Evolution and Genesis

[SoCalCoug]

To summarize:

1. Indy Coug believes it possible that God used the mechanism of natural selection to create man in his image. However, there are holes in this theory, so he questions its validity.

2. Indy Coug believes it possible that God created man via some other currently unknown mechanism.

Indy Coug tends to believe # 2 is the more likely scenario.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth - I'm just trying to understand your position, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

That's what the Theory of Evolution says.

So you're telling me that evolutionary science begins with the assumption that God placed a cell on our planet?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

To summarize:

1. Indy Coug believes it possible that God used the mechanism of natural selection to create man in his image. However, there are holes in this theory, so he questions its validity.

2. Indy Coug believes it possible that God created man via some other currently unknown mechanism.

Indy Coug tends to believe # 2 is the more likely scenario.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth - I'm just trying to understand your position, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

I was taking on Sooner's challenge.

Originally Posted by Sooner Coug

I simply cannot understand why someone would doubt human evolution, given the evidence.

What I think is COMPLETELY UNLIKELY is that God whipped up a stew of amino acids and a lightning bolt and then came back in 4.5 billion years to stick a spirit into something that happened to actually look like God.

The theory of evolution essentially states that homo sapiens is simply the byproduct of countless random mutations. I wholeheartedly disagree with that theory.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

So you're telling me that evolutionary science begins with the assumption that God placed a cell on our planet?

No, evolutionary science makes no claim about God, but it does claim that life began with single-celled organisms.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

The theory of evolution essentially states that homo sapiens is simply the byproduct of countless random mutations. I wholeheartedly disagree with that theory.

If an infinite number of monkeys banged on an infinite number of typewriters for an infinite number amount of time ....

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

The theory of evolution essentially states that homo sapiens is simply the byproduct of countless random mutations. I wholeheartedly disagree with that theory.

Indy. Please take a deep breath. I'm going to try to explain this to you for the third time.

Mutations occur randomly. Most mutations either have no effect or cause problems. You generally don't notice this kind of mutation, unless your wife has a miscarriage or you have a handicapped child or you end up with a genetic disease.

Selection for particular mutations depends on the environment. Cystic fibrosis exists because cholera selected for its existence (a single mutation allowed survival during cholera epidemics, while no mutation or two mutations cause death). Selection is NOT random in the sense that good mutations are more likely to remain (good meaning those that promote survival and reproduction). Whether a mutation is "good or bad" (that is, whether it promotes survival and reproduction) depends on the environment. Elements of the environment are also random. But the result is predictable based on the environment.

But we live in a world where huge amounts of energy are injected from the sun, so the net result is not a random result. Disorder on our globe does not increase, since there is a huge amount of energy being injected into the system from the sun.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Can the law of gravity be proved with methods other than observed phenomenon?

Perhaps, depends on what youmean by rpoof and what you mean by other than observed phenomenon.

Can evolution be proved as a law of speciation and adaptation by any method other than observed phenomenon?

Same answer

And before you retreat to the notion that we do not live on the earth long enough to connect all of the dots so to speak, carefully consider the actual evidence as compared to the current theories. (ironically) How must the theories evolve before you get to the same point of certainty in regards to the law of gravity?

It's not a retreat as I ahve already made this point. Have you carefully considered the evidence supporting evolution? I have read a fair amount about it and I find the evidence to be rather overwhelming in support of natural selctiona as the mechanism leading to the diversity of life, especially when one rolls the DNA materials into the discussion. There is no other viable theory out there. None. Name one that is based on observed eivdence as opposed to faith or belief. For a biologist, I think Nat slection is pretty much on the sdame footing as Gravity is to a physicist. All real scientists feel free to tell me why I am wrong, however.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

No, evolutionary science makes no claim about God, but it does claim that life began with single-celled organisms.

Indy: Do you believe in cancer?

[SoonerCoug]

What do we know about cancer?

First of all, it's a painful topic, as 1 in 3 of us will eventually get cancer.

Why do people get cancer? I'm asked this question very frequently. The simple explanation is that cancer is evolution within our own bodies. I don't usually provide that particular answer, since ~50% of Americans don't "believe" in evolution, despite the fact that the very processes that drive evolution cause so much death and disease.

Every time a cell divides, it must also duplicate its DNA.

Our natural "DNA copy machine" is imperfect. It makes mistakes. Mutation rates are standard for a given species, but mutation rates in certain cells are affected by the environment (e.g. smoking increases the mutation rate in lung cells, thereby increasing the cancer risk). Sometimes those mistakes (mutations) cause problems, and sometimes they don't. Sometimes people are born with mutations that cause cancer in infancy, and sometimes people are born with mutations that increase the chances of obtaining additional mutations later in life. If a single cell acquires certain random mutations, then its ability to survive and reproduce is enhanced. Most cells have a "self-destruct" mechanism if too many things go wrong, but the self-destruct mechanism also relies on proper function of certain genes.

1 in 3 people will get cancer because of random mutations and selection within our own bodies. If 30% of all people experience evolution on the scale that causes their own death, then why would we be so blind as to deny the evolution of species? And do we doubt that cancer cells are usually victorious in competition with other cells in our bodies? Both phenomena are driven by identical processes (random mutation and selection).

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

Indy. Please take a deep breath. I'm going to try to explain this to you for the third time.

Mutations occur randomly. Most mutations either have no effect or cause problems. You generally don't notice this kind of mutation, unless your wife has a miscarriage or you have a handicapped child or you end up with a genetic disease.

Selection for particular mutations depends on the environment. Cystic fibrosis exists because cholera selected for its existence (a single mutation allowed survival during cholera epidemics, while no mutation or two mutations cause death). Selection is NOT random in the sense that good mutations are more likely to remain (good meaning those that promote survival and reproduction). Whether a mutation is "good or bad" (that is, whether it promotes survival and reproduction) depends on the environment. Elements of the environment are also random. But the result is predictable based on the environment.

But we live in a world where huge amounts of energy are injected from the sun, so the net result is not a random result. Disorder on our globe does not increase, since there is a huge amount of energy being injected into the system from the sun.

But if someone set this all in motion can they really be considered random mutations?