last point on which you and I might not agree! :-) )

  Dave
• 

  Warlock

  I see what you are saying, but here is what we were taught about evolution, and it's very simple: From the primordial "soup" came life, and from the most simple one celled organism which evolved over millions of years, came every animal on earth, culminating in man.

  Alan,

  Separate from what Dave has explained, this is where my disagreement begins. At the beginning.

  Warlock
• 

  RAF

  AlanF : What would you take as proof?

  No questions left aside ... The thing is why should I stop questioning when there is still no proof - I mean why should I buy the whole thing? Why do you buy the whole thing for instance? Do you think that we are a Chimp descendant? Why an Ape more than a PIG? ... When you only have to crumble the genomes to get a human being (not sure I'm clear here but I think you get what I mean).

  It happened that I was sure of some things and most of the time a few questions came to change my point of view (partially t totally)... So I decided to stay open ... being sure is not sure,it closes too much doors ... I want them open ... because of that I stay vague on most things, I only take what stands and if possible in different perspectives even if it leads to original (mine or others) theories (not more or less worthy than other theories since they are theories - it just needs to stand on effectives basis like most not proved theories)

  And the real question is why would anyone really want to force me (or anyone) to believe the whole thing ... What does it change in other people lives? Is it not enough to give an opinion and let people make their own opinion? I love to debate but really most of the time it turns into name calling which are not arguments but some kind of intimidation and influence on weak minds I don't want to get into this game but it happens that I really feel like but then it wouldn't satisfy me to win or to lose this way since most of the time there is nothing to lose or win in this anyway.
• 

  Warlock

  Let me ask you, if a bird's food supply depended largely on his eyesight, would you agree that the birds with the best eyesight would find the best food? And if the environment was rather short of food, it follows that the best-sighted ones would survive and the worst-sighted ones would die.

  The remaining birds would collectively have better eyesight than the population prior to the starvings, agreed?

  And these would mate and produce offspring that ALSO had better eyesight than the pre-starved population, agreed?

  That is evolution. You've just witnessed one of the bazillion steps necessary to turn primordial-ooze-replicators into well-visioned-birds.

  (I'm guessing it's that last point on which you and I might not agree! :-) )

  Dave

  Dave,

  I appriciate your illustration, but both the best and worst sighted birds remain birds throughout this whole process. I don't see them evolving into anything other than birds, they just adapt to the environment.

  Warlock
• 

  Little Drummer Boy

  Dave,

  I appriciate your illustration, but both the best and worst sighted birds remain birds throughout this whole process. I don't see them evolving into anything other than birds, they just adapt to the environment.

  Warlock

  Birds are only called "birds" because humans have chosen a completely arbitrary point in the genetic make-up of living things and named them "birds". The natural world doesn't care about our definitions though. If we so chose, we could vastly simplify things and divide lifeforms into only two categories: feathers or no feathers (or whatever - just an example). Or we could make things vastly more difficult and classify life into a trillion different categories. Under that system, the brown haired, brown eyed, 5ft tall people of the world would think of themselves as a different life form than the blond haired, blue eyed, 6 ft tall people (again, just an illustration here).

  And please, if one of the more articulate (than myself, 'cause I'm not) evolution posters could restate the concept that I just tried to put accross, but in better terms, do so because it is one of the basic misconceptions that creationists have.