• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Evolution as it relates to Religion

Balthazzar

Christian Evolutionist
The in's and out's of evolution are unknown to me, but adaptation, survival of the fittest, and natural selection are not. Humans have remnants of a tail. Is this from our evolution in the womb, or a future possibility for us, or are we simply on route to a repeat from single cells to newborn's on a larger scale?

As a planet, tectonic egg shell like plates shift and move causing changes in land masses and tides and atmosphere. I wonder if it possible that our planet is evolving as a cell (like an egg) as we act as tiny micro type of influence in it's evolution. How and where does religion fit in? Maybe in terms of unknowing and trying to figure out our future from our past and present.

New to this line of reasoning
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
The in's and out's of evolution are unknown to me, but adaptation, survival of the fittest, and natural selection are not. Humans have remnants of a tail. Is this from our evolution in the womb, or a future possibility for us, or are we simply on route to a repeat from single cells to newborn's on a larger scale?

As a planet, tectonic egg shell like plates shift and move causing changes in land masses and tides and atmosphere. I wonder if it possible that our planet is evolving as a cell (like an egg) as we act as tiny micro type of influence in it's evolution. How and where does religion fit in? Maybe in terms of unknowing and trying to figure out our future from our past and present.

New to this line of reasoning
Well evolution only applies to living organisms as they adapt and change. Non living matter does not adapt although it changes through cause and effect. There is no survival component with the latter.

I think evolution can apply but living and non living matter remains exclusive.
 

Balthazzar

Christian Evolutionist
Well evolution only applies to living organisms as they adapt and change. Non living matter does not adapt although it changes through cause and effect. There is no survival component with the latter.

I think evolution can apply but living and non living matter remains exclusive.

Vegetation? At one time, I would have viewed plants and tree's to not go through adaptive changes, but not anymore. Vegetation is alive and does in-fact go through changes. If this is true today, then why not also in 5 billion years? The bible tells us not to worry about what we will wear or eat ... futuristically speaking. That can be a difficult charge sometimes. Anyway, we're here and we're adaptable, and always changing. It's a womb of sorts ... This planet I mean.
 

Viker

Häxan
Nonorganic matter doesn't evolve as in biological evolution. All life evolves as is needed. I doubt humans will be here in a billion years. Religion usually can't or just doesn't deal with any of this. Religion tends to focus on the spiritual and moral implications of our past, present and future.
 

Suave

Simulated character
The in's and out's of evolution are unknown to me, but adaptation, survival of the fittest, and natural selection are not. Humans have remnants of a tail. Is this from our evolution in the womb, or a future possibility for us, or are we simply on route to a repeat from single cells to newborn's on a larger scale?

As a planet, tectonic egg shell like plates shift and move causing changes in land masses and tides and atmosphere. I wonder if it possible that our planet is evolving as a cell (like an egg) as we act as tiny micro type of influence in it's evolution. How and where does religion fit in? Maybe in terms of unknowing and trying to figure out our future from our past and present.

New to this line of reasoning

Perhaps we can agree with defining evolution as significant enough gene pool changes within a species changing over the course of many generations resulting in organisms having genetic traits different enough from their distant ancestors; so that there'd be no possible sexual reproduction occurring between somebody who were to have distant ancestral genetic traits with anybody living in the current population.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
The in's and out's of evolution are unknown to me, but adaptation, survival of the fittest, and natural selection are not. Humans have remnants of a tail. Is this from our evolution in the womb, or a future possibility for us, or are we simply on route to a repeat from single cells to newborn's on a larger scale?

As a planet, tectonic egg shell like plates shift and move causing changes in land masses and tides and atmosphere. I wonder if it possible that our planet is evolving as a cell (like an egg) as we act as tiny micro type of influence in it's evolution. How and where does religion fit in? Maybe in terms of unknowing and trying to figure out our future from our past and present.

New to this line of reasoning

A lil reading on evolution and less idle
speculation maybe
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
The in's and out's of evolution are unknown to me, but adaptation, survival of the fittest, and natural selection are not. Humans have remnants of a tail. Is this from our evolution in the womb, or a future possibility for us, or are we simply on route to a repeat from single cells to newborn's on a larger scale?

As a planet, tectonic egg shell like plates shift and move causing changes in land masses and tides and atmosphere. I wonder if it possible that our planet is evolving as a cell (like an egg) as we act as tiny micro type of influence in it's evolution. How and where does religion fit in? Maybe in terms of unknowing and trying to figure out our future from our past and present.

New to this line of reasoning
Religion doesn't as such fit into evolution as it is not science. Some will claim that God put evolution in motion or is the architect behind it etc. But this is more an afterthought rather than supported by scriptures as far as I know.

I think referring to Earth as a "womb" is probably to misrepresent how this works. Earth is simply the environment for which living things here on Earth adapt to. As a comparison, you could look at Mars the same way, if we assume that in some distance future we colonized it and people start to have children there and as generations goes, might in fact happen quickly, but those children born on Mars would have a rough time coming to Earth as the gravity is roughly 1/3 of what it is here on Earth. So if we imagine a person weighing 80 kg (12 stone) on Mars, they would suddenly feel like weighing around 240 kg (37 stone) here on Earth, which could cause severe bone and muscle issues as these simply might not be strong enough due to the lower gravity they grew up in. Then there could be potential bacterial and disease issues.

Said in another way, a Martian would be adapted to living on Mars rather than Earth.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
The in's and out's of evolution are unknown to me, but adaptation, survival of the fittest, and natural selection are not. Humans have remnants of a tail. Is this from our evolution in the womb, or a future possibility for us, or are we simply on route to a repeat from single cells to newborn's on a larger scale?

As a planet, tectonic egg shell like plates shift and move causing changes in land masses and tides and atmosphere. I wonder if it possible that our planet is evolving as a cell (like an egg) as we act as tiny micro type of influence in it's evolution. How and where does religion fit in? Maybe in terms of unknowing and trying to figure out our future from our past and present.

New to this line of reasoning
Survival of the fittest is a poor description of biological fitness related to natural selection, but if you understand adaptation, fitness and natural selection, I would say that you understand the basics of evolution.

Know one knows where evolution will take us or other species. All we have is the evidence of where life has been and that it has changed over time.

All the evidence indicates that we and other apes shared common ancestors with tails. Tails in apes did not survive selection of the environment, though occasional atavisms occur to indicate that mechanisms governing the formation of a tail have not been completely wiped out in some of the ape genomes.

Biological evolution could be used as a metaphor for describing geological change. It is not the same process, though geology does change over time and some of that change drives biological evolution as well as recording it.

My personal religious view is that we were blessed with a very complex planet and the tools to observe, discover, attempt to understand and to explain what we observe. So far, all the religions have been short on concrete, objective explanations and I think where religion can help is to provide the ethical and moral basis for those unfamiliar with the sciences to make sound decisions with what we do with the information. Unfortunately, it does not work that way in practice.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Nonorganic matter doesn't evolve as in biological evolution. All life evolves as is needed. I doubt humans will be here in a billion years. Religion usually can't or just doesn't deal with any of this. Religion tends to focus on the spiritual and moral implications of our past, present and future.
I am thinking about sticking around until then. Probably still looking for a woman too. Sadly, my odds of success will probably be the same as they are now.
 

Balthazzar

Christian Evolutionist
Religion doesn't as such fit into evolution as it is not science. Some will claim that God put evolution in motion or is the architect behind it etc. But this is more an afterthought rather than supported by scriptures as far as I know.

I think referring to Earth as a "womb" is probably to misrepresent how this works. Earth is simply the environment for which living things here on Earth adapt to. As a comparison, you could look at Mars the same way, if we assume that in some distance future we colonized it and people start to have children there and as generations goes, might in fact happen quickly, but those children born on Mars would have a rough time coming to Earth as the gravity is roughly 1/3 of what it is here on Earth. So if we imagine a person weighing 80 kg (12 stone) on Mars, they would suddenly feel like weighing around 240 kg (37 stone) here on Earth, which could cause severe bone and muscle issues as these simply might not be strong enough due to the lower gravity they grew up in. Then there could be potential bacterial and disease issues.

Said in another way, a Martian would be adapted to living on Mars rather than Earth.

Does Mars have a core like our own? I'm curious. Our earth is alive, in part I think, because of its core. The sun interacts through the poles, through which we get to spin like a top via electro magnetic energy. It may be weeble wobbling as it all slows down and our fuel lessens, but I'm thinking the slow down might be necessary in terms of upcoming and current environmental realities. Bio mechanical relevancies are present as are tech advancements in human anatomy moving forward. It all might seem crazy, but here we are as we exist far different than our Cro-Magnon origins.
 

Balthazzar

Christian Evolutionist
Survival of the fittest is a poor description of biological fitness related to natural selection, but if you understand adaptation, fitness and natural selection, I would say that you understand the basics of evolution.

Know one knows where evolution will take us or other species. All we have is the evidence of where life has been and that it has changed over time.

All the evidence indicates that we and other apes shared common ancestors with tails. Tails in apes did not survive selection of the environment, though occasional atavisms occur to indicate that mechanisms governing the formation of a tail have not been completely wiped out in some of the ape genomes.

Biological evolution could be used as a metaphor for describing geological change. It is not the same process, though geology does change over time and some of that change drives biological evolution as well as recording it.

My personal religious view is that we were blessed with a very complex planet and the tools to observe, discover, attempt to understand and to explain what we observe. So far, all the religions have been short on concrete, objective explanations and I think where religion can help is to provide the ethical and moral basis for those unfamiliar with the sciences to make sound decisions with what we do with the information. Unfortunately, it does not work that way in practice.

Understanding the basics of evolution - adaptation, survival of the fittest, and natural selection. I'm curious - These are the basics of life. I wonder sometimes, in these terms and as they relate to natural selection and selective process, by both males and females, how inability to procreate might affect the future and who, if any are at risk of not making the selective, fittest, and adaptive cut? These things are based on choices, aside from the necessity to adapt to environmental changes. My natural selection, in terms of procreation, would be a far cry from another's who's natural selection might be to forego the mate and instead choose vitro fertilization if only to avoid the hassle of potential power struggles and conflict. Anyway, I question where the future is taking us as well as our survival probability as co-connected creators in terms of family units.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
There's plenty of rabbits in the meadow. Don't give up.
I know. It is just that my track record for bunnies seems to indicate that my interest may be diagnostic for behavioral disorders.

In the bunnies. I'm as sound as a pound. As far as anyone knows.
 
Last edited:

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Understanding the basics of evolution - adaptation, survival of the fittest, and natural selection. I'm curious - These are the basics of life. I wonder sometimes, in these terms and as they relate to natural selection and selective process, by both males and females, how inability to procreate might affect the future and who, if any are at risk of not making the selective, fittest, and adaptive cut? These things are based on choices, aside from the necessity to adapt to environmental changes. My natural selection, in terms of procreation, would be a far cry from another's who's natural selection might be to forego the mate and instead choose vitro fertilization if only to avoid the hassle of potential power struggles and conflict. Anyway, I question where the future is taking us as well as our survival probability as co-connected creators in terms of family units.
Just for clarification, survival of the fittest is an often misunderstood and biological fitness in relation to evolution. Fitness does not mean that an individual is more healthy, vigorous, physically stronger or faster than other members of its species. Though that could be true, fitness is reference to how well a particular phenotype succeeds at producing offspring in a given environment in relation to other phenotypes within a population. It does not mean that less reproductively successful phenotypes in the population do not reproduce. In other words, on average, a phenotype with greater fitness means that those individuals expressing that phenotype have on average greater reproductive success under the right conditions. Fitness is a measure of success and not the cause of it.

Sorry for the long drag on that idea, but it is an important and widely misunderstood concept as I have seen.

You appear to be referencing two different sorts of selection in your post. What is classically referred to as natural selection by elements of the environment and sexual selection imposed by members of the opposite sex within a species of sexually reproducing organisms.

The inability to procreate would be a big damper for fitness for that individual. If you mean that a particular member of a population does not have the characters to incline members of the opposite sex within that population to mate, that would be a big damper as well. Though, less of an impediment than medical conditions would be to successful procreation.

There is evidence that the human population has evolved over the last 150 years. Height seems to be increased beyond what would be expected from advanced agriculture and nutrition. I wonder about eye evolution given that we can correct for problems that would have limited survival and reproduction in prior history.

I am not sure I follow all of what you are saying here and some of it may be cultural evolution and not biological, but I too wonder about that future.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Perhaps we can agree with defining evolution as significant enough gene pool changes within a species changing over the course of many generations resulting in organisms having genetic traits different enough from their distant ancestors; so that there'd be no possible sexual reproduction occurring between somebody who were to have distant ancestral genetic traits with anybody living in the current population.
Change in the allele frequency of a population of living things over time is probably one of the most basic, though not exclusive, definitions of biological evolution I know of.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Nonorganic matter doesn't evolve as in biological evolution. All life evolves as is needed. I doubt humans will be here in a billion years. Religion usually can't or just doesn't deal with any of this. Religion tends to focus on the spiritual and moral implications of our past, present and future.
I have a similar view of religion. It offers a philosophical basis to guide us in dealing with acquired knowledge, but is limited or absent in the acquisition of that knowledge.
 

Balthazzar

Christian Evolutionist
Just for clarification, survival of the fittest is an often misunderstood and biological fitness in relation to evolution. Fitness does not mean that an individual is more healthy, vigorous, physically stronger or faster than other members of its species. Though that could be true, fitness is reference to how well a particular phenotype succeeds at producing offspring in a given environment in relation to other phenotypes within a population. It does not mean that less reproductively successful phenotypes in the population do not reproduce. In other words, on average, a phenotype with greater fitness means that those individuals expressing that phenotype have on average greater reproductive success under the right conditions. Fitness is a measure of success and not the cause of it.

Sorry for the long drag on that idea, but it is an important and widely misunderstood concept as I have seen.

You appear to be referencing two different sorts of selection in your post. What is classically referred to as natural selection by elements of the environment and sexual selection imposed by members of the opposite sex within a species of sexually reproducing organisms.

The inability to procreate would be a big damper for fitness for that individual. If you mean that a particular member of a population does not have the characters to incline members of the opposite sex within that population to mate, that would be a big damper as well. Though, less of an impediment than medical conditions would be to successful procreation.

There is evidence that the human population has evolved over the last 150 years. Height seems to be increased beyond what would be expected from advanced agriculture and nutrition. I wonder about eye evolution given that we can correct for problems that would have limited survival and reproduction in prior history.

I am not sure I follow all of what you are saying here and some of it may be cultural evolution and not biological, but I too wonder about that future.

I was referencing cultural evolution. Fitness and laws of attraction are synonymous I would think. Money, looks, security, and other attractants, based on survival and quality of life probability are factors relative to both natural selection, and survival of the fittest, at least according to your input. which type is best fitted as a mate? It works both ways to truly be a natural selection. Number of competitors who fit personal type's natural selection plays a role, which typically leads many to be less selective, due to probability of successful pairings. In any case, culturally speaking, vitro fertilization has grown in practice for similar reasons ... to help ensure survival rate of personal genomes. The future is uncertain for even the fittest, healthiest, and most likely, based on probable survival, in terms of financial and societal security and capability. Cultural evolutionary trends set the pace for future progeny. Human rights and diversity of activism and equality are likewise in play, so what was true 100 years ago is a shadow of what's true and relevant today, at least as it relates to the subject of survival, evolution, and adaptation.

I see people scratching their heads:

"Well, umm ... she umm ... was willing so ... well ... we kinda did something but then she turned into a raging psychotic control freak, and now I'm paying $400 a month in child support."

"He had money, a good job, looked great, and well ... we hooked up, but then he turned into a whimp. Everytime I told him he needs to do something ... like apologize to the waiter for not tipping ... he did it, so now were divorced, but have a great kid with a $400 a month allowance from him."

I think that's somewhat normal nowadays
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Humans have remnants of a tail. Is this from our evolution in the womb, or a future possibility for us, or are we simply on route to a repeat from single cells to newborn's on a larger scale?

Biological evolution doesn't occur in wombs. If you're being poetic or metaphorical, this isn't a good time for that. Here, we want to use prose clearly. The individual zygote evolves into more mature life forms in the womb, but that is embryogenesis.

Man's coccyx and his embryology reveal that his ancestors had tails, but that is not an indication that his descendants will..

How and where does religion fit in?

No religious idea is a part of any of the sciences, including evolutionary science. You call yourself a Christian evolutionist, by which I assume that you mean that you believe that God has taken an active hand in evolution. That's not a part of the scientific theory, and isn't needed to explain man's existence until one adds that man is created in God's image. If one believes that that was through evolution, it would have to be guided evolution. Nobody can say that that didn't happen, but there is no evidence that it did, and thus deities don't appear in the theory.

Does Mars have a core like our own? I'm curious. Our earth is alive, in part I think, because of its core. The sun interacts through the poles, through which we get to spin like a top via electro magnetic energy. It may be weeble wobbling as it all slows down and our fuel lessens

Unlike Earth's, Mars' core is solid. When the Martian core solidified, the planet lost its protective magnetic field, and was bombarded by solar emissions formerly diverted to the poles, which could then strip its atmosphere and oceans away.

Your view of celestial mechanics is a bit off. The rotation of the earth is not caused by the sun. Earth's orbit is caused by the sun's gravity, but its rotation about its axis is momentum left over from the momentum of the rotating gas and dust cloud from which the sun and most of the matter orbiting it arose by accretion. Yes, the earth was rotating about four times as fast when the moon formed over four billion years ago (days were about six hours then), which was much closer to the earth then (it's gone from abut 15,000 miles away originally to about 240,000 miles now).

I don't know what "sun interacts through the poles" means. Are you saying that the solar wind is deflected to earth's poles by earth's magnetic field? If so, that is correct, but it's not a part of celestial mechanics, or the motions of the sun, earth, and moon. And yes, the earth wobbles, in two ways. It's axis precesses like that of a spinning top once every 26,000 years (see image), and the angle of the tilt of the axis (its obliquity) varies from about 21° to about 24.5° (presently about 23.4° of tilt and pointing close to the North Star) in a 41,000 year cycle.

upload_2022-5-8_7-5-55.jpeg
 

Balthazzar

Christian Evolutionist
Biological evolution doesn't occur in wombs. If you're being poetic or metaphorical, this isn't a good time for that. Here, we want to use prose clearly. The individual zygote evolves into more mature life forms in the womb, but that is embryogenesis.

Man's coccyx and his embryology reveal that his ancestors had tails, but that is not an indication that his descendants will..



No religious idea is a part of any of the sciences, including evolutionary science. You call yourself a Christian evolutionist, by which I assume that you mean that you believe that God has taken an active hand in evolution. That's not a part of the scientific theory, and isn't needed to explain man's existence until one adds that man is created in God's image. If one believes that that was through evolution, it would have to be guided evolution. Nobody can say that that didn't happen, but there is no evidence that it did, and thus deities don't appear in the theory.



Unlike Earth's, Mars' core is solid. When the Martian core solidified, the planet lost its protective magnetic field, and was bombarded by solar emissions formerly diverted to the poles, which could then strip its atmosphere and oceans away.

Your view of celestial mechanics is a bit off. The rotation of the earth is not caused by the sun. Earth's orbit is caused by the sun's gravity, but its rotation about its axis is momentum left over from the momentum of the rotating gas and dust cloud from which the sun and most of the matter orbiting it arose by accretion. Yes, the earth was rotating about four times as fast when the moon formed over four billion years ago (days were about six hours then), which was much closer to the earth then (it's gone from abut 15,000 miles away originally to about 240,000 miles now).

I don't know what "sun interacts through the poles" means. Are you saying that the solar wind is deflected to earth's poles by earth's magnetic field? If so, that is correct, but it's not a part of celestial mechanics, or the motions of the sun, earth, and moon. And yes, the earth wobbles, in two ways. It's axis precesses like that of a spinning top once every 26,000 years (see image), and the angle of the tilt of the axis (its obliquity) varies from about 21° to about 24.5° (presently about 23.4° of tilt and pointing close to the North Star) in a 41,000 year cycle.

View attachment 62802


It would seem that single cell organisms mark our beginnings, much like eggs in the womb, which begin the many stages of growth and development, until it's time to be gravitated through a portal and into another world, which oddly enough is synonymous with this solar systems future, so on that note, I'll disagree with your sentiments.

Electro magnetic fields undoubtedly play a roll in our spin cycles, and yes they are due to the interaction between the earth, it's core, and the sun that fuels us. Our planets core is a solid, but at one time it wasn't. The solid crystalized iron core is surrounded by liquid or rather by molten iron, which becomes more solid as it cools outward. I think this due to the pressure ... like diamonds ... the earths core is made up of solid crystallized iron. Tesla motors are us, at least in relation to how the earth interacts with the sun and vice versa - electro magnetic energy ... imagine that ... the notion of these magnetic fields playing no role in our spin cycles are unthinkable, at least as they relate to what we know and understand about electromagnetic energy and time space curvature i.e. gravity.

+ - magnetism and energy production almost like a 12 volt battery and its terminals is what I'm seeing at the earths axis poles.
 
Top