Captivity?

[Charlie]

Okay, I wasn't sure if this is where I should post this but someone will let me know otherwise.

Do you think that captivity has had an effect on cornsnake? What are anyones thoughts on evolution and how it is effected by captivity? Will corns in captivity evolve or does the captivity inhibit it?

Thanks

[kyocera]

I think that we can attribute all of the wonderful color morphs we have today to captivity. What kind of evolution are you speaking of? I think that corns in the wild have evolved to perfection for the areas they live in already. Not much evolution left. I think that we could probably create smaller or larger corns through selective breeding in captivity though.

Kyo

[TrpnBils]

Okay, I wasn't sure if this is where I should post this but someone will let me know otherwise.

Do you think that captivity has had an effect on cornsnake? What are anyones thoughts on evolution and how it is effected by captivity? Will corns in captivity evolve or does the captivity inhibit it?

Thanks


Well, I can't tell you about corns in captivity exactly since I don't have mine yet, but I can tell you about evolution. Corns in captivity MAY evolve to be more domesticated (kinda like dogs did) but it would literally take thousands, if not millions, of years. The dogs we have in our homes now are bred so far out of the wild (and most breeds have been bred for a specific trait or two) that, although they still have wild instincts, they're extremely different from their wild relatives. Put the Taco Bell dog up against a pack of grey wolves and see who survives the longest.

But anyway...

As an individual snake is concerned, I'm sure that captivity does have some effect on them, especially if they were wild-caught originally. As far as the species itself is concerned, I'm not really sure how long they've been bred in captivity, but I can just about guarantee that they haven't evolved because of it. Sure, a lot of people will tell you that captive-bred snakes may be calmer, have more diverse genetics, and adjust to F/T mice better than their wild counterparts...and I would agree with that completely. But the thing to remember is that it's not because of evolution. The breeders breed for these traits, and after so long of doing that, most of the CB snakes show similarities. I'm not saying that a WC corn wouldn't calm down or do any of those other things, I'm just saying that if you have a snake that has been out of the wild for several generations, it'll probably happen easier.

I don't know if that helped or just made things more confusing, but I hope somebody gets something out of it.

[TrpnBils]

I think that we can attribute all of the wonderful color morphs we have today to captivity. What kind of evolution are you speaking of? I think that corns in the wild have evolved to perfection for the areas they live in already. Not much evolution left. I think that we could probably create smaller or larger corns through selective breeding in captivity though.

Kyo

Ok, I have to say something else...lol. Evolution is something that has always interested me, and I've taken classes in Evolutionary Analysis and Evolutionary Genetics among other things, and my professors have all been VERY uptight about how people use the term "evolution", and for good reason, so it's kinda been pushed off on me I guess. So what I'm trying to say is that I hope I don't offend anybody with this comment, but this is what I've gotten out of three months shy of a bachelor's degree in biology.

I agree with the statement about how we could probably get smaller or larger corns through selective breeding and that they have evolved in the wild to be pretty well suited to their habitats. 100% agree there. They may be suited to their habitats NOW, but not the habitats of 1000 years from now, or maybe even tomorrow for that matter. The one thing I remember more than anything else from my professors is their constant "Evolution doesn't have an end"....meaning that evolution isn't striving towards any kind of a final product. Same with people....we all (myself included) think that we're the top life form on the planet. But put us in a methane and sulfur-rich environment and we'd die. So from an archaebacterium's perspective, we're inferior.

What I'm getting at is that I don't think that there's "not much evolution left". Quite the opposite, actually, because as the climate changes and their environment changes, corn snakes (along with us and everything else) will have the choice to either evolve to meet their new needs, or go extinct. Evolution doesn't take place within a lifetime, just across generations (that's adaptation)....and it takes an insane amount of generations to even show the slightest evolutionary change. So I don't think evolution in corn snakes has stopped, but I also know that we won't be around to see any evolutionary change. The traits you that breeders select for (color, size, temperament, etc) are just simple genetics. It's no different than you or I having a different hair or eye color than one of our parents.

So I really hope that didn't come across as arrogant or rude, but I just wanted you to see what this generation of biologists is being taught. Now maybe I should run away before I get hit...lol.

[kyocera]

I agree completely that everything must adapt to new situation, environment, etc. But are we really evolving. You can name any given scenario, and I would call it adaptation, while someone else would call it evolution. Evolution in my mind would entail becoming something else entirely. A corn snake will always be a corn snake. Now or in a thousand years, it will just adapt to whatever nature throws at it, or become extinct as you stated. Darwinians would probably disagree with me though.

Kyo

[TrpnBils]

I agree completely that everything must adapt to new situation, environment, etc. But are we really evolving. You can name any given scenario, and I would call it adaptation, while someone else would call it evolution. Evolution in my mind would entail becoming something else entirely. A corn snake will always be a corn snake. Now or in a thousand years, it will just adapt to whatever nature throws at it, or become extinct as you stated. Darwinians would probably disagree with me though.

Kyo

Right, but adaptation and evolution are two entirely different things. Adaptation can happen over one lifetime and to one individual, but evolution happens over generations and happens to entire populations as a whole (because they share the same gene pool, which is why it doesn't necessarily have to happen to the entire species). That's why evolution is never caught up with time. The population is always one step behind, matched to the last kind of environment.

As for thinking that evolution means becoming an entirely different species, a lot of people think that. But if you actually study evolution, you'll see that's not what it means at all. The example I always hear is "if evolution exists, and we evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?" The reason for that is because evolution isn't changing from one species to another in a linear fashion. Humans and monkeys came from a common ancestor, yes, but we did not evolve from monkeys as many people imply. That's why evolution is seen as a tree instead of a straight line.

I agree with what you said above here - "A corn snake will always be a corn snake. Now or in a thousand years, it will just adapt to whatever nature throws at it, or become extinct as you stated" - except for one point. And that point is just a matter of semantics I think, so you and I may be agreeing on more than we realize. Like I said before, adaptation takes place over a single individual's lifetime, but evolution occurs over thousands or millions of years.

And that's interesting that you brought up Darwinians...am I correct in assuming you consider yourself a Creationist then? It doesn't really matter to me, I'm just curious really because I don't even know what I consider myself. I believe in evolution because it can be seen as hard evidence in the fossil record, but I also go to church weekly and I have been a Christian far longer than I have been a student of biology. So where does that put me? I don't know, and I don't really lose sleep over it because I think the labels of Creationist and Darwinian are really unnecessary because it lumps people into two groups with seemingly set limits when there can actually be a whole lot of overlap in beliefs.

So, I think we're actually agreeing on a lot here, but it may just come down to word choice on your/my part. This has been an interesting discussion for me at least!

[kyocera]

I am a Christian, but have a hard time wrapping my head around a seven day "Creation". I am more of a believer in "Intelligent Design" that has happened over more years than I care to guess.

I think you are right that we agree more than we disagree. I have never had someone explain evolution vs adaptation the way you have, and it makes sense to me.

I have also enjoyed this discussion. Thanks.

Kyo

[Charlie]

I started this conversation with a friend of mine. We really got into the legistics and stuff with each other. I don't know if I really mean evolution....

This is what gets me...you know how there are several different wild populations of corn in the wild....like the charcoals (A.K.A Pine Island Anerys), and then there are the bloodreds, and the okettee, and the caramels. Didn't all these different populations adapt/evovle to fit their environments? Isn't cpativity a different environment? I guess you could say that they have adapted to captivity through....eating of f/t, less aggressive (though some corns make me wonder if they came from the wild), color,...etc.

All these all adaptions to captivity or are the man made?

just my thoughts....

[TrpnBils]

I see what you're saying here...I thought that might have been the angle you were coming from originally. I may have oversimplified some stuff in my last couple of posts, so let me clarify. Adaptation can happen over one lifetime to one individual, but it can ALSO happen over generations. The difference is that evolution NEVER takes place over one lifetime and doesn't happen to just one individual. I also mentioned about how evolution doesn't necessarily mean one species turning into a new species. To me, that view of evolution entails something like Species A evolves into Species B and *Poof* there's no more Species A. That's how a lot of people see it, but that's a linear approach, which is why that doesn't happen that way.

A good way to look at it is like a tree. You've heard of Charles Darwin I'm assuming? His observations of the Galapagos Finches are a good example. Some small part of the South American Finch population migrated off of the mainland to the islands. Let's assume that they bred and, over the years, amassed a huge population on the islands. They're still basically the same kind of bird that came from the mainland at this point. Let's also assume that they all ate one specific kind of seed. As the population grew, that seed began to be scarce. Some of the birds may have longer beaks than others (just like I may have longer arms than you right now - remember they're not all 100% identical) and these birds learn that they can use their longer beaks to reach into cacti and get insects. Birds with thicker beaks also start to eat larger seeds. Over time, those two populations diverge even further (because they breed with each other; i.e. Long to long, thick to thick beaked) and each becomes less like the original population. This is the branching of the evolutionary tree. The original species still exists, but two "specialized" populations are now different enough from the original one that they can no longer breed with it. Interbreeding is one parameter of defining a species. If two populations can't breed with each other then they're not the same species.

So take a look at snakes. Corn snakes are close relatives of rat snakes (a lot of people consider them rat snakes, but again, that's more of an argument of word choice). So if you're one of those people, just put that aside for a second and look at it from this perspective because it's easier to explain it this way.

Assuming that corn snakes are a seperate species from rat snakes (yes, they can interbreed in some cases, but look where I'm going with this), you can see that they had a common ancestor in the recent past (by which I mean probably thousands or millions of years ago). Take a look at two corn snakes now: a bloodred and a caramel. They look different, may not exist in the same geographical area, and have different genetics when it comes to color. But can they still interbreed easily? Of course they can, that's how we get new color morphs. Because they live in different geographical areas and are suited to them doesn't mean they're a different species or that evolution has occured, it's just an example of multi-generational adaptation. If you took a corn snake that's native to the southernmost part of the corn snake range and put it in the wild at the northernmost part of the corn snake range, it probably wouldn't fare as well as the snakes that are native to the northern part of the range.

And I think you're right, corns that have been bred in captivity for many generations have adapted to it (like the examples you gave). Adapted, but not evolved. You can still take a captive-bred corn and breed it with a wild one with no problem.

Does that make sense? I hope so... when i reply here, I don't intend on writing a book every time, it just ends up that way...lol. So I'm sorry if anyone's sick of hearing from me. :blowup:

[hediki]

my opinion is that it does effect them, because of all the morphs that we have now and i think that them being captive doesnt alow them to evolve as the should if they were in the wild. since there captive they have no threats almost a constant climate, almost a constant food supply, so they have no need to evolve ther "perfect" as they are.

[TrpnBils]

So wait, do you honestly believe that your vivarium is the absolute perfect habitat with nothing even the slightest bit out of synch with the snake's natural instincts? No matter how much we try, we can't create nature, and just because you don't see any obvious things changing with captive corns doesn't mean it isn't there. You and I are never going to see evolution of a single species in our lifetime, it takes waaaay too long.

[Itsnowingcorns]

Just wanting to add here, in The Corn Snake Manual, it says cases of dystocia (egg binding) has increased due to captivity. Also I believe that if you released a CB hatchling corn into the wild, it would have just as much chance as any wild corn of surviving, unless it is handicapped from inbreeding. Dogs have been with us for, well, a very long time :), whereas corns have been with us what? Fifty years at most? It will take a long time for them to adjust properly to captivity, and they may never do so at all! They're reptiles after all, and do not have the capability, it is so far believed, to show affection like mammals, which is what humans usually want from their pets. I think this will slow their progress to adjusting to a captive environment even more. OK, I'm going to stop now before I rant on too much, and you guys think I'm just full of a load of waffle ;).

[TrpnBils]

Just wanting to add here, in The Corn Snake Manual, it says cases of dystocia (egg binding) has increased due to captivity. Also I believe that if you released a CB hatchling corn into the wild, it would have just as much chance as any wild corn of surviving, unless it is handicapped from inbreeding. Dogs have been with us for, well, a very long time :), whereas corns have been with us what? Fifty years at most? It will take a long time for them to adjust properly to captivity, and they may never do so at all! They're reptiles after all, and do not have the capability, it is so far believed, to show affection like mammals, which is what humans usually want from their pets. I think this will slow their progress to adjusting to a captive environment even more. OK, I'm going to stop now before I rant on too much, and you guys think I'm just full of a load of waffle ;).

:cheers:

right on

[Itsnowingcorns]

I thank you with a useless post :D

[lozzer]

Your welcome! :fullauto:

[Acradon]

Well you can't stop evolution. It's simply mutation and whether a corn is in a tank or not makes no difference. Evolution is not to be mistaken for adaption.

As far as captive corns vs. wild corns are concerned I think there is little or no difference. folks I hate to say it but reptiles are no dogs or cats. they are simply driven by instincts and are not in a position to learn in a way as other pets might do. They can however adapt to their surroundings. This is also seen in the Komodo dragons. they were fed by park keepers for a long time and got so used to it that it was hard for them to go back to self feeding when the rangers eventually stop the feeding.

Maybe corns that are fed dead mice all their life would have troubles hunting and killing in the wild. I personally don't think so. captive corns live longer than their wild relatives. This is simply due to the fact that they are pampered. Vitamins, regular food, good temperatures, no cars, vets......and so on.

Other than that there is no difference at all.

my too cents.

Acradon

[Santa]

Just wanting to add here, in The Corn Snake Manual, it says cases of dystocia (egg binding) has increased due to captivity. Also I believe that if you released a CB hatchling corn into the wild, it would have just as much chance as any wild corn of surviving, unless it is handicapped from inbreeding. Dogs have been with us for, well, a very long time :), whereas corns have been with us what? Fifty years at most? It will take a long time for them to adjust properly to captivity, and they may never do so at all! They're reptiles after all, and do not have the capability, it is so far believed, to show affection like mammals, which is what humans usually want from their pets. I think this will slow their progress to adjusting to a captive environment even more. OK, I'm going to stop now before I rant on too much, and you guys think I'm just full of a load of waffle ;).

If you read a little more, the theory behind the increase in dystocia is probably related more to the feeding of dead mice, requiring no constriction and no search for food.

I do believe in adaptation and the survival of the fitest. But I can not believe in evolution - there is absolutely NO proof that any new species has evolved from another (less advanced) species. I have bred cattle most of my 50 years and snakes a little less than that. I have yet to see a new species.

As far as CB snakes released into the wild - we have not (and I believe will not) bred away the natural hunting insticts of a corn snake as you correctly stated. CB snakes actually have a higher survival rate because of 1) controlled hatching environment (temperature and humidity) 2) no varmits to disturb the nest or consume the eggs 3) no varmits to catch the young as they hatch and leave the nest and 4) no need to find the first meal.

$.02

[TrpnBils]

2 things here... evolution isn't based on forming a "higher" species from a "less advanced" species, so that doesn't prove anything. Like I said in one of my earlier posts, evolution isn't the concept of moving towards the ultimate species or anything like that because no species is perfectly suited to its habitat (it's suited to the last major change in the habitat). Secondly, considering evolution takes millions of (or at least several hundred thousand) years, I wouldn't expect that you would be breeding a new species of cattle after 50 years. But if you take a look at the ancestory of those cattle, I'd bet you everything I own that they branch off at some point and separated from another species.

[Santa]

2 things here... evolution isn't based on forming a "higher" species from a "less advanced" species, so that doesn't prove anything. Like I said in one of my earlier posts, evolution isn't the concept of moving towards the ultimate species or anything like that because no species is perfectly suited to its habitat (it's suited to the last major change in the habitat). Secondly, considering evolution takes millions of (or at least several hundred thousand) years, I wouldn't expect that you would be breeding a new species of cattle after 50 years. But if you take a look at the ancestory of those cattle, I'd bet you everything I own that they branch off at some point and separated from another species.

According to the dictionary, evolution is defined as "Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species." So your first point is invalid by definition. :-poke: I do agree however that survival of a species is directly related to it's ability to adapt to habitat change.

Secondly, today's cattle were developed thru selective breeding of various species of the genus Bos. They are therefore NOT a new species derived from evolution. :smash: Similarly, corn snake morphs have been developed thru selective breeding, and though they may be a different color or have a different marking, they are still the same species.

I have also been a deer hunter for the last 40 years. Deer have adapted to being hunted. When I was a child, you could sit in a tree and a deer would never lookup in that tree. Today, deer will look up in the trees. They have adapted - but they are still the same species.

In addition, since you believe in evolution then explain how man is the only species with morals. You honestly believe the mental capacity for abstract thought just suddenly appeared from a monkey millions of years ago? If that were true, then logically there would be other species as well, not just one. Now while some humans have digressed to a point, no monkey has yet come forward to that degree.

Evolution was Darwin's wet dream and it is still just a theory! :grin01:

[TrpnBils]

According to the dictionary, evolution is defined as "Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species." So your first point is invalid by definition.

I don't know how that invalidates my point...nowhere in the definition does it say anything about a "less advanced" species, as you put it. "Previous" doesn't mean "less advanced" necessarily. I know I posted examples of this same thing in an earlier post with this thread, so I won't bother putting it in again.

Secondly, today's cattle were developed thru selective breeding of various species of the genus Bos. They are therefore NOT a new species derived from evolution. :smash: Similarly, corn snake morphs have been developed thru selective breeding, and though they may be a different color or have a different marking, they are still the same species.
And? I just said that you're not going to see a new breed of cattle even through your selective breeding. I'm talking about millions of years ago when the ancestors of today's cattle branched off and became what they have...THAT's when the new species formed. Do you honestly believe that the cows you're breeding today are exactly the same as they were millions and millions of years ago? And the whole point you just made about corn snakes not being a different species just because we breed them in captivity...I dunno where that came from because nobody ever said anything like that. In fact, in my second post, you'll see that I said "The traits you that breeders select for (color, size, temperament, etc) are just simple genetics. It's no different than you or I having a different hair or eye color than one of our parents." Selective breeding isn't even adaptation in most cases, we're just picking genes we like and breeding the animals.

I have also been a deer hunter for the last 40 years. Deer have adapted to being hunted. When I was a child, you could sit in a tree and a deer would never lookup in that tree. Today, deer will look up in the trees. They have adapted - but they are still the same species.
Yes, they have adapted. You're right. Adaptation doesn't lead to new species, but evolution does, and nobody ever said that the deer evolved.

In addition, since you believe in evolution then explain how man is the only species with morals. You honestly believe the mental capacity for abstract thought just suddenly appeared from a monkey millions of years ago? If that were true, then logically there would be other species as well, not just one. Now while some humans have digressed to a point, no monkey has yet come forward to that degree.
I'm not really sure how to address this because, again, evolution doesn't progress towards an ultimate goal. People are no more highly evolved than anything else on this planet. I already talked about this in my second post though, so I won't elaborate on it again. Morals have absoultely nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is a physical/physiological thing for the most part. Morals are just something that people made up because we also have guilt, and you can't deny that other species on this planet feel guilt at some point. And no, I don't believe that the mental capacity for abstract thought just suddenly appeared anywhere. Evolution isn't an EVENT, it's a PROCESS. And there is more than one species... I'm assuming you mean more than one human species??? There were more of them too, but we happen to be the ones that are left. Evolution is not a linear thing. But I already mentioned that in an earlier post. And by the way, I don't know if this is what you would consider "morals" or "higher thinking" in your mind, but I just remembered seeing this on CNN about 2 weeks ago... http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/01/27/chimp.fairness.reut/


Overall, I'm not sure what you're arguing about here because most of the points you're making are either being contradicted by you in the same post (i.e. the deer) or they've already been discussed and resolved to an extent in earlier posts by other people. I don't know if you read this whole thread before you started posting (since you haven't been around long, as that last one was your 9th post), but most of what you're saying has already been said...

And yes, evolution is a theory, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.

[Itsnowingcorns]

If you read a little more, the theory behind the increase in dystocia is probably related more to the feeding of dead mice, requiring no constriction and no search for food.

And yes, this is related to captivity, feeding dead mice is one of the aspects of captivity of corn snakes, yes some people feed live mice so if what you're saying is true then dystocia won't affect them as badly.

[Santa]

Overall, I'm not sure what you're arguing about here because most of the points you're making are either being contradicted by you in the same post (i.e. the deer) or they've already been discussed and resolved to an extent in earlier posts by other people. I don't know if you read this whole thread before you started posting (since you haven't been around long, as that last one was your 9th post), but most of what you're saying has already been said...

And yes, evolution is a theory, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.

1) I did not contradict myself. The deer was an example of adaptation not evolution. And selective breeding is also not evolution.

2) I repeated some points intentionally. So what?

3) That doesn't mean it's right either. It is so convenient to dismiss my claims with a simple "millions of years" statement, the same factor which prevents you from proving your precious theory.

4) You "you haven't been around long" with the wise old age of 21.

[Itsnowingcorns]

Santa, if there is no such thing as evolution, where did all the different living species come from? Did they just appear one day? I'm interested in what you believe happened.

[Santa]

Santa, if there is no such thing as evolution, where did all the different living species come from? Did they just appear one day? I'm interested in what you believe happened.

I will answer that twice.

First, I will use your own argument. If there is such a thing as evolution, where did the FIRST living species come from? Did it just appear one day? So which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Second, I believe in a theory that has been around much longer than evolution, you might of heard of it, it is called creation. It is found in a widely published book called the Bible.

If you want to believe that you descended from a monkey, go right ahead.
Would you like a bananna?

Have a nice day! :madeuce:

[TrpnBils]

1) I did not contradict myself. The deer was an example of adaptation not evolution. And selective breeding is also not evolution.
Nobody is arguing that adaptation doesn't exist, and nobody said that selective breeding was evolution.

4) You "you haven't been around long" with the wise old age of 21.

This is a forum for public discussion about stuff that matters. I never said I had all the answers, and if you would read my earlier posts you would see that I'm just trying to explain things in the way that THIS generation of biologists has been taught. If you want to get into personal attacks or talk about how I at least have a background in what I'm saying, email me at jrh312@psu.edu and we'll do that there. This is not the place for it.

The first species? I'm glad you asked. A lot of people that don't take the time to even try to understand evolution assume that people that believe it are saying that species just popped up out of nowhere in a fully functional, multicellular form. That isn't the case. People have been showing at least one possibility about how life arose since 1953 when Dr. Stanley Miller did it in his labs. It is thought that whenever Earth was in a prebiotic state with no life, Earth was pretty well covered in methane. Miller passed an electrical current (which, in the real world would be the equivalent of lightning) through a flask of methane and showed that amino acids could be formed through this process. Amino acids are the building blocks of early life, and it's quite possible that the earliest "life" on this planet was something that we, today, might not even consider living. It was single-celled, and contained only the most basic functions such as reproduction...that's where evolution takes over. The rest of the experiments suggest that Coenzyme A, which is used by every known organism, activated the amino acids, which then started forming proteins.

As far as the monkey comment. Nobody ever said "descended from a monkey" except for you. This claim is from the masses of people that have never studied evolution and just believe what they hear on TV as full truth. I said it before and I'll say it again, evolution is not a linear process.

Nothing "descended" from anything else. Stuff branched off to form new species. That's a completely different thing. I've been waiting for a comment like "if we evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?" since this discussion started a few weeks ago. I'm rather surprised that it hasn't come up. The thing is, it illustrates the whole branching process nicely so I'll use it as an example. At some point, we split off from a common ancestor. We did not come from monkeys, we just happen to have the same ancestor "millions and millions of years ago" (there I go saying that again...).

I don't really see this whole discussion going anywhere useful anymore. You're a Creationist, good for you. There's nothing wrong with that. I dont' know what I consider myself or what anybody else here considers themself. I go to church regularly, so I'm not going to apologize for my beliefs and I don't think anyone else should either. Let's just agree to disagree and get on with our lives.

[CAV]

Although evolution is widely considered to be a scientific theory, the fact of the matter is that no scientific proof exists which even remotely supports such a theory. ;)

So why should it be accepted as "fact" over creationism?

[TrpnBils]

Although evolution is widely considered to be a scientific theory, the fact of the matter is that no scientific proof exists which even remotely supports such a theory. ;)

So why should it be accepted as "fact" over creationism?
Creationism is based on faith, why should we accept that over evolution? I wouldn't expect anyone to "believe" in evolution any more than I would expect anyone to "believe" in the theory of Creation. This could go on an on and on, but it's just going to come back to religion, which is something that has been fought over for as long as there has been religion. Nobody should accept anything as fact unless they believe it themselves, and I'm not saying (and never said) anything to imply that. I'm just defending what I believe, the same as what you're doing. And I think there is plenty of evidence that life forms are evolving if you take the time to look and go at it with an open mind. I respect the full-blown Creationist theory, and I really don't think I'm going to go to Hell when I die because I go to church, pray daily, AND believe in evolution... We all have our own things that we feel strongly about, and this just happens to be one of mine. I just think it's kinda funny that while I respect Creationists beliefs and would never tell anyone that their faith is a lie, these same people flat out telling me that I'm wrong without any possibility that what I'm saying has any validity to it at all.

[CAV]

Creationism is based on faith, why should we accept that over evolution? I wouldn't expect anyone to "believe" in evolution any more than I would expect anyone to "believe" in the theory of Creation.

But without any evidence to support it, so to is evolution. Either or requires the same faith. ;)

And I think there is plenty of evidence that life forms are evolving if you take the time to look and go at it with an open mind.

Here is where the analytical thought process starts to unravel evolution theory. There is plenty of evidence that life is ADAPTING, not EVOLVING. After all, why would the process of evolution have ever started in the first place if it wasn't unnecessary for the survival of the entire species? If the principle of evolution held true, then ALL life forms would have evolved into higher forms. To say that all life evolved from single cell organisms is self defeating since there are still single celled organisms today. What scientific evidence exists that can explain the selective mutation of part of, but not all of, a population? If rational thought holds true, the very explanation of evolution is fundamentally flawed.

I just think it's kinda funny that while I respect Creationists beliefs and would never tell anyone that their faith is a lie, these same people flat out telling me that I'm wrong without any possibility that what I'm saying has any validity to it at all.

I didn't see the word wrong used once except in your post. :)

[Clint Boyer]

I agree, both sides rely on a fair amount of belief or faith if you will.


One question for the creationists, where did god come from?

[CAV]

He evolved from a single cell omnipotent deity. DUH! :D

I've now changed my mind regarding evolution. This guy looks too much like Quigs......

[JTGoff69]

Just ever so slightly off topic, and I do not want to get into the debate either way, (though I do have faith in the Creation theory) but a question I have been pondering:

Why do some species of snakes have fangs and use venom to kill their prey, while others who eat the same prey snatch and constrict? Other than expending a little more energy, or starting the digesting process as some venoms do, I don't see the need except for defense purposes. And if that is the case, wouldn't you think all snakes would need venom? Just one of those little things that make me go ?hmmmmm? while you all are debating evolution/creation/adaptation, and purely a thought not meant to debunk anyone's personal feelings. Thoughts???

[Santa]

TrpnBils, You are such a hipocrit. Read what you wrote!!!!!


If you want to get into personal attacks or talk about how I at least have a background in what I'm saying, email me at jrh312@psu.edu and we'll do that there. This is not the place for it.
.......
As far as the monkey comment. Nobody ever said "descended from a monkey" except for you.


Real nice, idiot! Now THAT was a personal attack - learn to recognize it! With your personality you will hear it again.

P.S. You failed to mention the name of the "new species" created in the lab by Dr. Miller - because it never happened.

[TrpnBils]

TrpnBils, You are such a hipocrit. Read what you wrote!!!!!




Real nice, idiot! Now THAT was a personal attack - learn to recognize it! With your personality you will hear it again.

P.S. You failed to mention the name of the "new species" created in the lab by Dr. Miller - because it never happened.


This isn't a personal attack? I'm done discussing this with you unless you actually have something of value to say to me. You've only been a member here for a day, so I don't really think you know me well enough to determine what kind of personality I have, so I really don't give a **** what you think at this point. I've got better things to do than waste my time with you... everyone else who posted on this topic has so far managed to keep it civilized, avoid name calling, and create an interesting environment, I don't see how it should be so hard for you to do the same.

Miller made amino acids, not a new species.

[Santa]

I did not start the personal attacks you did. Don't dish it out if you can't take it.

[TrpnBils]

But without any evidence to support it, so to is evolution. Either or requires the same faith. ;)
Not arguing with you there, I agree 100% which is why I said I don't expect everyone to believe in evolution.

If the principle of evolution held true, then ALL life forms would have evolved into higher forms. To say that all life evolved from single cell organisms is self defeating since there are still single celled organisms today.
Not necessarily ALL life forms, because sporadic mutations only affect some individuals, not the whole population. This means that if the mutation was somehow beneficial to the affected members (but not deleterious to the others), then they would be given the chance to differentiate. I don't think it's self-defeating because, again, evolution is not a linear process. Just because one thing evolves from another, that doesn't mean that the original will be wiped out. It branches, giving both a chance to survive. Now, if one outcompetes the other, then one species will die off, but that isn't always the case.

What scientific evidence exists that can explain the selective mutation of part of, but not all of, a population?
Mutations don't happen because of selection. Selection happens (in part) because of sporadic mutations.

I didn't see the word wrong used once except in your post. :)
You're right, nobody ever used that word except for me, but that's sure as hell what it feels like. I've kinda got my back up against a wall here because I seem to be the only one arguing this side of it. Creationists can argue the "where's the evidence" part of it without a problem, but if anyone who believes in evolution says "where's the evidence for Creation" then they're seen as a Bible basher and I'm not going to do that to myself. If I wasn't a Christian, maybe I wouldn't care, but I'm not going to say that God doesn't exist because I know that he does.

[JTGoff69]

Rings bell.........does anybody have any input on my question? :wavey:

[TrpnBils]

Rings bell.........does anybody have any input on my question? :wavey:
I have no idea... it's an interesting question though. I have read stuff about this at some point but I don't really remember much about it. Maybe somebody else can give you some input.

[Rich Z]

You are all welcome to have heated and spirited discussions here, but I feel I must warn you that if personal attacks along with name calling and derogatory statements continue, one or more people are going to get booted off of this site. Please consider this as your ONLY warning.
:toiletgra

[Sisuitl]

Okay all, as tempting as this whole creationism vs. evolution debate is, I'm going to bite my tongue and try to focus. :licklips: (there was no tongue biting smiley)

Anyway, the domestication of species *can* take place in a very very short period of time. There was a very famous study done in Russia where there was an attempt to domesticate foxes for the fur industry. After a mere 40 years of selective breeding for calmness, not only the behaviour of the foxes changed, their physiology had changed as well. They had floppy ears, shorter muzzles, their coats had gone from red or silver to black and white spotted. They behaved like puppies their whole lives and bonded with their human keepers.

Now, this was really puzzling to the researchers because they had not been selecting for physical traits at all, and none of the traits that showed up were present in the parent stock. After looking into it and doing a bunch of experiments they determined the following:

The change in the foxes' appearance wasn't due to the genes for their appearance being different from a wild foxes "appearance genes". Because they had been breeding tamer foxes, they were producing foxes with less adrenalin, and their genes were for less adrenalin.

If a fox embryo from the domestic strain is supplemented adrenalin, the embryo develops into a normal wild type scaredy fox, with all the physical characteristics of a wild fox.

They concluded that the presence or absence of adrenaline during embryonic development has an enormous impact on the physical appearance and behaviour of the animal.

I have also seen some studies done with dogs and adrenalin supplementing the embryos. From what I remember, the resulting puppies were extremely wolf-like in both appearance and behaviour.

It would be really interesting to do experiments along a similar line with other domestic animals such as cattle and see if they come out looking and behaving like aurochs. From the results of the canine studies my guess is that they would. I am guessing that most, if not all, of our domesticated mammals are simply selectively bred counterparts of their wild cousins who just produce a lot less adrenalin.

I don't know if reptile embryos respond in the same way as a mammal embro does to adrenalin levels during development. My guess would be no, but I could be very wrong. My other guess is that since corns are partly very popular because they are so easy going anyway, is that they probably didn't have a very high adrenalin level to begin with, so we may not see any physical changes as time goes by, since there isn't a lot of alteration of behaviour going on here.

Plus, Santa has a very valid point about his cattle not having changed in 50 years. From what I have seen (being a heritage livestock freak) most domestic mammals haven't changed for the thousands of years they have been in captivity, unless humans caused that change deliberately with a very specific purpose in mind. Take greyhounds for example, they have looked the same since the time of the ancient egyptians. We have no documentation of them ever having been a wolf, or wild, and there are no documented intermediary stages, either in paintings or in actual physical remains. If it actually did take thousands of years to domesticate an animal, we would have found fossil evidence of them in their intermediary stages when we excavate really early human settlements.

Here are some links to the domestic fox experiment of anyone is interested.

http://home.wlu.edu/~blackmerh/jsk/canid.htm

http://www.devbio.com/article.php?ch=23&id=223

The second one has photos of the foxes. You can see what a huge difference in appearance there is after just 40 years of selection.

[TrpnBils]

:laugh01: Pretty wild stuff, that's awesome, I never heard of that study before. I think it does a good job of showing the effects of domestication, but like you said, corns are not mammals and are pretty easygoing anyway so it'd be hard to tell if captivity has had an effect on them like the one above. I just glanced over that webpage (I've been studying for my molecular bio exam all night so my brain is shot :headbang: ...but I'll read it in the morning...lol), so it may have mentioned this and I just didn't see it. Can the domesticated foxes still breed with wild ones and produce viable offspring? I'm assuming they can, because I don't see how there could be that much of a change over that short of a time. If so, I think that is a good answer to the original post on this thread. There can be a huge amount of phenotypic difference and still not be a new species. I'm interested to see what some of the long-time corn breeders have to say about this, whether they have any experiences that could show evidence like that study described. I'm new with corns obviously, but non-hybrid matings have only led to differences in color/pattern, right? I don't remember ever seeing anything about major physiological differences from wild counterparts in the offspring, but I could be wrong.

[Sisuitl]

Yeah, although maybe Rich can enlighten us. I wonder if the new color mutations appeared after the animals had been in a captive setting for a few generations or if they came from the wild like that.

If it was several generations after being captive you could theorize that possibly there was a reduction in adrenaline which affected how a particular genes is expressed, though it wouldn't explain why you can breed an animal like that to a wild caught corn and still get the oddly colored offspring.

[Sisuitl]

You know, it would be really interesting to test the levels of these different hormones in multi generation captive corns vs. wild caughts and see what the difference is. If a difference is found it would be really cool to see what the effect of adding them to developing embryos is......(wanders off thinking of a grad school project)

[TrpnBils]

Yeah, although maybe Rich can enlighten us. I wonder if the new color mutations appeared after the animals had been in a captive setting for a few generations or if they came from the wild like that.
I never really considered that possibility... I always assumed that the "captive" colors were due to localities of each kind of corn in the wild and the fact that breeders were bringing genes together that might not normally cross in the wild (for example, crossing a Florida snake with a South Carolina snake). Each subpopulation would have a different gene frequency than the other, right?

I don't know much about what it takes to get certain colors for the corns, but pick a hard-to-get color... I guess a good way to test that gene locality thing would be to see if you could get that hard-to-get color in the F1 or F2 generations from two wild-caught snakes. That would at least get rid of any possibility of domestication. :confused:

[Clint Boyer]

Although evolution is widely considered to be a scientific theory, the fact of the matter is that no scientific proof exists which even remotely supports such a theory.

Both creationism and evolution are theories. There is what is called proof from both sides but in reality, both sides 'prove' nothing.

Evolution uses information gathered from millions of years in the past, much further then creationism has explaination for. Creationism uses words wriiten by people from the past, (I would hope that they were more accurate reporters then those of today.)

Which faith is correct? who knows, I guess you just take your chances.

I just find it hard to follow any one dicipline without rock hard proof. Just because someone wrote it doesn't mean it's true!

[CAV]

Not necessarily ALL life forms, because sporadic mutations only affect some individuals, not the whole population. This means that if the mutation was somehow beneficial to the affected members (but not deleterious to the others), then they would be given the chance to differentiate. I don't think it's self-defeating because, again, evolution is not a linear process. Just because one thing evolves from another, that doesn't mean that the original will be wiped out. It branches, giving both a chance to survive. Now, if one outcompetes the other, then one species will die off, but that isn't always the case.

In the short run, it isn’t linear, but in the long run it is! You can't have it both ways. I fully understand that mutations affect individuals. The failure of evolution is that there is no evidence that spontaneous mutations have led to the creation of another life form. Differentiation simple indicates a physical change, not a species change. If a human is born with a different trait it does not indicate that the individual has formed a new species. Think of the changes that have occurred in human physiology in just the last century. The average height, weight, age and intelligence of humans have changed dramatically. This is indicative of changes in our physical environment through advances in diet, medicine and information access. At 6 feet, I am 2 inches taller than my father and 6 inches taller than my grandfather. I am merely a sample of a fundamental change in human beings. Our species is undergoing an adaptive process based upon changes in our culture such as better nutrition and wider availability of vitamins. If this continues for a thousand years, the average male may be 7 feet tall. Will that mean that based upon a physical change we will no longer be classified as humans? According to Evolution theory, yes. What sense does that make? A physical change doesn’t in anyway indicate that a species has evolved, it simple means it has changed.

Mutations don't happen because of selection. Selection happens (in part) because of sporadic mutations.

Not true my friend. All you have to do is look at genetics. Mutations in color, size, temperament, ect. are all accomplished through "selection". A male cardinal that has a color mutation and is more brightly colored than his peers has a better chance of competing for females and passing on his color. That is the whole definition of selection. Here's the kicker: The mutation doesn't in any way change his species identification as a cardinal. :)

You're right, nobody ever used that word except for me, but that's sure as hell what it feels like. I've kinda got my back up against a wall here because I seem to be the only one arguing this side of it. Creationists can argue the "where's the evidence" part of it without a problem, but if anyone who believes in evolution says "where's the evidence for Creation" then they're seen as a Bible basher and I'm not going to do that to myself. If I wasn't a Christian, maybe I wouldn't care, but I'm not going to say that God doesn't exist because I know that he does.

Kudos for standing your ground. I don't believe what I believe because that is simply "what I've been told". I've used my own ability to think analytically to make my determination based upon fact. The entire theory of evolution has failed to hold true to scientific scrutiny and Evolutionist have simply chosen to overlook its shortcomings out of necessity. As far as the evidence of creation, look around you. It isn't faith, its reality. :)

[Clint Boyer]

As far as the evidence of creation, look around you. It isn't faith, its reality.

The wonderful thing about faith is that it needs no bounds in reality at all. It just is therefore it's true.

The burden of proof lies in the hands of the scientic alone, which is very convenient.

Written human words are far from proof of anything.

If I were to create a belief to be followed that had no basis in reality, I would surely choose one that follows an unseen, unheard, invisible entity that has powers beyond belief but are only manifested in things that would occur naturally without any following whatsoever.

[TrpnBils]

If a human is born with a different trait it does not indicate that the individual has formed a new species.
.......
According to Evolution theory, yes. What sense does that make? A physical change doesn’t in anyway indicate that a species has evolved, it simple means it has changed.
You're right, that doesn't mean that humans are a different species if they are born with a mutation. Part of the definition of a species is that if two individuals can successfully produce offspring, then they are of the same species. However, there are some shortcomings to this part of the definition. For example, some people are unable to have children, but does that make them a different species? Of course not.

A male cardinal that has a color mutation and is more brightly colored than his peers has a better chance of competing for females and passing on his color. That is the whole definition of selection. Here's the kicker: The mutation doesn't in any way change his species identification as a cardinal.
Again, what you say here is right, but in my mind, the logic is backwards. If you look at the example you just gave, the cardinal was more brightly colored and that was selected for, right? If that's the case, then the mutation happened first, and selection happened because of the mutation, not the other way around. Saying that mutation follows selection doesn't follow logic for two reasons that I see. 1) Evolution (or selection) doesn't look forward in time. The genes don't say "well I think he would be able to reproduce more successfully if he were brighter, so I think I'll mutate now." The gene mutates, and if it helps him reproduce more, then that trait will be selected for. 2) A mutated gene is one that is different from the genes passed on by either parent (not just phenotypically, otherwise recessive alleles would be lumped into that definition too and we know that it doesn't work that way). So if the F1 generation individual has a mutated gene that neither of the parents have, and he passes that gene onto the F2 generation, it's no longer a mutation because it came from one of the parents. So with the cardinal example, it doesn't change the identification as a species, just like you said. But if the mutation was such that the mutated-gene cardinals had a feeding or reproductive advantage because of their mutation, then after several generations, they MIGHT form a new species. Think about it, if your goal was to have successful offspring and you knew you could, let's say, find food better than other cardinals because of your mutation, wouldn't you seek out other cardinals with the same mutation (so it's more likely you'll pass the advantage on)? Obviously this wouldn't work right away with only one bird having the mutation, but it would have to take place after several generations so that more and more had the mutation.

As far as the evidence of creation, look around you. It isn't faith, its reality. :)
I could just as easily substitute the word "evolution" for "creation" in that sentence and tell you the same thing. Where's your proof that all the species came about the way you believe they did? I'm not saying that I can prove evolution, because as Clint said, both evolution and creation are theories. I'm just saying that nobody can provide any evidence for one more than the other.


And I'm glad to see this thread has turned into something worth reading again! :spinner:

[CAV]

You're right, that doesn't mean that humans are a different species if they are born with a mutation. Part of the definition of a species is that if two individuals can successfully produce offspring, then they are of the same species. However, there are some shortcomings to this part of the definition. For example, some people are unable to have children, but does that make them a different species? Of course not.

Lack of repoduction only serves to prevent evolution. ;)


Again, what you say here is right, but in my mind, the logic is backwards. If you look at the example you just gave, the cardinal was more brightly colored and that was selected for, right? If that's the case, then the mutation happened first, and selection happened because of the mutation, not the other way around. Saying that mutation follows selection doesn't follow logic for two reasons that I see. 1) Evolution (or selection) doesn't look forward in time. The genes don't say "well I think he would be able to reproduce more successfully if he were brighter, so I think I'll mutate now." The gene mutates, and if it helps him reproduce more, then that trait will be selected for. 2) A mutated gene is one that is different from the genes passed on by either parent (not just phenotypically, otherwise recessive alleles would be lumped into that definition too and we know that it doesn't work that way). So if the F1 generation individual has a mutated gene that neither of the parents have, and he passes that gene onto the F2 generation, it's no longer a mutation because it came from one of the parents. So with the cardinal example, it doesn't change the identification as a species, just like you said. But if the mutation was such that the mutated-gene cardinals had a feeding or reproductive advantage because of their mutation, then after several generations, they MIGHT form a new species. Think about it, if your goal was to have successful offspring and you knew you could, let's say, find food better than other cardinals because of your mutation, wouldn't you seek out other cardinals with the same mutation (so it's more likely you'll pass the advantage on)? Obviously this wouldn't work right away with only one bird having the mutation, but it would have to take place after several generations so that more and more had the mutation.

But in the end, the cardinal is still a cardinal. Variation, just like adaptation, doesn't in anyway equal evolution.

I could just as easily substitute the word "evolution" for "creation" in that sentence and tell you the same thing. Where's your proof that all the species came about the way you believe they did? I'm not saying that I can prove evolution, because as Clint said, both evolution and creation are theories. I'm just saying that nobody can provide any evidence for one more than the other.

Still apples and oranges my friend. The whole point of saying "look around you" is simple. Life is being created every second of every day. It is a known and observable process; that is fact not theory. :)

[TrpnBils]

Lack of repoduction only serves to prevent evolution. ;)
You're right, which is why individuals that can't reproduce are wiped out of the gene pool. (Obviously it's different for humans because we can intervene sometimes, but I'm talking about in the wild with animals where there's no scientific intervention)


Still apples and oranges my friend. The whole point of saying "look around you" is simple. Life is being created every second of every day. It is a known and observable process; that is fact not theory. :)
Except Creationism is referring to the beginning of life itself, not the beginning of A life. And you can't prove how life originally started...nobody can. Not the Evolutionists, not the Creationists. That's why we're going to go around and around and around with this until Rich decides that 87,000 posts on the same topic without an answer is killing the bandwidth and gets rid of this...lol. :laugh:

[CAV]

Except Creationism is referring to the beginning of life itself, not the beginning of A life. And you can't prove how life originally started...nobody can.

Is it? Who says it is a non-reoccuring event? I submit to you that creation in an infinite and ongoing process, one which can be proved by all living creatures. ;)

[Clint Boyer]

I feel I'm being ignored. :dgrin:

I submit to you that creation in an infinite and ongoing process, one which can be proved by all living creatures.

I'm not being antagonistic, I would just like to see the logic.
How does a living creature prove there is an all powerful entity?

[TrpnBils]

Is it? Who says it is a non-reoccuring event? I submit to you that creation in an infinite and ongoing process, one which can be proved by all living creatures. ;)

I could just as easily tell you that I believe evolution is an infinite and ongoing process, one which can be proved by all living creatures...


...around and around and around.... :twohammer lol

[TrpnBils]

I feel I'm being ignored. :dgrin:



I'm not being antagonistic, I would just like to see the logic.
How does a living creature prove there is an all powerful entity?

Haha, by all means, jump in here for awhile... I need to pull myself away from this discussion long enough to study! :headbang:

[Clint Boyer]

Yeah, me too!

Snakes to feed and a bathroom vanity to build! I've got to quit goofing off!

[CAV]

To say "evolution is an infinite and ongoing process, one which can be proved by all living creatures" is a false premise. You can say it is true, but that doesn't make it so. There simply is no factual evidence that supports the evolution theory. It isn’t being proved in living creatures, and it hasn’t been proved in the fossil records.

Life is a never-ending creation. To deny such is simply ignorance of fact. You as an individual are here arguing with me because you and I were both created. The creation of life is a most basic scientific process in which cells divide and life results. I've never mention the existence of a higher power, as it is irrelevant to this discussion on life processes. The topic of divine existence does require faith, but again it is not tied to this argument. Creation is known, it is proven, it is on going and it is without end. As an educated person, how can you dispute it?

[Itsnowingcorns]

OK, my brain hurts after reading all of this thread, there's only so much a fourteen year old can take in ~ LOL. But here's something else, if the creation story is true, how can you explain the dinosaurs? We didn't exist when the dinosaurs did, we appeared a long time after they became extinct. According to the bible God created the earth and its contents in seven days, did he make a mistake with them and decide to have another go? I'm leaving it there.....

[Clint Boyer]

I'm an empty canvas, paint me a picture.

I don't want to arue against something, I want to be shown a reasonable idea to understand.

I have not promoted evolution. ;)

Creation in and of it's self is irrefutable, no arguement there.

Egg, sperm, I get it.

[gardenmum]

You guys are debating the issue of "creationism" and "evolutionism" as two entities for the probable reason of life as we know it. But, I have always felt that BOTH are responsible and work together in life. I believe in creation - a creator - because I feel that "belief" deep inside. And, yes, I say "belief" because their is no way to physically prove that beyond a doubt so it has to come from an inner believing of its truth and also from just looking around me at the perfect complexity of life. But evolution is also a "not proven" road and I do believe what was created also evolves, but not into "new" species.

I do not believe, and find it hard to accept, that we are a descendent of the Apes. If that where so, were is the proof of it, where is the "missing link" between us? And why have Apes not evolved again over these thousands of years? And why would we not have some of the "evolved" intermediate species still alive today? It's not like the HAD to die out. The apes didn't die out and man didn't die out so why should the intermediate ones do so???? In fact, why is there no links between any one species and another? Some say that the horse evolved from "dawn horse" that was a small more dog like creature. Where is the proof of this, where is the connectors? Just because the horse has some bones that "could" have been exta toes? Why does it make that small creature the pre-horse species?

When I say I believe in evolution, I believe that we evolve in the sense of adaptation to our surroundings and the slight changes that help in that adaptation, but not in becoming a totally different species entirely. Yes, mutations occur and if that mutation allows for better advantages in breeding or feeding, than that mutation will be passed down as a "workable" mutation. IF that mutation somehow was better than the ones not mutated and allowed those that were mutated to survive a "wipe out" of the species, then yes, we would not have the original. BUT how far could/would that mutation occur? The originals may get wiped out due to the lack of the mutated form, whatever that form is, but how far removed could that mutation have been if they were still breeding/living with the original form? Maybe color difference? Length of neck? Whatever? But a totally different species?

We know that white/bright corns would have a disadvantage in the wild and would get "picked off" by predetors before they were able to pass their genes with much success. Granted. So, if you take a species of snake, let's say, and put that in a habitate that is NOT highly condusive to its survival, one of two things will happen. Either the entire species will get wiped out. Or, IF some of the species had a difference in color or pattern, or were smaller more speedy than most, and thus it allowed them to survive and not the rest, then indeed, the species would "change" and "evolve", due to gene selection, to its surroundings and thus you could "say" a new species came out of it. But is it new? The snake did NOT become a mouse. I know that is a far fetched analogy but it makes my point.

So, as I said, I believe in both. The created evolve.

[TrpnBils]

I do not believe, and find it hard to accept, that we are a descendent of the Apes. If that where so, were is the proof of it, where is the "missing link" between us?
I'm not positive on this, but if I remember right, the current theory is that the missing link wasn't around for very long and was outcompeted by a different form. This fits into the idea of "puntuated equilibrium"...the idea that some event causes several [relatively] rapid mutations and is followed by a long period of equilibrium.

They're still finding stuff that fits into the missing link question. Although this isn't a supposed missing link per-se, I think it's worth mentioning here. In 2002, a skull that was dated at 6-7 million years old was dug up in Africa. (Article Here (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/07/10/ancient.skull/)) As the article says, apes were abundant 10 million years ago, but most humanoid remains have been shown to be 5 million years old at most. This skull shows traits of both apes and early humans. Another, more recent discovery was the fossilized remains of the "Flores Man (http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,31500-13241703,00.html)" in Indonesia early last year. Of the genus Homo, and full grown at 3 feet tall, they're calling a new species. It was the first of its kind discovered, so I think it's pretty well established that we haven't dug up every possible fossil yet...so we might still find the link in our lifetime.

So, as I said, I believe in both. The created evolve.
Well said. I agree... :)

[TrpnBils]

Also, I have a question for the Creationist people. I'm not saying trying to push your buttons...I'm genuinely interested to hear what you think of this.

Radiometric and carbon dating.

Am I correct in thinking that if you take the Bible's story of creation and read it literally, humans and everything else would have only been around for a couple thousand years? If so, how do you explain the two process I mentioned above that date rocks or even fossils and organic matter back much further than that?

I've had similar discussions with a lot of people, but as far as I can remember I've never heard radiometric or carbon dating brought up, so I'm interested to see where this goes.

[CAV]

You asked for it....;) By folks alot smarter than either one of us:

DOESN'T CARBON DATING PROVE THE EARTH IS OLD?
- BTG No. 115b July 1998
by John D. Morris, Ph.D.*

Perhaps no concept in science is as misunderstood as "carbon dating." Almost everyone thinks carbon dating speaks of millions or billions of years. But, carbon dating can't be used to date either rocks or fossils. It is only useful for once-living things which still contain carbon, like flesh or bone or wood. Rocks and fossils, consisting only of inorganic minerals, cannot be dated by this scheme.

Carbon normally occurs as Carbon-12, but radioactive Carbon-14 may sometimes be formed in the outer atmosphere as Nitrogen-14 undergoes cosmic ray bombardment. The resulting C-14 is unstable and decays back to N-14 with a measured half-life of approximately 5,730 years. Thus the ratio of stable C-12 to unstable C-14, which is known in today's open environment, changes over time in an isolated specimen.

Consider the dating of a piece of wood. As long as the tree lives, it absorbs carbon from the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide, both C-12 and C-14. Once the tree dies, it ceases to take in new carbon, and any C-14 present begins to decay. The changing ratio of C-12 to C-14 indicates the length of time since the tree stopped absorbing carbon, i.e., the time of its death.

Obviously, if half the C-14 decays in 5,730 years, and half more decays in another 5,730 years, by ten half-lives (57,300 years) there would be essentially no C-14 left. Thus, no one even considers using carbon dating for dates in this range. In theory, it might be useful to archaeology, but not to geology or paleontology. Furthermore, the assumptions on which it is based and the conditions which must be satisfied are questionable, and in practice, no one trusts it beyond about 3,000 or 4,000 years, and then only if it can be checked by some historical means.

The method assumes, among other things, that the earth's age exceeds the time it would take for C-14 production to be in equilibrium with C-14 decay. Since it would only take less than 50,000 years to reach equilibrium from a world with no C-14 at the start, this always seemed like a good assumption.

That is until careful measurements revealed a significant disequalibrium. The production rate still exceeds decay by 30%. All the present C-14 would accumulate, at present rates of production and build up, in less than 30,000 years! Thus the earth's atmosphere couldn't be any older than this.

Efforts to salvage carbon dating are many and varied, with calibration curves attempting to bring the C-14 "dates" in line with historical dates, but these produce predictably unreliable results.

A "Back to Genesis" way of thinking insists that the Flood of Noah's day would have removed a great deal of the world's carbon from the atmosphere and oceans, particularly as limestone (calcium carbonate) was precipitated. Once the Flood processes ceased, C-14 began a slow build-up to equilibrium with C-12—a build-up not yet complete.

Thus carbon dating says nothing at all about millions of years, and often lacks accuracy even with historical specimens, denying as it does the truth of the great Flood. In reality, its measured disequilibrium points to just such a world-altering event, not many years ago.

Carbon dating anomolies (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp)

Problems with carbon dating (http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html)

More simplistic version of the limits of carbon dating (http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/HighSchool/Radiography/carbon14dating.htm)

Radiometric dating (http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html#Why%20methods%20in%20general%20are%20i naccurate)

[Joejr14]

:wavey:

This is gonna be fun!!!

First, I'm going to say that after reading all 6 pages TrpnBils and I share a lot of the same beliefs, and I've pretty much agreed with most of what he's written.

I personally dont believe in the whole creationism bit--but that's pretty irrelevant in discussing corn snakes.

Ok, so I see a big problem here. We have not really defined evolution, per say.

mi·cro·ev·o·lu·tion Audio pronunciation of "microevolution" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mkr-v-lshn, -v-)
n.

Evolution resulting from a succession of relatively small genetic variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies.

mac·ro·ev·o·lu·tion Audio pronunciation of "macroevolution" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mkr-v-lshn, -v-)
n.

Large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups.


Okay, now that we've got that out of the way, we can debate.

Microevolution most definitely does occur, and there is documented proof of this.

In AP Bio we read pretty extensively about a guppy experiment, but I dont recall where it was.

The situation was that there were two consecutive pools of water that were seperated by a small "waterfall" if you will. The pool up top had guppies in it, as did the pool down below.

It was noticed that for one, these were the same species of guppies, and two, each pool had a different predator in it.

The upper pool I believe had some form of a bass in it, and the bottom pool had a smaller predator in it.

They did several tests and saw that in each pool, there were different rates of maturity, and different sizes of guppies. The upper pool had smaller guppies in it, and the lower pool had bigger guppies in it.

Those in the upper pool reached maturity faster, at a smaller size. Those in the lower pool reached maturity at a slower rate, and grew bigger.

Here is a link to another guppy study in microevolution about guppy specks in a lab, and there are many studies like this around. It shows that microevolution does in fact happen, and you cant refute it.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IVB1bInthelab.shtml

If you want to debate Macroevolution, in the sense that humans and apes share a common ancestor, that's fine, but dont try to debate microevolution.


Now about corns.

A blizzard corn is not a normal corn that has evolved. We have taken specific corn traits, and selective bred for them--something that doesn't happen in nature.

A blizzard corn in nature is going to be super easy to spot, and is going to call attention to iteslf, and most likely die at the hands of a predator---thus being selectively breed against.

Us tampering with corn genetics doesn't mean that they've evolved--it's just something that we've done. We've selectively bred for traits that we find appealing, nothing more.

[Joejr14]

There is potassium-argon dating too.

Every piece of scientific evidence suggests the earth is well over a few thousand years old, which is contrary to what the bible says.

[CAV]

:If you want to debate Macroevolution, in the sense that humans and apes share a common ancestor, that's fine, but dont try to debate microevolution.

Why not?? Microevolution is still evolution and is still fundamentally flawed, especially since your implication is that adaptation to outside stimuli is the same thing as evolution. It isn't.

Your Blizzard example doesn't represent "microevolution" it describes "selection"; not natural selection since the selective decisions are made by keepers and not by nature. As Dianne pointed out, white snakes would be short lived in the wild and accordingly the mutant genes wouldn't be manifested and subsequently eliminated for successive generations.

[CAV]

Every piece of scientific evidence suggests the earth is well over a few thousand years old, which is contrary to what the bible says.

To the contrary, valid scientific evidence does support a near biblical timeline, Check out the links I posted.

[Santa]

My thesis in college presented geological evidence which confirmed various events in the Bible. Of course, that was a long time ago - my thesis that is!

[TrpnBils]

Insert CAV's Carbon-14 article here...no sense in wasting space just to quote it again after everybody read it the first time :)

That all looks good, and I'm not suggesting that I know more about it than this guy, but I have to question the source of a lot of that. At least 3 of the articles you provide come from religious groups set out to prove the existance of Creation. That's fine, because that's what they believe, but you can't tell me they're completely unbiased. Those sites (as well as some of the people that have replied here) have said that Evolutionists conveniently either ignore facts that "disprove evolution" or they just use the "millions of years" thing because it's a big number and hard to argue with. Would you admit that there's a possibility these groups are doing the same thing for Creation?

Like I said, I never heard a Creationist's view of something like this, so I'm glad I have now. It still doesn't change my mind, because even if something would come along to disprove evolution in an unbiased way (which it hasn't), the simple fact remains that no one can prove Creation either...

[gardenmum]

I personally dont believe in the whole creationism bit--but that's pretty irrelevant in discussing corn snakes.

Why? If you are argueing for evolutionism vs creationism, then why would it be irrelevant to the corn snake?

Large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups.

Where is the concrete proof of this? Where are any of the "missing links" to prove that one species changed into another through evolution? What do scientist have to PROVE irrefutably that we came from apes? So, you are saying that all of the thousands of creatures that live now and that had not been alive, well, let's say during the Jurasic age, they evolved from what??? Where is the proof of the lines that take all these diverse forms back to its beginning?

The situation was that there were two consecutive pools of water that were seperated by a small "waterfall" if you will. The pool up top had guppies in it, as did the pool down below.

It was noticed that for one, these were the same species of guppies, and two, each pool had a different predator in it.

The upper pool I believe had some form of a bass in it, and the bottom pool had a smaller predator in it.

They did several tests and saw that in each pool, there were different rates of maturity, and different sizes of guppies. The upper pool had smaller guppies in it, and the lower pool had bigger guppies in it.

Those in the upper pool reached maturity faster, at a smaller size. Those in the lower pool reached maturity at a slower rate, and grew bigger.

OK. This is just what I was saying, the ones best fit to survive will pass their genes down. BUT they were all still guppies. They did not change into another type of fish. They did not grow feet to "leave the pool" or anything of any drastic change. Yes, I know you are going to say that there wasn't enough time, that if more time passed they could. But are you sure of that? Are there any changes, other than size and maybe color for better hiding, that point in this direction? And if the changes that have occured are allowing the species to survive, would they just not survive as a smaller form of the same fish? Yes, we adapt and change within our limits, but I'm not going to worry about turning into a frog. :)

[CAV]

It still doesn't change my mind, because even if something would come along to disprove evolution in an unbiased way (which it hasn't), the simple fact remains that no one can prove Creation either...

Are you sure it hasn't and your too biased to accept it??? ;) Again I submit to you that creation theory is revalidated at every birth.

[TrpnBils]

Are you sure it hasn't and your too biased to accept it??? ;)
I could ask you the same thing about why you don't believe in evolution... but I won't, because I'm not asking you to believe in it. If there's no physical proof of either argument, then neither of us should have to believe the other point of view...

Edit: and the source should matter because math is math, science is science, but it doesn't mean a damn thing if it's not all presented in an unbiased way.

[gardenmum]

Like I said, I never heard a Creationist's view of something like this, so I'm glad I have now. It still doesn't change my mind, because even if something would come along to disprove evolution in an unbiased way (which it hasn't), the simple fact remains that no one can prove Creation either...

You're right; there is no way to prove beyond a doubt that there is a creator. It truly does boil down to belief and seeing the miracle of life, and I have to say, a truly complex and unbelievably magnificent working thing life is. But saying life comes from strictly evolution also has to go on faith because there is no hard, tangible proof of that either. So, it is up to each of us to choose what we believe. And that is just another of the magnificent facets of life, our ability to consciously choose.

Ain't life GRAND!! ;)

[CAV]

I could ask you the same thing about why you don't believe in evolution... but I won't, because I'm not asking you to believe in it. If there's no physical proof of either argument, then neither of us should have to believe the other point of view...

But there is physical proof for creationist theory. I have consistently backed up my arguments with documented facts, not supposition. You have yet to provide a single referenced fact that validates any part of evolution. The biblical flood is contained in the geological record. The cities of early man are known and documented. History is history; it has been researched, it has been proven, it has been documented. The historical record contains zero, zilch, nada evidence that supports evolutionist theory. You are faced with the same dilemma that has plagued evolutionists since Darwin came forward: "Because I think it's possible" just isn't enough to pass the smell test. If you intend to persuade, you must have data that supports you.

Edit: and the source should matter because math is math, science is science, but it doesn't mean a damn thing if it's not all presented in an unbiased way.

Can you refute anything that I have presented in this thread? Do you have the data sets that disspell a single sentence? Just because ya don't like it, doesn't make my case go away. ;)

[Clint Boyer]

Again I submit to you that creation theory is revalidated at every birth.

Is the creationist theory valid without explaination of the creator?

I don't see how one can be accepted without the other.

Again, notice, I am not advocating evolution. I am looking for an explaination of a creator.

P.S.The historical record contains zero, zilch, nada evidence that supports evolutionist theory.

Written human history only involves the time we've inhabited the earth.

I'm sorry but we've only been on this planet for a minute amount of the time is has been in existence. (I have no proof of that by the way!) ;)

But, where do the fossil specimens of creatures unknown to man at anytime in "documented history" fit in?

[TrpnBils]

But there is physical proof for creationist theory. I have consistently backed up my arguments with documented facts, not supposition.
Where? The only physical proof I've seen you provide was the stuff about carbon and radiometric dating, but that doesn't prove Creation. I don't have physical data to back up my claims, and I freely admit that, but I don't feel that you have any physical data either. Nobody can prove evolution, and nobody can prove Creation. I'm not talking about creation with a small "c"...the kind of creation that is seen every time something gives birth. A new life is created, and that's irrefutable. I'm talking about Creation with a big "C". Creation of life itself in the very beginning with (apparently) 6000 years of unchanging species without the help of evolution. It's already been said - belief in Creation requires faith, and belief in evolution requires faith.

Edit: Also, you mentioned the Biblical flood and how it's preserved in the geologic record. I believe that, and find it quite interesting. In fact, last I heard, somebody thought maybe they found the remains of the ark itself...very cool. I'd like to see that happen. My question is this: A few posts back, you showed the inaccuracies of radiometric dating. Given these flaws, how can you prove that the flood preserved in the geologic record is the right age to correspond with the Biblical flood?

Just because ya don't like it, doesn't make my case go away. ;)
I'm not trying to make your case go away, just as I'm sure you're not asking me to give up my beliefs based on what you're telling me. Life would be boring if we all agreed on everything... :cheers:

[TrpnBils]

You're right; there is no way to prove beyond a doubt that there is a creator. It truly does boil down to belief and seeing the miracle of life, and I have to say, a truly complex and unbelievably magnificent working thing life is. But saying life comes from strictly evolution also has to go on faith because there is no hard, tangible proof of that either. So, it is up to each of us to choose what we believe. And that is just another of the magnificent facets of life, our ability to consciously choose.

Ain't life GRAND!! ;)

Right on :spinner:

[CAV]

Where? The only physical proof I've seen you provide was the stuff about carbon and radiometric dating, but that doesn't prove Creation. I don't have physical data to back up my claims, and I freely admit that, but I don't feel that you have any physical data either.

Explaining the origin of life is a big problem for evolution theory. It states that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world. Which theory is supported better by the data? Creation overcomes the immense problem of creating life from dead chemicals by any natural process, and the clearly defined fossil record.

The overpowering problem for evolutionists is the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record. I am referring to transitional forms of life. There are no such organisms found today or in the past. If evolution had occurred, the fossil record would show continuum of change. Common sense would dictate the fossils should easily show change as species were evolving. But guess what, no continuum! Fossils indicate clearly defined gaps, with no transitional forms. This is consistent with a Creation theory.
1) The rocks show highly complex creatures like trilobites, worms, and jellyfish, none of which have transition precursors.
2) Insects are fully developed without ancestors; prehistoric cockroaches are just like the cockroaches of today.
3) Transitional vertebrates are absent even though the transition supposedly took millions of years.
4) Mammals simultaneously appear in the fossil record. (No transition)
5) Monkeys, apes and man appear fully formed in the fossil record.

Evolution theory requires transitional forms to retain validity. Since Darwin's time there has been a hundred-fold increase in fossils found. There are fewer transitional forms of life than there are minor divisions.

How much more physical evidence do you want???

[Clint Boyer]

It states that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothin

And in creationism, it appears from where?

[Sisuitl]

Aww man, I just can't keep out of this one.

Anyway, if evolution was true, how the heck did hummingbirds evolve? There are absolutely no possible intermediary stages where any part of their design, from their metabolism, to their wings and skeletal structure, could exist without the sum of their current parts. They also could not exist if certain types of plants did not have particular shapes of flowers for them to get food from. True, within hummingbirds there are variations in color and bill shape, but there are no "pseudo hummingbirds" in the world, nor is there any evidence there ever was. Hummingbirds are carefully designed creatures, made to fit into a carefully designed niche.

Also, if birds are evolved dinosaurs, why do the bird-like velociraptor biped groups have lizard hips, whereas the stumpy elephant-like stegosaurs and brachiosaurs are the ones with bird hips? Did the entire hip structure of this entire group of bird-like dinosaurs randomly evolve to be bird-like? Why? There is no evidence of it ever happening.

And who's to say that some of these hominid fossils we find aren't actually human beings? There are cro-magnons alive today, I've met them and they are very nice people. I consider them to be just as human as anybody officially classified as homo sapiens. Same thing with neanderthols. Fossil evidence shows that they lived among and bred with modern humans and cro-magnons. Fits the species description huh? Humans come in such a huge variety of shapes, sizes, and colors. Just look at the hottentot tribe in Africa vs. the vikings. Polar opposites. If they had been fossils evolutionists would point to them and say "look! two species evolved from the same common ancestor!" However they may have adapted, both groups are still humand and are very capable of interbreeding.

Locally I used to be involved in Wolf Haven, where they had one of the only packs of Red Wolves in the country. There was a huge debate raging about whether or not red wolves were a real species, or just hybrids between grey wolves and coyotes. Well, genetic testing has shown that red wolves are the original race, and that grey wolves and coyotes are actually descended from them. Some evolutionists cheered, saying it was proof of evolution at work.... However, they also found that red wolves and grey wolves regularly interbred, and that red wolves and coyotes regularly interbred. Because of cultural differences, coyotes and grey wolves rarely interbred, but the red wolf coyote hybrids interbred with grey wolves, and the grey and red wolf hybrids bred with coyotes. The researchers who did the study suggested that they all be reclassified as one species.


I'm a biology major, and I believe in creationism. While there isn't a lot of evidence for creationism specifically, there is a lot out there for "intelligent design". If anyone needs real scientific proof geologically about the age of the Earth there is a fantastic book out there called "Creation's Tiny Mystery". It is about the radioactive halo's present in all of the oldest precambrian granite the Earth's foundation rock is composed of. I highly reccommend it.

Also, if anyone wants references to articles about what I am talking about I will happily give them to you.
Cheers! :eatpointe

[TrpnBils]

Explaining the origin of life is a big problem for evolution theory. It states that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world. Which theory is supported better by the data? Creation overcomes the immense problem of creating life from dead chemicals by any natural process, and the clearly defined fossil record.

Evolution does not state the life came from non-life. People who don't believe in evolution state that to try to make it seem like proof. Evolution deals with changes in life over time, which is something that nobody can deny happens. Things change. Creation does not overcome the "immense problem of creating life from dead chemicals." Where did life come from as far as the Creationists are concerned? It just popped up from a different source, right?


The overpowering problem for evolutionists is the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record. I am referring to transitional forms of life. There are no such organisms found today or in the past. If evolution had occurred, the fossil record would show continuum of change.
Your whole argument here is dependent on how you classify these "transitional forms." What I may call a transitional form, you may call a completely different species or vice-versa. And I think that the very idea of transitional forms is a loaded topic in itself. Every time I hear somebody mention this (not just in this discussion, but anywhere over the years), it almost sounds like they're expecting some kind of freakish non-species to be found and the lack of it is proof that evolution doesn't exist. For example, if I were to say that I believe humans evolved from worms, what would an acceptable transitional species be? Would you be looking for something in the fossil record with the body of a worm that had human legs?

Common sense would dictate the fossils should easily show change as species were evolving. But guess what, no continuum! Fossils indicate clearly defined gaps, with no transitional forms. This is consistent with a Creation theory
That's good that you agree fossils should show evolution, because they do...but it all depends on what you consider a transitional species.

1) The rocks show highly complex creatures like trilobites, worms, and jellyfish, none of which have transition precursors.
2) Insects are fully developed without ancestors; prehistoric cockroaches are just like the cockroaches of today.
3) Transitional vertebrates are absent even though the transition supposedly took millions of years.
4) Mammals simultaneously appear in the fossil record. (No transition)
5) Monkeys, apes and man appear fully formed in the fossil record.

1. According to Creation, jellyfish and worms have been around since the beginning of time, correct? Find me a fossil of a jellyfish. If they exist, then I doubt there are many because soft tissue doesn't fossilize well. If you can't find a fossil of one, I'm not going to tell you that they didn't exist before I saw my first live on at the beach just because you can't find evidence that they existed years ago. The big problem with using fossils to prove stuff like this is that hardly ANYBODY is out there looking for them (to prove either side). We're still finding new species in the fossil record every year, so who knows how much we still have to find.

2. If the body plan works to begin with, why change it? Not everything has to evolve into something new.

3. Again, it depends on how you define a transitional species. And I said before about punctuated equilibrium - a relatively short time of rapid changes followed by an extended period of little change. These transitional species could have easily been part of punctuated equilibrium and very few examples of it exist in the fossil record to begin with. An incredibly small percentage of thing fossilize to begin with, so it's not like every living thing that has ever walked this earth has fossilized and is waiting to be discovered.

4. Your reptile-to-mammal transitions as seen in the fossil record.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex2

5. If you look at the fossils of early humanoids (even as far back as the early primates), you'll see that they don't show up "fully formed." Nobody has suggested that one day Man showed up looking exactly as we do today.

........................

Let me make one thing clear here. No self-respecting scientist would ever suggest that evolution disproves the existance of a Creator in the very beginning. I mentioned Dr. Stanley Miller's experiments in an earlier post, and some people may say that if his experiments were accurate, then it would suggest that life came from "dead chemicals." But where did those chemicals and the ground that they sat on come from? Somebody had to create that, didn't they? Nobody is out to kill religion. And on that note, I've noticed that when I search for stuff like this online, there are a LOT more religious websites trying to invalidate the theory of evolution than there are websites defending evolution. Is this because there is an overwhelming amount of evidence for Creation and not much for evolution? No. It has to do with the fact that religion has been around for a whole lot longer than anybody has even been discussing evolution to begin with. There are roots to religion, so people will be more likely to defend anything that they (falsely) think is trying to question their faith. There are a lot of evolutionary biologists that are also very religious and believe in Creation. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

Also, CAV, I don't know if you saw my edit in my last post. It was a question about the Flood comment you made before. When I tried to submit my reply, my computer crashed and I had to retype that. I rewrote it again but forgot to include that. By the time I realized it, I saw you were already in here typing your reply up, so I'm not sure if you saw that or not.

[Serpwidgets]

Do you think that captivity has had an effect on cornsnake?Yes. We select for different genetic combinations than the wild environment does.

What are anyones thoughts on evolution and how it is effected by captivity? Will corns in captivity evolve or does the captivity inhibit it?Evolution is a function of two things:

1- Errors/changes in the genetic code result in offspring carrying different genomes than their parents. These changes can be as small as a point mutation (the change of only a single base pair) up to as large as the duplication/deletion/reorganization of an entire chromosome.

2- because of limited resources/space, there is competition. Not all members of the population reproduce, not all reproduce in equal numbers. The consequence of this has been summed up as "survival of the fittest." It's also known as "natural selection" but in captivity it may be better summed up as "human selection."

Some of the changes that happen will be selected for because they are advantageous to the individuals who possess them. As a result, they will be propagated in greater numbers. Things that are disadvantageous will be selected against, and will reduce in frequency or be entirely removed from the gene pool.

Given that captive cornsnakes experience the two above things, they will evolve over time. Given enough time, if they are kept from interbreeding with the wild population, they can most definitely become genetically incompatible with the wild population.

Say you take male A and female A, and create identical genetic clones of them. Call this second pair "population B." Put pop A and B in identical but separate environments so that they cannot interbreed. Different changes will enter each population's gene pool. Over enough time, enough differences will be propagated that the two populations will become "incompatible" with each other, and also incompatible with their common ancestor. They can both share a common ancestor, yet be different species.

I would say that most of the change so far in the captive gene pool has been a result of selection amongst already-existing genes, which would more accurately fit the definition of "adaptation." However, some things which have spontaneously appeared in the captive gene pool have been propagated. If sunkissed occured in Kathy Love's captive pool, or lavender spontaneously appeared in Rich Z's captive pool, then these would be examples of the process of evolution happening within the captive gene pool.

Where is the concrete proof of this? Where are any of the "missing links" to prove that one species changed into another through evolution? What do scientist have to PROVE irrefutably that we came from apes? So, you are saying that all of the thousands of creatures that live now and that had not been alive, well, let's say during the Jurasic age, they evolved from what??? Where is the proof of the lines that take all these diverse forms back to its beginning?I do not need to personally count to a trillion, or have known anyone who has counted to a trillion, in order to know that the number is real. It is a simple consequence of the way counting works. Likewise, the fact that life will evolve over time is a simple consequence of the above two facts.

Where is the concrete proof of this? Where are any of the "missing links" to prove that one species changed into another through evolution?Not to be insulting, but this is like saying "if gravity is real then howcome the sun, the moon, and clouds and rainbows don't all fall to the ground?" You will never get a satisfactory answer to this question because it doesn't make sense in the context of reality.

[Santa]

Yes.
Given that captive cornsnakes experience the two above things, they will evolve over time. Given enough time, if they are kept from interbreeding with the wild population, they can most definitely become genetically incompatible with the wild population.


Once again an evolutionist has made a statement of "fact" that can't be proven thanks to the convenient "millions of years" clause in their theory.

You folks have the right to believe what you want to believe. I don't have a problem with that at all. But I will not stand by and allow you to spew out statements like the one above. Yes, a lot of scientist (but certainly not all) believe the theory of evolution. But it is just a theory - not fact.

I don't mind the discussions at all. I think Darwin's work was fascinating. Just don't try to cram it down my throat as fact. Don't use phrases like "most definitely" or "will" without the evidence to prove it.

Not to be insulting, but as an old farmer would say "I don't have to step in BS to know what BS is!"

[Serpwidgets]

You folks have the right to believe what you want to believe. I don't have a problem with that at all. But I will not stand by and allow you to spew out statements like the one above. Yes, a lot of scientist (but certainly not all) believe the theory of evolution. But it is just a theory - not fact.You are talking about the theory of evolution, which posits that the various lifeforms on earth have come about as a result of evolution. That is a theory.

I am talking about the process of evolution, which is an obvious consequence of the simple realities of 1- random genetic changes and 2- selection pressure. It is a very real and factual part of the process of life. It is not just a theory, it is an objective fact.

[Santa]

You are talking about the theory of evolution, which posits that the various lifeforms on earth have come about as a result of evolution. That is a theory.

I am talking about the process of evolution, which is an obvious consequence of the simple realities of 1- random genetic changes and 2- selection pressure. It is a very real and factual part of the process of life. It is not just a theory, it is an objective fact.

You can't make it fact by calling it a process. :confused:

As I quoted in an earlier post, according to the dictionary, evolution is defined as "Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species."

We (humans) have domesticated many wild breeds over thousands of years isolating them from their wild counterparts but they are still reproductively compatible, i.e. a cow can be bred with a buffalo, or a dog with a wolf. What we have done by isolating corn snakes thru captivity and interbreeding is eliminate the natural predators which would have consumed the morphs we prize. We have not and will not change the species to an extent that it will not be compatible with the wild species. Once again the evidence does NOT support your so-called facts.

[TrpnBils]

What we have done by isolating corn snakes thru captivity and interbreeding is eliminate the natural predators which would have consumed the morphs we prize. We have not and will change the species to an extent that it will not be compatible with the wild species.

I agree... captivity has had an effect on corns, but I don't think there's any way they're going to change so much as to become completely domesticated like dogs.

[Santa]

I am glad that you and I can finally agree on something other than "corns are cool".

[gardenmum]

I do not need to personally count to a trillion, or have known anyone who has counted to a trillion, in order to know that the number is real. It is a simple consequence of the way counting works. Likewise, the fact that life will evolve over time is a simple consequence of the above two facts.

Well, I hardly think that comparing a known entity like numbers to and unprovable thing like "missing links" is quite appropriate. Mathamatics is a known, of course we know that numbers are infinite, so a trillion and 1000 times a trillion does exist (if someone wanted to take the time to count that high ;) ). But I have never seen a provable, positive missing link to species. Hypothosis on them, similarities between one species and another with people saying one descended from another, but no positive. Especially with Ape to Man. So, believing that man evolved from apes is really something one has to BELIEVE in using the "proof" that the person feels is right. Same goes for believing in Creationism. We take the "proof" we see and believe from that proof.

Not to be insulting, but this is like saying "if gravity is real then howcome the sun, the moon, and clouds and rainbows don't all fall to the ground?" You will never get a satisfactory answer to this question because it doesn't make sense in the context of reality.

We, I don't feel insulted, so that's ok. :)
But I do want to respond. Let's start with the sun and the moon. Everything out in space is revolving around the sun. Likewise, the moon is revolving around the earth. The reason the moon does not fall to the ground is because it is going so fast past the earth that it ends up missing it and it just continuously goes around and misses the earth. So, it stays in orbit and the orbit stays constant. Now, if gravity were to stop on Earth, the moon would go flying off in a straight line in whatever direction it was traveling at that time. The same thing goes for the earth & sun. The sun's gravity pulls on the earth, the earth's gravity pulls on the sun, but of course, the sun's gravity is stronger. We don't collide because by the time we start falling toward the sun we are past it and begin the cycle again. So gravity does have an impact but cannot make any of the above fall into collision......phew, I'm glad for that...lol.

OK...now the rainbow. A rainbow is comprised of water droplets falling to earth in which the sunlight is being refracted causing the white light to be split into the multi colors we see. The angle between the rainbow and the sun remain the same till the droplets no longer refract the light. There is nothing for gravity to pull on since it is just a visual distortion made by the water droplets that are already falling to the earth due to gravity.

NOW.....Clouds. The clouds density is not heavier than air so gravity has no affect on it. That is untill it coalesces where the water droplets become large enough so the air currents can no longer keep them up. Then the cloud does fall to the earth...in the form of rain. ;)

So, I still contend, there is no "proof" of us evolving from the apes and so on. And both beliefs rely on having faith in that belief.

[gardenmum]

I agree... captivity has had an effect on corns, but I don't think there's any way they're going to change so much as to become completely domesticated like dogs.

This I definitely agree on. I think we will see a lot of interesting changes in colors and possibly, in some cases, general looks. But I do not forsee a "tame, follow me home" snake, nor one that grows legs.....lol. :)

[jazzgeek]

Once again an evolutionist has made a statement of "fact" that can't be proven thanks to the convenient "millions of years" clause in their theory.

You folks have the right to believe what you want to believe. I don't have a problem with that at all. But I will not stand by and allow you to spew out statements like the one above. Yes, a lot of scientist (but certainly not all) believe the theory of evolution. But it is just a theory - not fact.

I don't mind the discussions at all. I think Darwin's work was fascinating. Just don't try to cram it down my throat as fact. Don't use phrases like "most definitely" or "will" without the evidence to prove it.

Not to be insulting, but as an old farmer would say "I don't have to step in BS to know what BS is!"

And not to be insulting, but once again a creationist has used the word "theory" in a context different than the scientific community. Let's review:

Lay people often misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason, they sometimes draw the wrong conclusions as to what the scientific terms mean.

Three such terms that are often used interchangeably are "scientific law," "hypothesis," and "theory."

In layman’s terms, if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.

Here is what each of these terms means to a scientist:

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, the law of thermodynamics, and Hook’s law of elasticity.

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena.

An analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile. A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.

An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.

A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.

Thus, Darwin hypothesized the process of evolution; the scientific community, such as Stephen Jay Gould, through trial and verification, has advanced the theory of evolution. In similar fashion, Einstein hypothesized relativity and quantum mechanics; the scientific community, such as Stephen Hawking and Richard Feynman, through trial and verification, has advanced the theory of relativity and quantum theory.

regards,
jazz
(not standing by while someone else "spews")

[TrpnBils]

And not to be insulting, but once again a creationist has used the word "theory" in a context different than the scientific community. Let's review:

Lay people often misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason, they sometimes draw the wrong conclusions as to what the scientific terms mean.

Three such terms that are often used interchangeably are "scientific law," "hypothesis," and "theory."

Thank you. I'm glad somebody has finally said this about the "common" definitions vs. the "real" definitions of some of these terms. I've been trying to figure out how to say this since the whole discussion got started, but I couldn't find a way to say it that didn't sound condescending (and by the way, your way didn't...so that's good). I've tried my hardest not to offend people in this discussion, but I have a feeling it hasn't always turned out that way, so I didn't want to throw something else out there that could be taken the wrong way.

Good call, I'm glad to see this thread going places again.

[TrpnBils]

This I definitely agree on. I think we will see a lot of interesting changes in colors and possibly, in some cases, general looks. But I do not forsee a "tame, follow me home" snake, nor one that groes legs.....lol. :)
Regarding the colors. There are still some combinations out there that haven't been able to be created yet (hypermelanism comes to mind). I saw a thread on this topic awhile back but I don't think it was on this site. Either way, it was just mentioned but never really discussed. Why has it been so hard to create these colors so far?

[Clint Boyer]

So, I still contend, there is no "proof" of us evolving from the apes and so on. And both beliefs rely on having faith in that belief.

There are fossil remains of a homonid that they named Lucy.

She seems to show traits somewhere between apes and man.

This is what would also appear to be the "missing link".

There is no mention in Creationism that would explain this hard piece of evidence.

[Serpwidgets]

You can't make it fact by calling it a process.I agree. That is the difference between dogma and fact. Dogma cannot stand on its own and must be repeated in order to be accepted as "true." Objective facts stand on their own. It is true no matter what you or I say, or whichever semantic argument you want to try to use.

It is still a factual, real-life process that indeed has taken place, is taking place right now, and will continue to take place as long as life continues to reproduce/compete in the ways it has and does. Your willingness to unbelieve it does not keep it from being a fact, either.

Well, I hardly think that comparing a known entity like numbers to and unprovable thing like "missing links" is quite appropriate. Mathamatics is a known, of course we know that numbers are infinite, so a trillion and 1000 times a trillion does exist (if someone wanted to take the time to count that high ). But I have never seen a provable, positive missing link to species.The process I outlined is known, and is rather simple. There's nothing mysterious about how it works. If you want a provable "missing link" between species then take a look at creamsicles and jungle corns. :eatpointe

Corns are not the same species as either emoryi or california kings. The multigenerational hybrids between these groups prove that many of the inbetween states are also viable. It is proof that it is possible, through accumulated changes in a genome, for something with the genetic makeup of a california kingsnake and a cornsnake to have a common ancestor.

[jazzgeek]

Thank you.
You're very welcome. My pleasure, matter of fact.
I'm glad somebody has finally said this about the "common" definitions vs. the "real" definitions of some of these terms.
Well, "real" to the scientists. ;) I'd prefer to think of it as "common" and "professional" (for lack of a better word....which again, shows the limits and ambiguity of language (then again, so do "smilies"...(I wonder - how deep I can embed parentheses without annoying everyone?) ) ).

Every profession has their own dialect. To Tyra Banks, "modeling" has to do with a photo shoot. To me, it has to do with diagramming data. Go figure.

I've been trying to figure out how to say this since the whole discussion got started, but I couldn't find a way to say it that didn't sound condescending (and by the way, your way didn't...so that's good).
I haven't received that good a compliment since I was told that I don't sweat much for a guy my size. :laugh:

I've tried my hardest not to offend people in this discussion, but I have a feeling it hasn't always turned out that way, so I didn't want to throw something else out there that could be taken the wrong way.

Good call, I'm glad to see this thread going places again.
Onward and upward, with a little bit of wringing of hands, gnashing of teeth, and hopefully, a whole lotta laughing and learning.

Just like the scientific process, ideally.

regards,
jazz

[gardenmum]

Here is a link to "Lucy Fails test of missing link"
http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?query=Lucy+the+missing+link&page=1&offset=0&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26requestId%3D2 539fc2b278fb9e5%26clickedItemRank%3D1%26userQuery% 3DLucy%2Bthe%2Bmissing%2Blink%26clickedItemURN%3Dh ttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.forerunner.com%252Fforerunne r%252FX0714_Lucy_fails_test.html%26invocationType% 3D-%26fromPage%3DNSSideBar%26ampTest%3D1&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.forerunner.com%2Fforer unner%2FX0714_Lucy_fails_test.html

But here are some of the exerpts from it.......

But hold on, the story gets better. Dr. Johanson gave a lecture at the University of Missouri in Kansas City, Nov. 20, 1986, on Lucy and why he thinks she is our ancestor. It included the ideas already mentioned and that Lucy's femur and pelvis were more robust than most chimps and therefore, "could have" walked upright. After the lecture he opened the meeting for questions. The audience of approximately 800 was quiet so some creationists asked questions. Roy Holt asked; "How far away from Lucy did you find the knee?" (The knee bones were actually discovered about a year earlier than the rest of Lucy). Dr. Johanson answered (reluctantly) about 200 feet lower (!) and two to three kilometers away (about 1.5 miles!). Continuing, Holt asked, "Then why are you sure it belonged to Lucy?" Dr. Johanson: "Anatomical similarity." (Bears and dogs have anatomical similarities).

After the meeting, the creationists talked with Dr. Johanson and continued the questions. Dr. Johanson argued that homology (particularly DNA homology) is good proof for evolution. Tom Willis responded that "similar structures nearly always have similar plans, (like) similar bridges have similar blue prints." After more discussion along this line, Dr. Johanson gave this amazing reply: "If you don't believe homology, then you don't believe evolution, and evolution is a fact!"5

Tom Willis, the creationist who attended the U. of Missouri lecture puts it this way, "By any reasonable standards, Johanson misrepresented the evidence and he did so for money! A businessman who made claims like those to sell his products would be charged with fraud rather than be paid an honorarium."7 Regardless of the motives involved for finding our evolutionary "ancestor", we can be sure that when Lucy is acknowledged as an evolutionary dead end, there will be another press conference with another knee-jerk explanation.


And from another source......

“Lucy” is the popular name given to the famous fossil skeleton found in 1974 in Ethiopia by American anthropologist Donald Johanson. To many people, Lucy is regarded as some kind of link between ape-like creatures and humans, thus supposedly proving evolution.

But is Lucy really a pre-human ancestor?

According to Richard Leakey, who along with Johanson is probably the best-known fossil-anthropologist in the world, Lucy's skull is so incomplete that most of it is “imagination made of plaster of paris”. Leakey even said in 1983 that no firm conclusion could be drawn about what species Lucy belonged to.
Anatomist agrees

Reinforcing the fact that Lucy is not a creature between ape and man, Dr. Charles Oxnard, Professor of Anatomy and Human Biology at the University of Western Australia, said in 1987 of the australopithecines (the group to which Lucy is said to have belonged):

“The various australopithecines are, indeed, more different from both African apes and humans in most features than these latter are from each other. Part of the basis of this acceptance has been the fact that even opposing investigators have found these large differences as they too, used techniques and research designs that were less biased by prior notions as to what the fossils might have been.”

Oxnard's firm conclusion? “The australopithecines are unique.”
Not ancestor to humans

Neither Lucy nor any other australopithecine is therefore intermediate between humans and African apes. Nor are they similar enough to humans to be any sort of ancestor of ours.

A new species of autralopithecine, Australopithecus garhi, was discovered in 1999 in Ethiopia. Even though this ape was said to be more long-legged than Lucy, it is still just an ape.

Lucy and the australopithecines show nothing about human evolution, and should not be promoted as having any sort of “missing link” status. The creationist alternative, that humans, apes and other creatures were created that way in the beginning, remains the only explanation consistent with all the evidence.

[Clint Boyer]

Those are all opinions.

The fossils remain with no explaination in creationism.

[Serpwidgets]

Once again an evolutionist has...BTW, even though it may be convenient for you to pigeonhole people so that you can fling epithets at them, I am not an "evolutionist."

I know that the theory of evolution is a possible explanation for the diversity of life as we see it.

I know that creation is a possible explanation for the origins and diversity of life as we see it.

I know that neither of these things preclude the other. They can both be true at the same time.

The only people who think evolution and creation are mutually exclusive are people who do not understand what evolution means and what the theory of evolution entails, and people who choose to believe a certain interpretation of the Bible.

[CAV]

Of the 12, nine of the "hominids" reconstructed by evolutionists, have been found to be fully monkeys/ apes and not part human at all:

1. PLIOPITHECUS: Ramapithecus, was shown to be that of an extinct relative of the orangutan. Pliopithecus was placed on the chart before Ramapithecus because it seemed more monkey-like. Pliopithecus was named as a hominid because it looked like a cross between two monkeys, the spider monkey and the gibbon, not because it looked part human.

2. PROCONSUL: Same as above.

3. DRYOPITHECUS: Same as Pliopithecus and Proconsul. It is based only on a lower jaw fragment which later became known as that of an extinct ape's.

4. OREOPITHECUS: Same as Pliop, Procon, and Dryop, It is based only on teeth and pelvis remains.

5. RAMIPITHECUS: Fossil finds in 1982 and 1988 showed that Ramipithecus was only an extinct relative of the orangutan and not part human at all. This one is based only on a set of teeth.

6. AUSTRALOPITHECUS AFRICANUS: Was found to be the skull of a baby ape whose features had not yet fully developed. When studied by a team of forensic scientists, it was concluded that the skull had no human features at all.

7. AUSTRALOPITHECUS ROBUSTUS: Based only on a skull with a crest on the top which is a feature in apes but not in humans. The feature does not appear in any supposed hominid skulls before or after it to any degree. Forensic review determined Australo Rob had no human features at all.

8. AUSTRALOPITHECUS BOISEI: Same as Australo Rob. Forensic review determined Australo Rob had no human features at all.

9. AUSTRALOPITHECUS AFARENSIS: (Lucy) Determined to be a "homonid" based on fragments to a skeleton found miles apart and at greatly varying depths and then placed together as if from the same individual. The fragments are small and most of the skeleton missing.


The other three popularly regarded "hominids" have all been found to be modern humans and not part monkey/ape at all.

10. HOMO ERECTUS: Regarded as sub-human because its brain size was once thought to be out of the range of humans being too small. It is now known that its size is nearly the average size of a modern European's.

11. NEANDERTHAL MAN: Found by medical experts to be a full modern human being whose brain was deformed simply by arthritis deformans.

12. CRO MAGNON MAN: Indistinguishable from a modern human being. It was placed on the chart only because of cave drawings that were found and thought to be primitive.

"Missing Link" huh? :)


Now to Serp's last post:

It isn't that I don't understand evolution or think that it isn't plausible, there is simply a glaring and undeniable absence of scientific evidence to support it.

[jazzgeek]

7. AUSTRALOPITHECUS ROBUSTUS: Based only on a skull with a crest on the top which is a feature in apes but not in humans. The feature does not appear in any supposed hominid skulls before or after it to any degree. Forensic review determined Australo Rob had no human features at all.

Now currently taxonomically classified as Paranthropus Robustus.


8. AUSTRALOPITHECUS BOISEI: Same as Australo Rob. Forensic review determined Australo Rob had no human features at all.

Now currently P. Boisei.


9. AUSTRALOPITHECUS AFARENSIS: (Lucy) Determined to be a "homonid" based on fragments to a skeleton found miles apart and at greatly varying depths and then placed together as if from the same individual. The fragments are small and most of the skeleton missing.

While "Lucy" was first reported in the mid-70s and was fragmented, the March 31 1994 issue of Nature, one of the oldest (circa 1869) peer-reviewed scientific journals, reported the discovery of the first complete A. afarensis skull.

That's over a decade ago.


"Missing Link" huh? :)

Well, considering that missing from your jury of 12 peers ;) are:

P. aethiopicus
A. anamensis
A. garhi

one could conclude that "gaps" are being filled at a pretty darn good rate. The paradox, of course, is that when one "gap" is filled, two new ones are created. When those two "gaps" are filled, four are created. And so on, and so on....thus, by logical extension, this geometrically increases the requests by creationists for "gaps" to be filled. :laugh:

(For the record, the points stated here were done by simple Google and Wikipedia searches.)


The other three popularly regarded "hominids" have all been found to be modern humans and not part monkey/ape at all.

10. HOMO ERECTUS: Regarded as sub-human because its brain size was once thought to be out of the range of humans being too small. It is now known that its size is nearly the average size of a modern European's.

Redundant and/or tautological - especially if that EuroBrain is French. (I just may have angered Jerry Lewis.) ;)

Now to Serp's last post:

It isn't that I don't understand evolution or think that it isn't plausible, there is simply a glaring and undeniable absence of scientific evidence to support it.
Ironically, I've cited sources to the points/counterpoints I've raised, while you didn't. I guess I'm to take your points at face value, given the "absence of evidence".

I have a great faith - scientifically and theologically - but it only goes so far.

regards,
jazz

[jazzgeek]

Lucy and the australopithecines show nothing about human evolution, and should not be promoted as having any sort of “missing link” status. The creationist alternative, that humans, apes and other creatures were created that way in the beginning, remains the only explanation consistent with all the evidence.
Also known as "the fallacy of negation", to wit: If "A" is not true, then "B" must be true. If evolutionary theory were completely wrong, it does not imply that, therefore, creationism is right.

A theory needs evidence in favor of it, and not just against the "opposing" theory. Besides, once you assume Divine Intervention, science goes out the window - since natural laws no longer apply and scientific methodology is moot.

Personally, I believe that science and faith aren't even in the same world. I tend to agree with Stephen Jay Gould's position of "nonoverlapping magisteria" (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html), which in essence states that the purpose of religion is to discover the "Rock of Ages", while the purpose of science is to discover the "age of the rocks".

And - IMHO - anyone with a frontal lobe wants and needs to know both.

regards,
jazz

"I'm all for it." - skeptic (http://www.skeptic.com) Michael Shermer, when asked of his position on life after death

[countMEout]

The way the theory of evolution works is not targeting a direct population. There is no goal for the human specie or a specie of frog to develop into any particular thing or creature. Evolution is not a process with a beginning and end but an ongoing process. Which will select for the most successful creatures, with that being said for the most part large stable populations that might have a lower rate of competition will then not have as much of a dwindling to their specie. evolution is most seen in small cut off groups of a specie and to be as cheesy as possible darwins finches. The finches on the galapogos islands all haave created their own niche. Due to the relativily extreme environment of galapogos islands population fluctuations can be somewhat extreme. Since each specie has adapted to a certain niche they can flourish off certain seeds and other foods. So what this really means is one of the islands has two finches each eating two different types of seeds they are extreme forms of one another to fit their evolutonary niche this makes them the most successful giving them the best chance to breed. Now on another island there is only one finch but the same types of seeds. Since there is only one finch its beak has adapted to be somewhat average and able to handle both seeds but not as well as the two extreme finches. SO for anyone to think that the point of each organism to survive and have the evolutionary GOAL to become some higher being is foolish and ridiculous. If everything was a higher being there goes the food chain. So either way if evolution is completely natural or inspired by GOD the theory is probably the most accurate way we currently explain the advancement of species. Not everything has to become advanced either and they all don't do it together either its not like humans are going to evolve step by step together. Adaptation is a must and if you cannot adapt or adapt your surroundings to yourself then well your dead. So in the end to think that no specie adapts or changes but to believe in mutations a vital part of the corn snake world. Another good example is the dog show world with all of its selective breeding which alters the genetic code unless you would like to think it is exactly the same as the wolves although it will have a 99% accuracy the same with ahve with some of our close relatives 99% funny to think that 1% can bring you from a tree to some buildings.

[Clint Boyer]

Also known as "the fallacy of negation", to wit: If "A" is not true, then "B" must be true. If evolutionary theory were completely wrong, it does not imply that, therefore, creationism is right.

EXACTLY!

Since we don't have proof or understand the process then it must be MAGIC.

I've been trying to get some response other then "your theory can be proven wrong" but no takers.

[CAV]

It all comes down to what you as an individual are willing to accept or not accept. The science, data and theory has been derived in the mind of a man. Nothing that has been presented in this argument is really absolute or irrefutable and any piece of "data" can be discredited as long as you are willing to do so. It is either taken at face value or it is dismissed outright. Rather simple isn’t it?

For me the plausibility of creation is unmistakable and undeniable; I can open my eyes and see it everyday and it is real to me. Others may not agree and I really could care less. As everyone is aware, if either theory was bulletproof, we wouldn't have spent the last week discussing and debating this topic. :)

Cav out!

[Clint Boyer]

Yeah, I think we've beat this horse enough.

Honestly, I think life is amzing, I just don't buy into the "we don't know so someone had to invent it" theory.

[TrpnBils]

The way the theory of evolution works is not targeting a direct population. There is no goal for the human specie or a specie of frog to develop into any particular thing or creature.
I had to laugh when I read this. I've said several times during this discussion that evolution doesn't have an "end goal"... and the only other people I've seen mention that specifically were the "up-and-coming" biologists like myself and countMEout. That just goes to show something else I've said a few times now...people are only able to give useful opinions on stuff they've learned (through schooling or wherever, it doesn't matter), and we (the college crowd) are just relaying what the next generation of biologists is being taught. countMEout's comment was just one more example of that. :spinner:

I'm not saying that biologists 20 or 30 years ago don't know this, I'm just saying I think it's interesting to see the emphasis shift like it seems to have done over the years (not just from this example, but others that I've seen recently).

Edit: I just read the last two posts here and I'm glad to see this is finally settling...it's tiring when there is no right or wrong answer... :laugh:

[CAV]

we (the college crowd) are just relaying what the next generation of biologists is being taught.

Are you saying that your only source for learning and education is what some random professor is telling you? If so I find that terribly alarming. Can you explain as I may have misunderstood you.

[TrpnBils]

Well, I'm going by what ALL of my "random professors" are telling me, what I feel is true (there's that whole faith thing again), what I've seen myself, and through places like this. No matter who you are, you learn stuff from other people, and I sure as hell am not going to go out and recreate all of Darwin's experiments, etc. myself, so I think learning from someone who knows a whole lot more about it than me is the next best thing. Where did you get all your information from? All those things you cited online?? I think the internet is a dangerous place to go for information because anybody with half a brain can put up a webpage, write some stuff, and say it's true. That's a gamble you have to take when you decide whether to accept something as truth or not (regardless of where it came from). I'd rather rely on somebody that I know or myself and my own experiences rather than just get information from someone I've never met and just happened to find online.

You know, I really didn't think there was any possible way that the comment I made could cause further debate on anything...but what do I know?

[Serpwidgets]

Quantum theory is positively incomplete. It is not the universe's final answer because it cannot explain the cause of every observed phenomenon. But it is still a useful tool. It has greatly advanced our understanding of how a lot of things work, and is responsible for our development of technology that utilizes, among many other things, lasers which drive your CD/DVD players, and microwaves which heat your food and guide aircraft and tell cops you're speeding, and transistorized electronics which are vital for the construction of computer chips and many, many other forms of new electronic technology that has developed in the latter half of the 20th century. Had science completely dismissed it because it cannot prove everything ever all at once or because it could not immediately be integrated with relativity, we would have lost a massive amount of progress.

The theory of evolution is also a very useful tool. It provides a picture which helps us understand the relationships between different life forms, from members of the same species to members of different kingdoms. As a tool it has, and will continue to, significantly advance our understanding of biology and medicine. It does not matter whether or not it is a perfect account of what happened. What matters is how well it works as a tool. It works better than any other tool before it, and so far, any alternative proposed since. A literalist interpretation of the bible never has, and never will, help us to advance medical science. The theory of evolution, true or not, does. :)

[CAV]

And that is merely your opinion. :)

[jazzgeek]

It all comes down to what you as an individual are willing to accept or not accept. The science, data and theory has been derived in the mind of a man.
And until we meet Him, so has our perception of what, and who, Yahweh/Allah/God is.

Nothing that has been presented in this argument is really absolute or irrefutable and any piece of "data" can be discredited as long as you are willing to do so.
Agreed.

It is either taken at face value or it is dismissed outright. Rather simple isn’t it?
Nope. Evolutionary biologists like Gould, Mayr, etc., spent their lives trying to make Darwin's hypotheses more robust, easily understood, and all-encompassing. Their work has advanced science

By the same token, theologians like St. Augustine, Martin Luther, etc., spent their lives trying to make the understanding of the early Christian church more robust, easily understood, and all-encompassing. Their work has advanced faith.

So you see - ironic as it may seem - Christianity has evolved, too.

For me the plausibility of creation is unmistakable and undeniable; I can open my eyes and see it everyday and it is real to me. Others may not agree and I really could care less.
I would like to think that Stephen Hawking feels the same way. It's just that his approach is different.

As everyone is aware, if either theory was bulletproof, we wouldn't have spent the last week discussing and debating this topic. :)


Agreed, to a point.

To quote from a Kurt Vonnegut character, "Fish got to swim, bird got to fly, man got to sit and wonder, "why, why, why?" Our ability to ask and contemplate the essential questions: what is life, how did we get here, and so on, have been the primary sources for great science, great faith, great art and great literature. It's that ability which separates us from all other life forms. (Well, that, and our complete lack of fear of vacuum cleaners. :) )

That's why I can't ever dismiss it as mere intellectual exercise. That's what the Sunday crossword puzzle is.

IMO, the 'seam' that science and faith share is the great desire to understand that "which passes all understanding". And like any seam, it can be ripped apart, or pulled tighter.

regards,
jazz

[jazzgeek]

Well, I'm going by what ALL of my "random professors"...

OK, is it just me, or does the phrase "random professor" sound like the faculty is drawing straws daily in the lounge to see who gets to teach what?

Now granted, that's how substitute teachers get their gigs.

"Good morning, class. Although I've devoted 30 years of my life to the writings of Homer and Aeschylus, for the next hour I'll be covering.....ketones. Don't miss the convocation next week when Professor Jones from the School of Music talks about elasticity of demand."

regards,
jazz

[TrpnBils]

OK, is it just me, or does the phrase "random professor" sound like the faculty is drawing straws daily in the lounge to see who gets to teach what?

Now granted, that's how substitute teachers get their gigs.

"Good morning, class. Although I've devoted 30 years of my life to the writings of Homer and Aeschylus, for the next hour I'll be covering.....ketones. Don't miss the convocation next week when Professor Jones from the School of Music talks about elasticity of demand."

regards,
jazz
I don't know if that was directed back at me or not, but I wasn't the one to use that phrase originally and I agree with what you're saying here...

[CAV]

"Random professor" denoted any educator in any field, not necessarily the one involved in this thread. Don't get your panties in a wad! :duck:

[Serpwidgets]

For those who are interested in learning about the latest in computer modeling/simulation of evolution, this is an interesting page: http://devolab.cse.msu.edu/software/avida/background.php

They also mention on that page that evolution is a consequence of three things: replication, mutation, and competition. Doesn't matter whether it's biological or electronic or whatever other "units" you are talking about. :)

[CooterJohannson]

Well I be a munkeys uncle! :D That shorenuf was interestin readin. It put me rat to sleep! You boys must really like arguin!

[coyote]

[QUOTE=Itsnowingcorns]Just wanting to add here, in The Corn Snake Manual, it says cases of dystocia (egg binding) has increased due to captivity.


Also I believe that if you released a CB hatchling corn into the wild, it would have just as much chance as any wild corn of surviving, unless it is handicapped from inbreeding.

Not really, Any very light or white colored animal released into the natural environment of cornsnakes is going to be easy pickings for visual predators. Thus removing them from the gene pool and eliminating the argument over whether they will evolve.

[coyote]

In addition, since you believe in evolution then explain how man is the only species with morals.

How do you know that only "humans" have morals. And what are morals exactly?

Every species that lives in social groups will have its own behavioral taboos and cues. Every animal within that species will understand what the taboos and cues are. In many cases the individual has to learn the meanings of these behaviors. And, individuals from different ranges or regions, but of the same species, will have dialects, per se in these behavioral taboos and cues that are different from other groups of other regions or ranges.


You honestly believe the mental capacity for abstract thought just suddenly appeared from a monkey millions of years ago? If that were true, then logically there would be other species as well, not just one. Now while some humans have digressed to a point, no monkey has yet come forward to that degree.

I don't think there was ever a flash bang of any kind of intellectual ability in any primate. The capacity occurrs as a spectrum of ability. A range of high ability to low ability within individuals and within species. Besides, you have not witnessed every accomplished and proven mental feat in every individual or every species that has displayed evidence of such.

RE: CoCo the gorilla, Alex the African Grey, an anonymous crow that created a tool using its own intellect that enabled it to get a bucket of food out of a tube.

None of us can live inside the heads of another species. So, how can anyone be so convinced that there is no comparable thought processes, of any kind in any non-human? When was the last time you were able to bounce sound into your brain and see the composition, form and substance of an object? Dolphins do it all the time. When was the last time you were able to see a warm body through sensors above your lips? When was the last time you secured a meal by following its electrical impulses? When was the last time you used your homing instinct to read the magnetic fields of the planet to find your way home from thousands of miles away? When was the last time you carried your children out of a burning building , in your mouth, one by one, even though everytime you went in you got burned more severely? When was the last time you predicted a tsunami and headed for dry ground before it hit? There is a whole universe of existence that we,as humans will never experience or even have an inkling about. Most of us don't even know it exists. Does it matter? Are we superior? I think we are still very primative and haven't evolved much at all.


BTW, There is proof of other species of humans. They couldn't adapt to the changes and died out.

[coyote]

I think the only way for humans to "evolve" is to evolve in thought, ideas, perception and understanding. This means science. But the scientist with no creativity is not going anywhere interesting.

I have no problem reconciling the Creator with what we know of creation. Seven days is God's time, not ours. One day to God might be like a billion to us. Evolution-there are definite mechanisms for the development of life in place. The planet itself evolves and changes. There are the laws of physics, chemical laws, qhantum physics, string theory, the "Big Bang", quasars, miracles, exquisitely harmonized biological machines and ecosystems. They fail, they rise up again. These are God's mechanisims. Our privilage in being human is that we can investigate and find understandings-our knowledge evolves. It can all collapse and be lost too, like it has more than once. Right now humans have placed themselves in an extremely vulnerable position. If our technology was to fail tomorrow and be lost, most of us alive today would be dead within a month. Technology is not biological. It can't repair or reproduce itself. I'd bet money that our dogs, cats, swine, cattle, horses and captive snakes will do just fine without us. Superiority? It's an illusion, a temporal illusion.

EEgads! Enough already.

[CAV]

Right now humans have placed themselves in an extremely vulnerable position. If our technology was to fail tomorrow and be lost, most of us alive today would be dead within a month. Technology is not biological. It can't repair or reproduce itself. I'd bet money that our dogs, cats, swine, cattle, horses and captive snakes will do just fine without us. Superiority? It's an illusion, a temporal illusion.

What? Are you saying mankinds can't survive in the 21st century? Do you really believe that? :uhoh:

[Itsnowingcorns]

Not really, Any very light or white colored animal released into the natural environment of cornsnakes is going to be easy pickings for visual predators. Thus removing them from the gene pool and eliminating the argument over whether they will evolve.

I obviously didn't word that completely right, I meant a CB snake that has the same colouration as a wild one.

[Clint Boyer]

Seven days is God's time, not ours. One day to God might be like a billion to us.

So why was it written as seven days? Many people take that as fact. The same way they believe Noah loaded one pair of every creature on earth (that would be one pair of every specie in existence today) in a boat. That was proven impossible for the time period.

My point is that the information compiled in that manuscript is highly subjective. Interpreted in order to make sense according to who's reading it. Words, written by man to explain the unknown. Stories passed down through time from humans who "spin" ideas into truths.

Again, I'm not supporting the evolution concept. I just tend to believe in realism. I believe it if it makes sense and so far I see no evidence of a creator in existence today. I tried to believe at one point in time because I feared for my soul. I got no response.

[Serpwidgets]

I'm all giddy about the link above that I posted. I'll tell you why...

In the kingdom of Human Pursuits (entertainment, money, love, happiness, etc.) there are several phyla.

One of these is Phylum: Disciplines. It includes skills that are developed. these can be thinking/analyzing, engineering, athletics, arts, etc.

In this phylum is the Class of Ideas. It involves things that are learned, discovered, studied, and includes religion, philosophy, and science.

In the Cass of ideas is the Order "Science." It includes math, chemistry, biology, astronomy, physics, medicine, etc.

One branch of this Order is the Family of Mathematics. This involves calculating/manipulating numbers, such as arithmetic, algebra, geometry, calculus.

In the Family of Math a new genus has recently come about. Genus: Algorithmics is where calculations/manipulations are made through the use of loops, logical branching, and feedback. This genus was made practical by the proliferation of computers, and includes the quickly evolving fields of games, data compression, simulators, and artificial intelligence, to name a few.

Within this genus -- because of replication, mutation, and competition in the arena of scientific ideas -- a new Species, Evolution, has come about.

Thanks to programs like Avida, the process of evolution -- which was generally only considered in the context of biology -- can now be studied as a form of pure mathematics. As such, it will be able to establish connections between input and output. That is -- just like with Geometry -- postulates, theorems, and proofs regarding evolving systems will emerge from this new branch of math. Through this, we will be able to understand the relationships between different parameters, how each affects or does not affect the others. We can do this in a system where all parts are known and individual parts can be changed in controlled experiments, instead of trying to piece together parts of a humungous puzzle (many of which will never be found) from a single instance. Ideally, we will learn a great deal about how all of the parts interact to produce a predictable "deterministic" output.

This math may not apply in a forward "deterministic" way to life on Earth because life involves random mutation, nor will it necessarily apply in a backward "deterministic" way because we are only looking at a tiny piece of the entire picture. But I think one thing it will prove is that life, as something which is subject to replication/mutation/competition, does evolve. On a higher level it will definitely allow us to see the picture more clearly because we will be able to relate well-established "proofs" and "rules" and "laws" to the process.

Like any science has, I think it will also find use in applications we currently cannot even imagine. I don't think anyone had imagined that trying to measure our velocity upon an "ether" would have led us to discover the means to understand and utilize the release of nuclear energy. I am very excited over what this new branch of mathematics, which is still in its infancy, might have in store for us. :D

[Serpwidgets]

So why was it written as seven days? Many people take that as fact.People will claim they take it literally, but it cannot be taken literally because the sun was not created until the fourth "day." Therefore "day" MUST be interpreted. It is then a matter of "how do you prefer to interpret the word day" and "in what context was it written." Some people arbitrarily choose to interpret it as a specific period of time that they want it to mean, but that choice does not make their interpretation any more valid than anyone else's. :spinner:

[Alias47]

WHEW!!!!

I am glad I missed this entire discussion...it would have kept me up at night.
And what a seriously LONG read...discussing a topic that has been a source of frustration and argument for longer than ANY of us has been living.
Personally...you can go round and round...and show points to back up either side...what it really boils down to is personal belief.

If you believe in the Christian version of creation...you are basing all of your argument in your deeply rooted faith...even the links that "prove" creation are shown with the assumption that the Christian God is, in fact, real.

If you believe in evolution...your arguments are based in theories that have accumulated through natural observation. Theories that have been expounded on...and added to as evidence of new, unexplainable, organisms...both living and extinct...is found. These theories are not irrefutable...just educated guesses.

And Serp hit it right on the head when he said that the two are NOT mutually exclusive. They are only presented as mutually exclusive by people with closed minds who believe the idea that they invest their faith in must be the correct one. This is called passion...and can lead to some very deeply embraced discussions...as we have seen here...

10+ pages of people arguing over who is correct...when neither side can prove their stance and nobody will concede that the other has ground to stand on...

Personally I am an agnostic...I don't believe in a Christian God (or any for that matter)...but I won't rule it out...really, who the hell am I to say if there is or isn't? I went to a military catholic school in high school. It is at a Catholic abbey in Illinois...run by priests...full JROTC every day all day...I took four years of Theology...have read the bible from cover to cover 3 times...and have had creation presented to me with "irrefutable" evidence. I found it was only irrefutable if you happened to believe in Christianity.

I personally subscribe to the evolution theory...flawed as it may be.
I believe that it isn't far from the truth of matters...just missing some pieces...as any BILLIONS of years old mystery will be.



Just another little comment:

The common Christian explanation for the timeline presented in Genesis (depending on how literal the belief of your sect of Christianity is) is that "In the beginning" (sorry, couldn't help it) days could have lasted for eons...and that men may have lived (once original sin was introduced) for thousands and thousands of years...and our lifespans gradually decreased from our first ancestors, Adam and Eve. At least that is the explanation I have heard from VARIOUS sources...not limited only to the Catholic religion.

[CAV]

They are only presented as mutually exclusive by people with closed minds.

Wow Derek, nothing like alienating your audience before you even make your point.

The one thing I'll never be able to figure out is why seemingly educated people get wrapped around the axel over an "idea" that doesn't change the big picture either way. The length of a Genesis day, be it 24 hours or 24 millennia is really inconsequential. Why anguish over it? :shrugs:

[Alias47]

Wow Derek, nothing like alienating your audience before you even make your point.

Yeah, thanks... :dancer:
Only the people who put themselves in this category fit...causing a vicious circle of redundancy.

The one thing I'll never be able to figure out is why seemingly educated people get wrapped around the axel over an "idea" that doesn't change the big picture either way. The length of a Genesis day, be it 24 hours or 24 millennia is really inconsequential. Why anguish over it? :shrugs:

I agree...I was just presenting a definition that has been previously presented to me...for the people who were deliberating the subject in this thread.

[CAV]

for the people who were deliberating the subject in this thread.

With the exception of about five people, most stopped reading this thread about 11 pages ago. ;)

[Alias47]

I understand...
I just STARTED reading it today...

I have mixed feelings...wish I wouldn't have missed it...glad I did...LOL

I know the discussion of time has come up repeatedly...just wanted to address the clarification with which I have been inundated on numerous occasions.

I apologize...just couldn't leave well enough alone...you and I are very much alike for having very different opinions of the world...just HAD to put my 2 cents in...:shrugs:



Least you could do is give me a penny for my thoughts so at least I can recoup HALF my money :D

[coyote]

People will claim they take it literally, but it cannot be taken literally because the sun was not created until the fourth "day." Therefore "day" MUST be interpreted. It is then a matter of "how do you prefer to interpret the word day" and "in what context was it written." Some people arbitrarily choose to interpret it as a specific period of time that they want it to mean, but that choice does not make their interpretation any more valid than anyone else's. :spinner:


Well, I have investigated the validity of accepting the Bible as literal fact, as Fundamentalism does. I found some real problems with that. Now, I am Catholic, And we interpret the Bible rather than take it literally. :argue:

For example, If the Noah story is the literal truth, and we add to it the knowledge we have gained since, then Noah and his family and every animal on board were infected with every parasite and disease in existence. This must be so, using Fundamentalist logic, because only those things Noah saved on the Ark continued to exist.

Second, After finally disembarking, the ravenous predators would consume all the herbivores. No more cattle, giraffes, antelope, horses to repopulate the earth.

Even if the herbivores somehow survive, all their food is gone having been drowned in the waters. And everyone is still infected with parasites and disease.

The mosquitoes would feast on them all and they'd all die from exsanguination.

The gene pools for every surviving species is too small to produce viable populations to cover the earth.

Adam and Eve had three sons (yes three, do your reading). When the sons came of age to select wives and start families, thus populating the earth with humans, where did the wives come from? They did have wives. :confused: For an intriguing answer read Genesis 2. I have had Fundamentalists try to come up with their own ideas of where the wives came from. But doing that negates the insistence they place on taking the Bible literally.

So, the fossil record is a hoax? I don't buy that. Seven days, can not mean seven human days. Catholics do not reject evolution as a mechanism or system put in place by God. God did say "Be fruitful and multiply and cover the earth". He must have know how that was going to be made possible. Evolution enables the few life forms present at the beginning to do just that. I do not say that evolution is the only mechanisim at work. Nor do I think we understand life and evolution as completely as we think we understand it. We are obviously still very primitive beings. We have the creative abilities to produce marvelous technology and understandings of the world we live in. Yet, we are incapable of loving our neighbor, being humble, and being good stewards of the Creation. We are not as highly evolved as we believe we are. If we are more enlightened than our distant ancestors, how come more of us don't see that? :headbang:

[countMEout]

Catholics do not reject evolution as a mechanism or system put in place by God. We are not as highly evolved as we believe we are.

A lot of catholics due not reject evolution because they don't fully understand it because they were never taught it. As in many places it is not mandatory to teach such basic theories. I am waiting for gravity to be removed from most syllabi soon.

On the idea that we are not as highly evolved as we think we are. Well if later today giant caves dropped all over the planet. We lived in a dark cramped world then our evolution would take a drastic turn. Possibly returning to crawling on four limbs and maybe advanced night vision for the new dark environment. EVOLUTION has no goal no plan no blueprint no daily goals on advancement it just occurs and we are able to "moniter" it on a few basic criteria.

[TrpnBils]

With the exception of about five people, most stopped reading this thread about 11 pages ago. ;)
:laugh01: yeah that's probably about right. I dunno though, I've been with this from the very beginning, have read every post as it came about, and thought about this whole topic more in the past 3 months than I probably have in the past 4 years. Personally, I'm glad to see what has gone on here because this is obviously a very hot topic. People stick to their beliefs. I don't think there is ever going to be any defining proof for either of either creation or evolution that is going to convince the "nonbelievers" from either school of thought. But to educate people and present both sides is, in my opinion, more important than reaching a final answer. At least this way it lets people see things from multiple points of view in an open setting and lets them decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong. As for me, I'm stuck with more questions now than when I came into this discussion, so something must be working right. I'd be willing to bet I'm not the only one either.

[CAV]

to educate people and present both sides is, in my opinion, more important than reaching a final answer. At least this way it lets people see things from multiple points of view in an open setting and lets them decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong. As for me, I'm stuck with more questions now than when I came into this discussion, so something must be working right. I'd be willing to bet I'm not the only one either.

On this we both agree!. This assumption was the reason I made the "random professor" comment. The biggest failing of modern education IMO is that it fails to teach alternatives in the curriculum. We have evolved (Did I just use that word?? :uhoh: ) into a society that takes the easy way out of educating our next generation. Instead of encouraging critical thinking and the objective rationalization of topics, we have accepted the disastrous entrance of personal and political agendas into the classrooms of our youth. Until we as a society draw a line in the sand and demand that our educators, their agencies and their unions become apolitical and responsible for content, our hope for objectivity in the classroom, will remain extinct. ;)

[WAS1]

Adam and Eve had more than 3 sons. Gen.5v4 indicates they had lots of children, so I assume their wives must have been relatives?

Not that this has anything to do with the thread, just a reply to COYOTE`s post.

[coyote]

A lot of catholics due not reject evolution because they don't fully understand it because they were never taught it. As in many places it is not mandatory to teach such basic theories. I am waiting for gravity to be removed from most syllabi soon.

On the idea that we are not as highly evolved as we think we are. Well if later today giant caves dropped all over the planet. We lived in a dark cramped world then our evolution would take a drastic turn. Possibly returning to crawling on four limbs and maybe advanced night vision for the new dark environment. EVOLUTION has no goal no plan no blueprint no daily goals on advancement it just occurs and we are able to "moniter" it on a few basic criteria.


I was a biology major in college and have a degree in Veterinary Technology.

[jazzgeek]

On the idea that we are not as highly evolved as we think we are. Well if later today giant caves dropped all over the planet. We lived in a dark cramped world then our evolution would take a drastic turn.

Wait a second; you're in Rochester. You're ALREADY in a dark, cramped world.

(I can get away saying this because I just moved back to WI after living in Western NY :nyah: )

Possibly returning to crawling on four limbs and maybe advanced night vision for the new dark environment.

Cool! I wanna be one of those deep sea fangly fishes with the attached lures.

regards,
jazz

[Serpwidgets]

Well if later today giant caves dropped all over the planet. We lived in a dark cramped world then our evolution would take a drastic turn. Possibly returning to crawling on four limbs and maybe advanced night vision for the new dark environment.Evolution requires competition. In "civilized" human societies, genotype has nothing to do with how many offspring are produced. Civilization removes competition from the equation, and thus stops the process of evolution (as a consequence of genotype being shaped by selection) within those populations. Drift, yes. Evolve, no. ;)

[Alias47]

I am currently reading Robert A. Heinlein's "To Sail Beyond The Sunset" (My first Heinlein novel...and I am HOOKED to say the least)

Today while eating lunch, I just happened on a page or two that fits this discussion very well...we'll see what you all think.

"...introduced me to the fact that theology is a study with no answers because it has no subject matter.

No subject matter? That's right, no subject matter whatever-just colored water with artificial sweetening. "Theo-" = "God" and "-logy" = word(s), i.e., any word ending in "-ology" means "talk about" or "discussion of" or "words concerning" or "study of" a subject named in the first part of the word, whether it is "hippology", or "astrology", or "proctology", or "eschatology", or "scatology", or something else. But to discuss any subject, it is first necessary to agree on what it is you are discussing. "Hippology" presents no problem; everybody has seen a horse. "Proctology"-everybody has seen an arsehole...or, if you have been so carefully brought up that you've never seen one, go down to your city hall; you will find the place full of them. But the subject tagged by the spell-symbol "theology" is a horse of another color.

"God", or "god", or "gods"-have you ever seen "God"? If so, where and when, how tall was She and what did She weigh? What was Her skin color? Did She have a belly button and, if so, why? Did She have breasts? For what purpose? How about organs of reproduction and of excretion-did She or didn't She?

(If you think I am making fun of the idea of a God fashioned in Man's image or vice versa, you have much to go on.)

I will agree that the notion of an anthropomorphic God went out of fashion some time ago with most professional godsmen...but that doesn't get us any nearer to defining the English spell-symbol "God". Let's consult fundamentalist preachers...because Episcopalians won't even let God into His sanctuary unless He shines His shoes and trims that awful beard...and Unitarians won't let Him in at all.

So let's listen to fundamentalists: "God is the Creator. He Created the World. The existance of the World proves that it was created; therefore there is a Creator. That Creator we call 'God'. Let us all bow down and worship Him, for He is Almighty and His works proclaim His might."

Will someone please page Dr. S.I. Hayakawa? Or, if he is busy, any student who received a B+ or better in Logic 101? I'm looking for someone able to discuss the fallacy of circular reasoning and also the concatenative process by which abstract words can be logically defined by building on concrete words. What is a "concrete" word? It is a spell-symbol used to tag something you can point to and thereby agree on, e.g., "cat," "sailboat," "ice-skating"- agree with such certainty that when you say "sailboat" there is no chance whatever that I will think you mean a furry quadruped with retractile claws.

With the spell-symbol "God" there is no way to achieve such agreement because there is nothing to point to. Circular reasoning can't get you out of this dilemma. Pointing to something (the physical world) and asserting that it has to have a Creator and this Creator necessarily has such-and-such attributes proves nothing save that you have made certain assertions without proof. You have pointed at a physical thing, the physical world; you have asserted that this physical thing has to have a "Creator" (Who told you that? What's his mailing address? Who told him?). But to assert that something physical was created out of nothing- not even empty space- by a Thingamajig you can't point to is not to make a philosophical statement or any sort of statement, it is mere noise, amphigory, sound, and fury signifying nothing."

Chew on this for a few.

[Santa]

Have you ever seen a million dollars? How about a billion, or a trillion?
I bet not! But our government spends trillions of dollars every year. Several thousand of that comes out of my pocket so I have no doubt that it exist.

Logic? The last post was a complete waste of words and twisted semantics to prove absolutely nothing.

And by the way, Alias47, what if in the end you are wrong? Chew on that or just go back to your book!

[Clint Boyer]

Have you ever seen a million dollars? How about a billion, or a trillion?

I haven't, but it surely could be piled up in front of me to touch.

Made sense to me.

And by the way, Alias47, what if in the end you are wrong?

Yeah, that's what doesn't make sense to me. Who says what is the right path? If you make the wrong choice you are banished to hell? What a loving way to live.

[Serpwidgets]

PIAGET'S STAGES OF MORAL JUDGMENT

Piaget studied many aspects of moral judgment, but most of his findings fit into a two-stage theory. Children younger than 10 or 11 years think about moral dilemmas one way; older children consider them differently. As we have seen, younger children regard rules as fixed and absolute. They believe that rules are handed down by adults or by God and that one cannot change them. The older child's view is more relativistic. He or she understands that it is permissible to change rules if everyone agrees. Rules are not sacred and absolute but are devices which humans use to get along cooperatively.

At approximately the same time--10 or 11 years--children's moral thinking undergoes other shifts. In particular, younger children base their moral judgments more on consequences, whereas older children base their judgments on intentions. When, for example, the young child hears about one boy who broke 15 cups trying to help his mother and another boy who broke only one cup trying to steal cookies, the young child thinks that the first boy did worse. The child primarily considers the amount of damage--the consequences--whereas the older child is more likely to judge wrongness in terms of the motives underlying the act (Piaget, 1932, p. 137).

---------------

KOHLBERG'S SIX STAGES

Level 1. Preconventional Morality

Stage 1. Obedience and Punishment Orientation. Kohlberg's stage 1 is similar to Piaget's first stage of moral thought. The child assumes that powerful authorities hand down a fixed set of rules which he or she must unquestioningly obey.

Kohlberg calls stage 1 thinking "preconventional" because children do not yet speak as members of society. Instead, they see morality as something external to themselves, as that which the big people say they must do.

Stage 2. Individualism and Exchange. At this stage children recognize that there is not just one right view that is handed down by the authorities. Different individuals have different viewpoints.

Stage 3. Good Interpersonal Relationships. At this stage children--who are by now usually entering their teens--see morality as more than simple deals. They believe that people should live up to the expectations of the family and community and behave in "good" ways. Good behavior means having good motives and interpersonal feelings such as love, empathy, trust, and concern for others.

Stage 4. Maintaining the Social Order. Stage 3 reasoning works best in two-person relationships with family members or close friends, where one can make a real effort to get to know the other's feelings and needs and try to help. At stage 4, in contrast, the respondent becomes more broadly concerned with society as a whole. Now the emphasis is on obeying laws, respecting authority, and performing one's duties so that the social order is maintained.

Stage 1 children say, "It's wrong to steal" and "It's against the law," but they cannot elaborate any further, except to say that stealing can get a person jailed. Stage 4 respondents, in contrast, have a conception of the function of laws for society as a whole--a conception which far exceeds the grasp of the younger child.

Stage 5. Social Contract and Individual Rights. At stage 4, people want to keep society functioning. However, a smoothly functioning society is not necessarily a good one. A totalitarian society might be well-organized, but it is hardly the moral ideal. At stage 5, people begin to ask, "What makes for a good society?" They begin to think about society in a very theoretical way, stepping back from their own society and considering the rights and values that a society ought to uphold. They then evaluate existing societies in terms of these prior considerations.

Stage 6: Universal Principles. Kohlberg's conception of justice follows that of the philosophers Kant and Rawls, as well as great moral leaders such as Gandhi and Martin Luther King. According to these people, the principles of justice require us to treat the claims of all parties in an impartial manner, respecting the basic dignity, of all people as individuals. The principles of justice are therefore universal; they apply to all. Thus, for example, we would not vote for a law that aids some people but hurts others. The principles of justice guide us toward decisions based on an equal respect for all.

Summary

At stage 1 children think of what is right as that which authority says is right. Doing the right thing is obeying authority and avoiding punishment. At stage 2, children are no longer so impressed by any single authority; they see that there are different sides to any issue. Since everything is relative, one is free to pursue one's own interests, although it is often useful to make deals and exchange favors with others.

At stages 3 and 4, young people think as members of the conventional society with its values, norms, and expectations. At stage 3, they emphasize being a good person, which basically means having helpful motives toward people close to one At stage 4, the concern shifts toward obeying laws to maintain society as a whole.

At stages 5 and 6 people are less concerned with maintaining society for it own sake, and more concerned with the principles and values that make for a good society. At stage 5 they emphasize basic rights and the democratic processes that give everyone a say, and at stage 6 they define the principles by which agreement will be most just.

And by the way, Alias47, what if in the end you are wrong?At stage 1, children think of what is right as that which authority says is right. "Doing the right thing" is obeying authority and avoiding punishment.

[Alias47]

Have you ever seen a million dollars? How about a billion, or a trillion?
No...but I have seen money...OFTEN. I am able to surmise by the fact that it is TANGIBLE that if you took 50,000 of the other pieces of paper that look like the 20 in my pocket, you would have a million dollars.
Show me your God...PLEASE. I beg you...let me hold His hand and see that He is a real tangible object...then I can quantify your statement...otherwise you are comparing apples and bricks...not even close to being in the same category.

Logic? The last post was a complete waste of words and twisted semantics to prove absolutely nothing.
It wasn't intended to "prove" anything...other than you are arguing using what you presume to be fact based upon YOUR faith...but what really amounts to an illogical and irrational argument, because your fact is all tied up in something that is intangible and entirely unprovable.

And by the way, Alias47, what if in the end you are wrong? Chew on that or just go back to your book!

If you had actually read (or maybe UNDERSTOOD) what I have written...I consider myself Agnostic. I don't currently believe that there is a "god" or a "higher power" of any sort, regardless of what the world's religions may call "it"...but, like I said EARLIER in this thread, who am I to say?
If there is such a "being" I lead my life the best I can, by being as good to the people around me, friends, family, loved ones, and strangers, alike. If, upon my death, this "being" is apparently real, if "it" condemns me to some sort of alternate existance because I didn't "bow down" to it's might...then I would rather be in the alternate existance than have been a tool my whole life...If I can't get into your heaven after having led a life of caring and giving...then it isn't a place for me anyhow.

My current view of religion is that it is a "safety blanket" for adults.
If you look at the progression of religions through the history of man...religion has always been used to explain the unexplainable...to give credibility to what man cannot comprehend. After the polytheism of Greek and Roman times (if you read any greek or roman mythology, all the myths were used to explain natural phenomena that can modernly be explained through science) most religions became montheistic--One God. Across the board, these monotheistic religions are used to "explain" metaphysics (which is unexplainable using facts)...Who are we? What is our purpose? Where did we come from? And most importantly, what happens after we die? Hence the "safety blanket"...giving humans security in their common fear and uncertainty of death (just like a blanket for a toddler who is afraid of the dark). I do not condemn others for their beliefs...and if it makes the world a better place, so be it (although most of the major tragedy and violence that has occured in the last couple thousand years is fueled by religion). I choose to believe something different...what I do condemn is people forcing their beliefs on me, both directly and through their legislative agenda...this is a complete violation of my person...as much a rape would be.

I currently believe that after death...we are worm food. Just because we have a conscience does not mean there is an afterlife...or a place for our fragile human psyche and personal feeling of self after we die.

[Alias47]

Serp...that is an excellent post...I just don't know if people who argue from an irrational veiwpoint...out of blind obedience...will even comprehend exactly what is being said.

[gardenmum]

My current view of religion is that it is a "safety blanket" for adults.

Well, I think that is fine. Everyone has to have their own views on life, and after-life, and each is certainly entitled to view it their way. The only thing I don't understand is why you would feel it necessary to bash it. I certainly haven't heard anyone here bashing anyone whom doesn't believe, unless I missed something. I would never try to tell anyone what or how he or she should believe in life. But if you really read what you wrote, you are basically "name calling" those that do believe, which is also their right. You may not have meant it that way at all, just comes over that way.

Why does everything have to have "logic" in order to be? Why do we have to "see" everything to know that it does/can exist? We know air exists, we walk through it all our lives (at least I hope we all continue to) but we don't see it. Oh, we can see smoke IN the air but not the air itself. And before you say that we can "see" air by the molecules it is made up of, we don't "see" that. And what about men before these molecules could be seen? They knew air existed and we needed it for our survival. I can't see emotions, I can't see anger or hate or love. I can see the actions produced by these emotions, but I cannot see them. I can feel them inside myself, but I cannot see them in me. I know they exist and I give them a name: Hate, Love, Anger, Sadness. Before man knew that chemical signals were sent to the brain by different mechanisms of the body to create these "feelings" in us, man knew these feelings existed. I know I love because I feel it inside. I know I believe in a God because I feel it inside. We don't NEED to see or know the source or the existence of feelings to know what is there. We don't NEED to know or see that a higher being is there to know that we feel his existence.

And science? What is science other than the continuing study of things that are constantly changing? How many things known as absolute truths by scientists over the years of scientific study were found out to be proved wrong or much more than they had thought? Go back in your history and look at the "scientific fact" that is now scientific hogwash. For how long was the earth positively flat? Gee, the bumblebee by all standards of science shouldn't be able to fly; yet I see them flying all the time. What scientific fact today will be tomorrow’s hogwash? Does science explain a lot to us? Yes. Is science right on a lot of things? Sure. Does science explain everything to us? No.

Here are facts. A tree is made out of wood. The oceans are full of water and salt. Flowers grow and die, fish swim. Birds fly and now so does man. You and I are alive. We live. Why? Because we are made that way. Because our cells tell our bodies what to do and when and how. Why? Because they are "programmed" to, every cell has its own 'job' and if working properly, does it. Why? Because it does. Who knows? Big mystery. So, if some (many) decide that the beauty and complexity of life is more than just a happenstance, then at least it is a belief. Science certainly cannot tell us WHY we are alive, why we came into existence other than theories or hypothesis of why. And, as I said, today's theories and hypothesis are tomorrow’s errors.

No, theology is not the end all of life and neither is science. But the blend of both helps us to understand from where we have come and where we hope to go. We are developing in our knowledge; we will always be developing in it, which will not end till man ends.

You speak of people who believe in Theology as if they are hiding under it as a blanket. No, not hiding. How many people of science were also men of theology? Life is not one or the other, does not have to be. To me it is a wonderful blend. Theology gives me the basis and science unravels and explains many of the mysteries that man is, and forever will be, insatiable over.

This is just my 2 cents so take it as such.

[Alias47]

Everyone has to have their own views on life, and after-life, and each is certainly entitled to view it their way. The only thing I don't understand is why you would feel it necessary to bash it.

I am sorry if I offended you Dianne...or anyone else for that matter. It was definitely not my intention...and I don't believe I was bashing anyone. I was merely stating my personal belief. It is a belief I formed while in high school. I was not raised to be very religious...and went to a Catholic Military high school. It is located at a Catholic abbey and is completely run by the monestary. I took four years of theology while attending this school...which was rooted in Catholicism but explored all the major world religions. Through my first hand experience and the observation of MANY very devout people (not just priests and catholic students, but a couple of Sikh Hindus...and several devout Muslims)...that is the conclusion to which I came. It is an outsiders view of the principles behind current religions in general. One that I alone express...and was not meant as an aside...or attack...but simply my observance. I would never tell someone they are wrong just because their personal beliefs differ from mine.


We know air exists, we walk through it all our lives (at least I hope we all continue to) but we don't see it.
We can feel air...in the breeze...when in front of a fan...when a big truck drives by...it IS a tangible object, even if it is invisible.

I can't see emotions, I can't see anger or hate or love. I can see the actions produced by these emotions, but I cannot see them.
Emotions are a perception inside the human psyche...not tangible OR rational. Some people don't have emotion...and some have what appears to be too MUCH emotion...but emotion is an idea inside each one of us...can't be defined, because each one of us perceives emotion in a different way. It is intangible and personal...and unique for each one of us...but has nothing to do with arguing the existance of a higher being.

I know I believe in a God because I feel it inside. We don't NEED to see or know the source or the existence of feelings to know what is there. We don't NEED to know or see that a higher being is there to know that we feel his existence.
And this is the best reason I have seen for belief in God. If I felt something that powerful...I would most definitely believe in it as well.
This fits into the same category AS emotion...it is very personal...and unique in each of us...some may feel it completely...and others not at all.
My original thoughts really weren't to do with the existance of God. I am not arguing that there is or is not...I really don't know. Who am I to say? My argument was that creationism cannot be proven by saying "There is a tree, I believe it is the work of God, therefore He is the Creator and nothing could have evolved". This is illogical and based on personal faith...not rational credibility.


You speak of people who believe in Theology as if they are hiding under it as a blanket.
Just my personal observation and analogy. I don't think of them as "hiding" persay...I am saying that religion allows people to face their death with dignity and hopefulness...with a smile on their face. Nothing could be more wonderful.

How many people of science were also men of theology? Life is not one or the other, does not have to be. To me it is a wonderful blend. Theology gives me the basis and science unravels and explains many of the mysteries that man is, and forever will be, insatiable over.
I agree...

As I said before...I am not here to persecute anyone for their personal beliefs or religion...we can all talk about it until we are blue in the face and make no ground...believe me this isn't the first time I have had this coversation. Because of MY beliefs I was allowed to read Plato's Republic instead of participating in one semester of Theology...all the guys who grew up with Catholicism were getting A's without having to study...I was struggling miserably...I voiced my opinion and got an alternative option...(Plato's Republic is interesting...but as close to punishment as one could get)...
We all believe what we will...with no proof to the contrary for either side...and that is fine...as long as people lead a decent life...and are good to(or at the very least, uninvolved with) others...than there is nothing to argue about. You can't prove or disprove religion.

[gardenmum]

I will always believe that "The Created Evolve." And I do mean evolve. Always have. I just have my own thoughts on "evolving" as most of us do. I personally don't think we evolved FROM the ape. But that is just my belief and I don't feel science has "proven" this to me adequately enough to make me change that view. That is all.

And for those who think that Christians only believe in Creationism, then you had better take a closer look at the religious belief. Evolution is part of this belief and not frowned upon in any way by this religious belief. That is entirely up to each individual to decide at what length they believe in what. Some do believe in total 100% Creationism and that the earth is only very young. Others don't. I'm in the don't catagory and it is not frowned on and is in fact part of our religious belief and right.

You may be surprised at the men that study geology and other sciences that are also in the religious realm of life. In fact, I know and am friends with a man who has studied geology and has written books/pamphlets on this as well as doing photography in this field. He is a Director and Professor Emeritus of Weston Observatory, Dept. of Geology and Geophysics, Boston College. He has a Ph.D. in Geology from Harvard University. He has been active in research on geological correlations on the North American, European, and African margins of the Atlantic Ocean and on assembly and dispersal of supercontinents. He is a past president of the International Division of the Geological Society of America. He has studied the geological formation and time line of North Eastern US. OH....and did I mention he is a Jesuit Priest with a Bachelor of Sacred Theology, etc. from Weston Jesuit School of Theology? He comes to our little 'ole tiny town of Readsboro, population of 600, and visits with his friends and has covered our weekend Masses at times. And I have gotten to know and be friends with him. He has a book out called "Modern Science and the Book of Genesis" and is Co-Contributor to a National Science Teachers Associations (NSTA) book called "The Creation Controversy & The Science Classroom" written in 2000. A very interesting book on evolution and creation. As well as the pamphlets "Thological Basis for a Judeo-Christian Position on Creationism", "Spiritual Foundations for Ethics in the Geosciences" - which was delivered as a Keynot Address to the Geological Society of America's Presidential Penrose Conference, "Ethics in the Geosciences" in Oregon on July 17, 1997 and "Science and Creation" put out by the AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science). I am not saying that he, or anyone else, is 100% right in everything they write/believe, nor do my beliefs corrolate 100% with any of them. I take all the information I gather and formulate what I believe out of it as everyone else here does. But I am saying that theology and science do go hand in hand.

And he is not the only one of religious background to be involved in such things by any means.

Believing in any theology does not preclude believing in or understanding evolution or the origins of any matter or science. Just so you don't lump people of theological beliefs into a totally "scientific exclussion" group. :)

And I still maintain that what we "know" today can well change tomorrow. :o

[gardenmum]

I am sorry if I offended you Dianne...or anyone else for that matter.
No, you did not offend me. I took it as I said I did, but I did not take abrasive offense from it. I just decided I would write my thoughts, is all. No need to feel you have offended me, but thank you.

but emotion is an idea inside each one of us...can't be defined, because each one of us perceives emotion in a different way.
Well, this is all subjective since there are various "scientific" looks at the reason for emotions.

We all believe what we will...with no proof to the contrary for either side...and that is fine...as long as people lead a decent life...and are good to(or at the very least, uninvolved with) others...than there is nothing to argue about.
On this I will mostly agree. To try to cram a particular view down another's throat goes nowhere and just makes for frustrated people all around. As long as people are good, then I believe they are good. So to this point I am in full agreement with you. But uninvolved equates to uncaring which equates to selfish and lazy which does not equate to "good." Only MY opinion on this.


You can't prove or disprove religion.
No. But man has had religion since man had knowledge. You are talking about a belief in a higher being when no one was there to "teach" theological ideas. Belief in this comes from inside and "seems" to be built into man, from cavemen to today. So, shrug? Yes, I know you would say it is man's way of explaining the unexplained. But I can also contend that is man's inner touch with his maker. Either way cannot be proved so we all find our own place in life and beliefs that fit us and in which we can feel comfortable with.

So, yes, I agree to our rights to disagree. :)

[ecreipeoj]

This is a very interesting thread to say the least. If you appreciate a good debate, then we certainly have one here. There have been some very intelligent and well thought out post. My main reason to make a post, is so I will get an email notice of new posts so I can follow along.
Logic? The last post was a complete waste of words and twisted semantics to prove absolutely nothing.
Logic and Faith are not good bed fellows. Most religions are based upon faith in stories alone and logic and facts are ignored.
And by the way, Alias47, what if in the end you are wrong?
This is a statement based upon FEAR. Fear is not a good basis for making choices and removes logical thinking and common sence. This same type of fear and “logic” is what made people believe the world was flat for so long.

Do you think that captivity has had an effect on cornsnake? What are anyones thoughts on evolution and how it is effected by captivity? Will corns in captivity evolve or does the captivity inhibit it?

Evolution has meaning, but in captivity it apparently can not be applied. A Great Dane and Chihuahua may still be able to reproduce, but not without the help of their “Creator”. Obviously, selective breeding can have a lot of influence on captive animals in a very short amount of time or generations

[Santa]

This is a statement based upon FEAR. Fear is not a good basis for making choices and removes logical thinking and common sence. This same type of fear and “logic” is what made people believe the world was flat for so long.


Read it again, that was not a statement - it was a question to ponder. I do not fear my creator.




Evolution has meaning, but in captivity it apparently can not be applied. A Great Dane and Chihuahua may still be able to reproduce, but not without the help of their “Creator”. Obviously, selective breeding can have a lot of influence on captive animals in a very short amount of time or generations

Once again you are trying to interchange evolution and selective breeding.

Selective breeding of captive animals CAN and DOES have a lot of influence on the size, color, hair, and usefullness and/or value to humans. But biologically the Great Dane and Chihuahua and the wolves from which they were developed are still the same animal with the same instincts, teeth, and feet.

Once you take the hide off of a head of beef, you can't tell if it was a Hereford, Angus, Gelvieh, or Simmental. And now that most cattle breeders are breeding for black hides, sometimes you can't even tell with the hide on.

On a lighter note, and FYI, my wife's Chihauhau male has bred my son's Lab (not quite a Great Dane) without any help from the "creator". He did it all on his own - while she was laying down! Darnest thing I ever saw! :santa:

[Serpwidgets]

Even though it's quite obvious to anyone with an eyeball and an ounce of common sense that the moon is a sphere, the Earth was "positively flat" for as long as the churches said it was. This was certainly no product of anything that resembles "science."

The Earth was also the center of the universe, for as long as the churches said it was. They tried to make up "sciencey" explanations of how this worked. (They're doing that today, too. They call it "creation science" even though there's nothing scientific about it, and they pretend like it's not a political movement.) They tortured people to death in order to keep anyone from disagreeing with their dogma.

There is no way for science to disprove any religion. Religion has no place in the study of objective facts. The two are not mutually exclusive. They have nothing to do with each other. A few very narrow-minded people on both sides seem to think otherwise.

I believe that the people who were being referred to as lacking logic or making no sense were the people who insist that their version of the story is the only one and excludes all others, which are of course by definition wrong, because if you don't believe it then you will be punished... which will prove to you how wrong you are.

[Alias47]

But uninvolved equates to uncaring which equates to selfish and lazy which does not equate to "good."

By uninvolved I meant to say indifferent, not necessarily selfish (although could be,depending on the individual) and not lazy...just someone who leaves others alone and doesn't intrude into my (or others) personal life, unwarranted.

Just wanted to clarify, I knew when I wrote it that it wasn't quite conveying my meaning...my head was spinning a little yesterday :spinner:, I've been sick...LOL

[Serpwidgets]

There's a difference between replication, adaptation, and evolution.

If you have a bucket filled with an equal number of red, green, and blue marbles, you can replicate it by "copying" every marble in that bucket to a new bucket to create a new generation. If each marble is copied into a single marble in the new bucket, the population will never change.

If, instead, you copy larger numbers of green marbles and smaller numbers of red marbles each time you replicate, the population will "adapt" to the selection pressure (toward green and away from red) and each generation will be more and more different from the original starting point. This is adaptation due to selection. With adaptation, you are only selecting from the pool of pre-existing variations.

The difference between adapting and evolving is the factor of new variation being injected into the mix, between generations. The mutation rate for albinism, for example, is about 1 in 30,000. This means that if you breed a population of normal corns, none of which are carrying the amel mutant, that about 1 in 30,000 hatchlings will be het for amel, as a result of spontaneous mutation. Offspring can and do inherit genes that their parents do not possess. Considering that corns have tens of thousands of genes, a significant percentage of hatchlings can be carrying genes that neither of their parents (or any of the existing population) possess.

Other changes can occur, too. For example, Down's syndrome is the result of an entire chromosome being duplicated and occurs in about 1 in 1,000 births. (Two parents who both have two copies of this chromosome can have a child who has three copies, so it was not "inherited" it is a spontaneous change.) This is a very significant change from one generation to another.

So, back to the marble thing... if you start with a bucket of only red, green, and blue marbles, and replicate your bucket through a number of generations, selecting toward green and away from bred, the bucket's population will "adapt." If when you are replicating, one of the marbles (via mutation) gives rise to a yellow marble in the new bucket, you can then select for the yellow marbles and change the population. This is not just adaptation, it is evolution.

If you get "gray" and "orange" mutations, you can start with a bucket full of red, green, and blue marbles that evolves into a bucket full of gray, yellow, and orange marbles. In order to get from point A to point B, it has to have evolved and not just adapted. Is it only when the first yellow marble appears that it is evolving? Is it only when the final red, green, or blue marble is eliminated from the population that it has evolved? At what point is it evolving and what other points is it only adapting?

[Shaky]

In regards to absolute "proof"-Its not really possible except in Mathematics.

If there were a shred of pure evidence in Creationism, the world would be a vastly different place. Unfortunately, there are hundreds of creation myths, each believed as truth by its constituents, and many find it difficult to believe in one over the other, due to a lack of evidence. However, just because I believe there is a god, doesn't mean I have to believe in any creation theory.

If there were a way to purely Prove evolution, there would be no discussion.
You can see all the fossil records which show a logical progression between eohippus and the modern horse (and tens of other examples which show "full" progression) and still say it doesn't prove anything because they are all different species.

My point is that there is no definitive proof either way.