[PASTED FROM PAGE ONE]
| inbetween | evolution posted ~ 10 hours ago (2/29/2012) |
|---|---|
 Since 6/29/2009 | since my awakening from the mind control of the WTS, it has been an exciting also frigthening journey of exploration and free thinking. I would say, today I try to be open to anything, I´ll go whatever direction facts show. While I`m no scientist, I think I have a glue about the scientific method. I also agree with the statemant, that some extraordinary claim needs extraordinary proof. So far, it is a difficult question whether God exists or not, and probably in my lifetime I will not get a conclusive answer. However, my concerns are about evolution, since even a confirmation of evolution does not necessarily exclude the existence of a God, it just proivdes an alternative explanation, in case there is no God. Even though I did not really read a book yet about evolution, I read other books of people, whose reasoning I can agree to, and they believe in evolution. Anyway, there a two points, which stand in the way of accepting the theory of evolution. 1) missing link: I do not have to go into the fossil report, what puzzles me is, that there are no missing links alive today. Let me explain: According to my understanding of evolution, natural selection works together with mutations, so a change in an animal will survive, because it is better fit for a particular environment. This change must be gradual, perhaps affecting only one little area of the DNA. Lets call this animal of one kind A. The goal of evolution is animal of kind B. The one with the little change we call A+. So next must be many of A+ animals before the next advantageous change occurs, we call it A++. Then many of A++ must live in order for the next change and so on, until B occurs. My question: today we have animals of kind A and B all over the place, but where are the A+, A++ and so on ? There should have been much more of them, because of the nature of gradual change, which needs a big population of those animals. Even if they may be hidden in the fossil record, why are they not here today ? 2) our brain We trust our brain to be able to discern this world and its natural laws, however, if it is only product of some natural selection process, how can we trust our brain in order to find out the truth ? On the other hand, by trusting our brain tobe able to find out all other things in nature, does it not imply, that it is from a higher source ? I would be very interested in your comments, I hope I made my points clear. English is not my first language, so I may not have succeeded in the endeavour for a precise language, sorry about that. inbetween |
| 3Mozzies | Re: evolution posted ~ 9 hours ago (2/29/2012) |
 Since 8/22/2010 | My question: today we have animals of kind A and B all over the place, but where are the A+, A++ and so on ? Here are some birds with wings that can't fly. Birds that can't fly sound like a the kind of A+ animal you're looking for... Maybe in a few thousand years some might lose their flightless wings and replace them with legs or who knows what. These new creatures along with new attributes (mutations) will become a different/new species? Kiwis |
| Flat_Accent | Re: evolution posted ~ 9 hours ago (2/29/2012) |
 Since 11/28/2011 | Hello Inbetween, glad you're open to new ideas. I'll try and answer these questions, but someone else can probably add to them. 1) missing link: I do not have to go into the fossil report, what puzzles me is, that there are no missing links alive today. Firstly, it's inescapeable that there were missing links. Fossil records prove this beyond doubt. You can study the evolution of the Horse, or the evolution of sea dwelling mammals, or even our own ancestry to get a broader picture of this. For instance, inherent in dolphins are two very small bones at the base of the spine. They are too small to have a usage, and are not connected to the rest of the skeleton, but they are the remnants of the ancient anscestors of dolphins, who originally lived on land, but over time moved out to sea (which, I might add, are visible in the fossil record). You should also think about the term 'missing link'. If you go further forward in time, then probably every animal on the earth now would be a missing link to some new future species. But the process is so incredibly slow that we would barely notice this change. Therein lies the problem with the 'missing link' terminology. If scientists could find each and every stage of evolution in the fossil record, it would be impossible to put a defining mark between what constitutes a human, for example, and what constitutes an ape-like anscestor. Third, when two varying branches of an individual species co-exist, one will probably go extinct. This is because of things like food competition, and struggles over territory. It's also quite probable that the Neanderthal, which was a separate branch, not related to humans, may have died out because of interbreeding with our ancestors. 2) our brain I'm not sure whether this is more of a philosophical question than an evolutionary one. Nevertheless, our brains are capable of learning, understanding, creating and storing information. Because of this we are able to create a necessity for answers to questions like 'Is there a God' and 'Why are we here'. It is our brains that give the universe purpose. But truth is objective. There are some things that we can find the answers to, and that's where science comes in. |
| inbetween | Re: evolution posted ~ 8 hours ago (2/29/2012) |
Since 6/29/2009 | |
| inbetween | Re: evolution posted ~ 8 hours ago (2/29/2012) |
Since 6/29/2009 | sorry, strange, I can`t see the answers only my original post ? |
| leavingwt | Re: evolution posted ~ 8 hours ago (2/29/2012) |
Post 13974 of 13980 Since 6/16/2008 | "Even though I did not really read a book yet about evolution" In very recent years, many books have been written on this topic, including the two below. Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/B002ZNJWJU The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Show-Earth-Evidence-Evolution/dp/1416594787 You may also find it helpful to review the Common Myths and Misconceptions about Evolution. Why? Almost everything WT has said on the topic is either a lie, distortion or gross ignorance. Here are some helpful resources: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php http://listverse.com/2008/02/19/top-15-misconceptions-about-evolution/ http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13620-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions.html |
| Amelia Ashton | Re: evolution posted ~ 8 hours ago (2/29/2012) |
 Since 11/2/2010 | Bumping for NewChapter |
| Matsimus | Re: evolution posted ~ 6 hours ago (2/29/2012) |
 Since 2/21/2012 | A couple of years ago I was still a believer of JW doctrine, with a big curiosity for what all the evolution crap was about, I read one of Richards Dawkins books called "the greatest show on earth". Not did I know that it would change my life forever. The book explains all the evidence for evolution without requiring you to be a professor in evolutionary biolgy. His statements were overwhelmingly logical to me, and everything felt like pieces being added to a big puzzle, while shredding my beliefs in jw doctrine where it was against evolution. As i read my comment now, it seems very easy, although it wasn't. I got terrified and read every WT literature about evolution, but it just did not add up in my mind. I highly reccomend that you read "the greatest show on earth". Btw, still having trouble with the posts? I read in another thead that this one has got a few technical issues :p |
| NewChapter | Re: evolution posted ~ 6 hours ago (2/29/2012) |
 Since 1/25/2011 | Finally. Firefox worked. Inbetween, I think that you are still looking at evolution in terms of creation. That could make some of the concepts hard to grasp. For instance you referenced the 'goal' of evolution. This suggests you think a course has been plotted, and now the process is meant to get to the destination. That is not how evolution works. Think of it more like a wind up car that will run in random circles, bumping into walls, and then readjusting its course until it can move in a new direction again. The term 'missing link' can also hang us up. Think in terms of 'transitional species', of which there are many. In other words, you won't find a link between ape and homo, but you will find many species that gradually change in between the two. And to make it a bit harder to grasp, those in between species don't all end at homo sapien, but branch off into many directions. Connecting straight lines does not work. Evolution is more like a tree with many branches, rather than a chain, so 'link' misleads us. We don't know what transitional species are living today, because we don't know where they are heading. We don't know if some group of lizards will one day access a unique niche, and then evolve to exploit it more thoroughly. Evolution is slow, slow, slow, and we've only been aware of it for such a short time, we don't expect to see grand changes playing out in front of our eyes. But we can see it on a microscopic level. We now have the advantage of genetics, which has enabled us to track the history of species and to find connections that were impossible to deduce from the fossil record. So knowledge is growing. Read. And while reading, allow your brain to process information in a different fashion. Try not to think of the process as orchestrated, but as more random and opportunistic. Darwin reasoned that finches on an island where the main food source was seeds had shorter thicker beaks because they adapted to the resources. Finches on an island where insects were the source, had long, thin beaks for the same reason. Originally they had all been one species, but through natural selection, those with the better adapted beaks out reproduced the others. Because there is always a variation in traits. Perhaps this original population had similiar beaks, but there was still variation. On the seed island, the finches with slightly shorter or thicker beaks were more successful reproductively than finches with slightly thinner beaks. Since they were reproducing faster and passing on their shorter beak traits, this variation could become more pronounced with each generation. Over time, short fat beaks rule, and eventually become so genetically separated from their original population, they speciate. They can no longer reproduce with the original population, or other species that grew from the original. Read. NC |
| Amelia Ashton | Re: evolution posted ~ 6 hours ago (2/29/2012) |
Since 11/2/2010 | A while back some atheists paid for an advertisement on London's red buses. I remember thinking back then how brave but foolhardy they were. Now I agree with them but it isn't always easy.
|
| Matsimus | Re: evolution posted ~ 6 hours ago (2/29/2012) |
Since 2/21/2012 | NewChapter, good post. I do disagree with the term random, since natural selection is a system that is not random, but very selective. I once read that evolution being random is a myth, but can't remember where :s Also, the WT uses the term random all the time to attack the credibility of the theory/fact. |
| NewChapter | Re: evolution posted ~ 5 hours ago (2/29/2012) |
Since 1/25/2011 | Mat, excellent point. I think I was trying to use random to show the difference between design. But you are absolutely right, this process is not random, but it is not preordained either. What would be a good term to contrast that difference? And yet there is a random element when it comes to genetic mutation, but again, the process is definitely more orderly than that. Beaks won't randomly just get thicker to see if they work better---but they will get thicker because they DO work better. However one random beak mutation could start the process. UGH. I need more words. NC |
| simon17 | Re: evolution posted ~ 5 hours ago (2/29/2012) |
 Since 7/25/2009 | Regarding your question on evolution and missing links. Most times if A+ is better than A, then A dies out and A+ takes over. Then when improvement A++ comes along, it takes over and A+ is slowly eliminated from the population. Also when populations are separated by some barrier into "islands" they diverge along different lines. So suppose population A is split into A1 and A2. Well as A1+++++++ and A2++++++++ evolve, and then you look back and compare the two results, there will be huge differences AND no middle ground between the two new divergent species. |
| MeanMrMustard | Re: evolution posted ~ 5 hours ago (2/29/2012) |
 Since 9/9/2010 | @NewChapter: What would be a good term to contrast that difference? "natural algorithm" ? MeanMrMustard |
| Cadellin | Re: evolution posted ~ 4 hours ago (2/29/2012) |
 Since 3/28/2009 | When I started exploring ideas beyond the realm of the WT, evolution was one of the first. What struck me--and I suspect you, too, inbetween--is how grossly misinformed I'd been from basing my beliefs on what the WT wrote, such as little gems like the Creation book. As another poster has noted, it is absolutely necessary for you to start reading about the science of evolution. Coyne's book is absolutely fantastic. Another good one is Carl Zimmer's Evolution: the Triumph of an Idea, which is ideal for the lay person with little or no background in biology and might be easier for you, given that English is not your first language. Another good one is Prothero's Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters Since you're interested in the idea of "missing links" (and be aware that the science community does not use that term since it is highly misleading; it's more favored by creationists and the popular media), you might read Carl Zimmer's At the Water's Edge, which is a detailed account of the evolution of whales. The number of so-called "missing links" or transitional species discovered in the cetacean family tree is startling and revealing about the general nature of how evolution works to produce morphological change. Happy learning!!! |
| cofty | Re: evolution posted ~ 2 hours ago (2/29/2012) |
 Since 12/19/2009 | inbetween - Everything is a transitional species (missing link is a pejorative term as I will explain below). Think about living things like a bush more than a tree. At the end of every twig is a species that still exists. All the 99% of species that existed previously were less well suited to changing environments and went extinct. If you did maths at school or college you may have been amazed (and stumped) by the power of Greek geometers to work out some amazing truths using mental gymnastics. To them all the shapes you could ever draw were mere representations of “essential” shapes that to them was actual reality. The “essential” triangle really did have angles adding up to 180, parallel lines of the “essential” rhombus really did extend for infinity without merging. As for the fossil record we have an embarassment of riches of tranisitonal forms. Here are some suggestions for a reading list. Evolution - What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters - Donald Prothero
Your Inner Fish - Neil Shubin
The Greatest Show on Earth - Richard Dawkins
Why Evolution is True - Jerry Coyne
Life Ascending - Nick Lane
The Making of the Fittest - Sean B. Carroll
|
