when I accept evolution do i give up my faith?

[Autodidact]

Why was there a need for the explanation of punctuated equilibrium if the fossil record supports Darwinism which is slow changes of long periods of time?

For perhaps the hundredth time, MoF, you cannot debate ToE without learning what it is. Punctuated Equilibrium includes slow changes over long periods of time.

In any case, are you arguing that punctuated equilibrium ("punk eek") is correct?

 

[tarasan]

I apologize. Perhaps I have just been hanging out with people like me too much. I thought biblical contradictions were well known. I will gladly provide you with a list longer than your arm... tomorrow. It's 2am here and I must go to bed.

sure thingy man ill see u tommorow, and yes im a little aware of them, but most that athiest give to me are pathetic attempts at best i assumed u had better

If we are to test them by their fruits then even Jesus doesn't make the grade. After all, he rather infamously proclaimed that none of his disciples would die before seeing the end of the world. Still waiting...

-S-

hmmm that isnt so certian if u dig into the language of it, about the whole generation/race thing, but ill be interested to see how u take the contradictions XD

 

[Man of Faith]

For perhaps the hundredth time, MoF, you cannot debate ToE without learning what it is. Punctuated Equilibrium includes slow changes over long periods of time.

In any case, are you arguing that punctuated equilibrium ("punk eek") is correct?

Punctuated Equilibrium is eovlution in rare rapid events, not long slow changes.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Punctuated Equilibrium is eovlution in rare rapid events, not long slow changes.

Not really.

What punctuated equilibrium says is that evolution (i.e. the mechanisms of random mutation, inheritance and natural selection) is always occurring, but the longer an environment is stable, the less likely it will be that any given mutation will be beneficial, so species will tend to be fairly stable as well. It also says that when an environment undergoes a major change, this will disrupt what is "optimal" and it will be more likely that mutations will be beneficial, which causes change.

This doesn't mean that evolution doesn't occur at all in those long, steady periods, just that the rate of genetic change in species will be less.

Also, keep in mind that the "punctuations" of punctuated equilibria can take millions of years.

 

[Autodidact]

Punctuated Equilibrium is eovlution in rare rapid events, not long slow changes.

The rare rapid events ARE long slow changes. "Rapid" is a comparative term, still painfully slow and taking hundreds of generations.

So, are you endorsing punk eek or rejecting it?

 

[tarasan]

The rare rapid events ARE long slow changes. "Rapid" is a comparative term, still painfully slow and taking hundreds of generations.

So, are you endorsing punk eek or rejecting it?

Im not arguing but just for general knowledge but how long does it take to get from an omeba to us? i could look it up on google but this window is up and i be lazy to move my mouse.

 

[sonofskeptish]

hey guys, I was reading through a thread I made, (which I aplogise for, I wasnt think when i posted and it was outta line)

but I came across a interesting point that i wanna carry on to this thread.

Do I give up my Christian faith when I say I believe in evolution.

I was a great talk between storm and others, so I wanna see what everyone else thinks.

I for one believe that the Creation story was probably a narrative designed to show that God created, not how he created. that is a horribly short version and Ill elaborate if i have too but its late and i wanna get this question out before I forget. :sleep:

If ones creationist beliefs are "young earth" in nature, and those beliefs are a mandatory foundation of ones faith, and one refuses to question ones faith (making it exempt from critisizm), then regardless of reality, one is unable/unwilling to believe the fact of evolution.

In other words, when you accept certain faith-based beliefs as truths, you must give up your ability to believe in rationally-based things like evolution. Your supernatural world view trumps all natural world views, regardless of missing or contradicting facts, evidence or logic.

Thankfully, many religious people are unwilling to completely check their brains at the church door, and do place some value on reality, and for them, faith and evolution can co-exist in a modern, "adjusted" faith-based world view which also accepts reality-based explanations like evolution.

 

[Autodidact]

Im not arguing but just for general knowledge but how long does it take to get from an omeba to us? i could look it up on google but this window is up and i be lazy to move my mouse.

Well, not an amoeba exactly, but from the earliest unicellular life, around 3 billion years. Here's a cool graphic; we show up in that top little piece only.

Here's another; again, we're at the tippy top there.

and a nice simple one:

 

[RedOne77]

Well, not an amoeba exactly, but from the earliest unicellular life, around 3 billion years.

I always find it funny when evolutionists get their own facts wrong. I know this is a relatively minor detail in the discussion, but I thought I'd point it out. The "earliest" life known is cyanobacteria dated to 3.5 billion years; not 3 or 3.3Ga.

From Fossil Record of the Cyanobacteria

"The cyanobacteria have an extensive fossil record. The oldest known fossils, in fact, are cyanobacteria from Archaean rocks of western Australia, dated 3.5 billion years old."

 

[Gunfingers]

*cool pics*

Do you have a larger version of those by any chance?

The "earliest" life known is cyanobacteria dated to 3.5 billion years; not 3 or 3.3Ga.

I think she covered that by saying "around", rather than "exactly".

 

[tumbleweed41]

I always find it funny when evolutionists get their own facts wrong. I know this is a relatively minor detail in the discussion, but I thought I'd point it out. The "earliest" life known is cyanobacteria dated to 3.5 billion years; not 3 or 3.3Ga.

From Fossil Record of the Cyanobacteria

"The cyanobacteria have an extensive fossil record. The oldest known fossils, in fact, are cyanobacteria from Archaean rocks of western Australia, dated 3.5 billion years old."

Funny indeed.
Of course there is a huge difference between leaving off the .5 in the 3.5 billion years ago estimate for the earliest life and the psudoscientific claim of life emerging only 5,700 to 10,000 years ago.

 

[Autodidact]

I always find it funny when evolutionists get their own facts wrong. I know this is a relatively minor detail in the discussion, but I thought I'd point it out. The "earliest" life known is cyanobacteria dated to 3.5 billion years; not 3 or 3.3Ga.

From Fossil Record of the Cyanobacteria

"The cyanobacteria have an extensive fossil record. The oldest known fossils, in fact, are cyanobacteria from Archaean rocks of western Australia, dated 3.5 billion years old."

Hence the word "around."

 

[Autodidact]

Do you have a larger version of those by any chance?

I think she covered that by saying "around", rather than "exactly".

Not to hand. Let us know if you find any.

 

[RedOne77]

Hence the word "around."

:thud: My reading comprehension is falling by the minute.

 

[Autodidact]

RedOne--Don't you owe us some answers to outstanding questions, including a definition of a "kind?"

(although I may be confusing my threads)

 

[RedOne77]

You are right that I have yet to answer that question.

I'm not sure which thread that is in either, at this point they are all jumbled up in my head.

Since I assume everyone will read this I'll just give my one and a half cents on the word "kind" here. I don't deny speciation, and I wouldn't deny populations evolving into different genus's if you can show it. As I'm sure most of you know, the concept of "species" in the evolutionary world view is the only significant taxonomic rank, all others are merely for our/scientists convenience. While taxonomy may be objective, it is only a human conception, and thus open for revisions. The word "kind" is seen in the Bible, states that kinds only produce their own kind. It used to be thought that a "kind" was equivalent to species, as species is the Latin for kind. Since then new data has emerged showing speciation, and so the term kind was revised. Unfortunately there has been no clear consensus where exactly kind falls on the taxonomic rank system, some snay genus while others say family and yet others want to say order or sub-order and so forth. The problem with this goes back to the fact all these taxonomic ranks are human conceptions, so saying that kind is equivalent to X taxonomic rank is superficial. For example, Chimps are a different genus than humans right now, but there is talk about changing it to homo. If kind is equal to genus, than that poses some problems. I'm not trying to say that change to models are bad, but to equate kind to a taxonomic rank is pointless. You can think of kind as a taxonomic rank, showing that each animal is descendant from their original ancestor, and all organisms from that ancestor belong to the same kind. Do I know exactly where each species falls? No, and as to date I don't think anyone does or ever has. I'm no taxonomist (big surprise, I know), but I see kind near the genus or family level, but I just don't know.

 

[tarasan]

Well, not an amoeba exactly, but from the earliest unicellular life, around 3 billion years. Here's a cool graphic; we show up in that top little piece only.

Here's another; again, we're at the tippy top there.

and a nice simple one:

see thats just my ignorance thanks man XD

 

[Gunfingers]

You are right that I have yet to answer that question.

I'm not sure which thread that is in either, at this point they are all jumbled up in my head.

Since I assume everyone will read this I'll just give my one and a half cents on the word "kind" here. I don't deny speciation, and I wouldn't deny populations evolving into different genus's if you can show it. As I'm sure most of you know, the concept of "species" in the evolutionary world view is the only significant taxonomic rank, all others are merely for our/scientists convenience. While taxonomy may be objective, it is only a human conception, and thus open for revisions. The word "kind" is seen in the Bible, states that kinds only produce their own kind. It used to be thought that a "kind" was equivalent to species, as species is the Latin for kind. Since then new data has emerged showing speciation, and so the term kind was revised. Unfortunately there has been no clear consensus where exactly kind falls on the taxonomic rank system, some snay genus while others say family and yet others want to say order or sub-order and so forth. The problem with this goes back to the fact all these taxonomic ranks are human conceptions, so saying that kind is equivalent to X taxonomic rank is superficial. For example, Chimps are a different genus than humans right now, but there is talk about changing it to homo. If kind is equal to genus, than that poses some problems. I'm not trying to say that change to models are bad, but to equate kind to a taxonomic rank is pointless. You can think of kind as a taxonomic rank, showing that each animal is descendant from their original ancestor, and all organisms from that ancestor belong to the same kind. Do I know exactly where each species falls? No, and as to date I don't think anyone does or ever has. I'm no taxonomist (big surprise, I know), but I see kind near the genus or family level, but I just don't know.

You define kind yourself in the post, by saying organisms reproduce after their own kind. In other words organisms are of the same kind if they are able to mate with eachother and produce offspring.

If accurate this has a few problems
1) There are cases where members of population A can reproduce with population B, and population B can reproduce with population C, but population A cannot reproduce with population C. This would make A the same kind as B, B the same kind as C, but A and C not the same kind. Link
2) Not all organisms reproduce with another organism. Bacteria simply divide, making it impossible to know if they can reproduce with one another.
3) The "able to reproduce" line has been crossed. Here is an example of it being done under lab conditions with fruit flies.

 

[RedOne77]

You define kind yourself in the post, by saying organisms reproduce after their own kind. In other words organisms are of the same kind if they are able to mate with eachother and produce offspring.

No, some organisms in the same kind can't interbreed. Kind isn't so much defined as the ability to reproduce, it is more about common ancestry.

If accurate this has a few problems
1) There are cases where members of population A can reproduce with population B, and population B can reproduce with population C, but population A cannot reproduce with population C. This would make A the same kind as B, B the same kind as C, but A and C not the same kind. Link

Ring species are in the same kind.

2) Not all organisms reproduce with another organism. Bacteria simply divide, making it impossible to know if they can reproduce with one another.
3) The "able to reproduce" line has been crossed. Here is an example of it being done under lab conditions with fruit flies.

Again, it isn't about being able to reproduce, it is about common ancestry. In fruit fly speciation, both (or all three if you count the original) species are the same kind. Species and kind are definitely not interchangeable and as you concluded.

 

[Gunfingers]

In other words kind is an utterly meaningless word, whose scope is whatever it takes for you to be able to say that all evolution takes place within a single baramin? I'm sorry if this comes off as harsh, but you're basically setting it up so you can't ever be wrong. Why not just say that all organisms are in the same kind? Then you would actually be right!