Evolution

[Stefan Bauwens]

Well, that's what I find unbelievable about evolution. How can chance, even after a long time, create something as perfect as us?

The body alone is amazing and that alone seems impossible to me, but the mind of a human is so complex that not even 100 times the estimated lifespan of the earth is long enough to create something so brilliant.

I believe that a programmer must have been evolved. That is also the reason I believe in God and not in evolution.

 

[Amat Gotchi]

Myself, I believe that God made evolution. God made everything so it could adapt and change to fit its natural environment.

Humans are currently suited to their environment, but maybe that is because they keep changing to fit the environment.

We can see that some forms of evolution, or at least change, have actually taken place, just in very small, incremental ways. Not to get too off-topic here, but for example the age of menarche in girls has decreased dramatically in the past few hundred years, even the past twenty-five. The average age of menarche back in the 1800s was age 16-17, but today it is more like 11-13 (for me it was 15 but whatever). This may be due to environmental factors, or due to some type of mutation as well. There must be a pretty good reason for it.

Another example is people's height. The average person today is taller than the average person was fifty years ago. This also may be due to different ethnicities having children together, but it still contributes, in some way, to evolution.

 

[hwd45]

Well, that's what I find unbelievable about evolution. How can chance, even after a long time, create something as perfect as us?

The body alone is amazing and that alone seems impossible to me, but the mind of a human is so complex that not even 100 times the estimated lifespan of the earth is long enough to create something so brilliant.

I believe that a programmer must have been evolved. That is also the reason I believe in God and not in evolution.

Well, time is exactly what causes 'perfect' beings to be produced. But we are not perfect!
The way which geneticists expect us to evolve in the future is... interesting. Like, really weird. Imagine humans with bigger eyes, bigger foreheads and darker skin. Although, this evolution is probably going to be partially influenced (if not completely driven) by 'selective breeding' of humans, or 'designer babies'.

 

[Stefan Bauwens]

Well, time is exactly what causes 'perfect' beings to be produced. But we are not perfect!

The way which geneticists expect us to evolve in the future is... interesting. Like, really weird. Imagine humans with bigger eyes, bigger foreheads and darker skin. Although, this evolution is probably going to be partially influenced (if not completely driven) by 'selective breeding' of humans, or 'designer babies'.

Well, I know we are not perfect, but I believe we once were not very far from it(our ancestors Adam and Eve).

They having all the stuff in them to become the ancestors of white, black, yellow, etc people. But over time I believe we de-"evolved" actually. Which kinda makes sense, because, for example if two people closely related(like a sibling) get a child together, it has a very high chance of having a disfunction. So if a white person marries a white person there is also a small disfunction. However, it was not always so, (At least, if you believe in the Bible). For example Adam and Eve's sons and daughter had to marry each other and there was no problem back then since they were still so very unique. But as generations pass on we get less and less unique. Yes, in the Bible incest was only really forbidden from the time of Moses, meaning that before that it wasn't that dangerous.

This is also why I do not believe in evolution, because it is so unlikely and de-evolution makes more sense to me. This, doesn't mean I don't believe in stuff as mutation and such...

And it is also a reason why evolution is not biblical.

 

[Yoggs]

I watched it and I do believe that certain things mutated into differently over time.

(E.g.: a certain "wolf" may be the ancestor to a dog).

But in this case there is no proof that this dog will ever, over time and in the correct circumstances, evolve into his ancestor the "wolf"(I use wolf in quotes since I doubt it was the same wolf we see here today) again.

Since by mutation, only data is lost and never added. A mutation can be beneficial but cannot turn into something more than it was.

A mutation only works by loss.

Sorry to bring this up but the reason a dog wouldn't evolve into a its ancestor (Wolf) is because most dogs, being domesticated, would have no reason to. Early humans domesticated wolves (Or it is thought that wolves domesticated early humans.) Early humans killed most carnivorous predators (Saber-tooth tiger, Giant Hyenas and most ice age era animals.) and wolves were no exception. (In Scotland, because of the dense forestry, Wolves were very hard to hunt and they decided it would be easier to burn the entire forest to rid of them.) Most wolves would have realised that being bold and aggressive leads to them being killed by the humans but being bold and friendly leads to them being spared. Early humans could see the potential in having a hunting partner that was fast and could kill. Because these wolves were being cared for and not in the wild this lead to their coats becoming more tame, their psychology also changed along with the physical changes. These wolves could read human gestures (i.e what we would call 'go fetch') These characteristics would be passed through every generation and would become more and more domesticated. As dogs are now cared for and loved by us humans, they have no reason to revert back into wolves.

(Though you don't believe that we did have a common ancestor with monkeys) It is thought that as we are relatives of monkeys and apes, we are much more evolved than them and eventually they will catch up. Many monkeys have been recorded making spears and using them to hunt wildlife (I.e Bushbabies) as Early humans once did.

Another case is that in 1952 on the island of Koshima, (Sorry if I misspelt the island's name) Primatologists were leaving sweet potatoes on the shore of the island for the monkeys to eat. Obviously these sweet potatoes weren't very pleasant to eat covered in sand and whatnot but the monkeys ate them regardless. Then one day a monkey dropped one of the sweet potatoes into the water. (I think, it has been a while since I have read up on this and my internet is being slow and isn't the best for research) and after the monkey ate the sweet potato after dropping it in the water you can imagine how much better it must have tasted. So this monkey began to wash all the sweet potatoes. It then caught on with the other monkeys over time and almost all the other monkeys on the island began to wash their food (aside from the older males as they were resistant to the new ideas)

Finally it has been found that a tribe (Is tribe the right word?) of Baboons in Egypt have been seen capturing and domesticating wild dogs to help with many jobs.

Sorry if anything seems wrong (I wrote a different word instead of the correct word as it wouldn't come up as spelt wrong.) It is 2:53 am and I'm extremely tired.

 

[Counting Bodies Like Sheep]

"No mutation has yet been found that increased the genetic information."

Source: https://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/mutations.html

I would advise you to read the entire article, since that is what I believe.

I cannot not address this. I would like to (politely) describe to you that the amount of genetic material in an organism is irrelevant - it is how it is manipulated. Consider the brain of the chimpanzee and human. Our genomes are ~98% homologous, yet, our brain has superior capacity for reasoning, language, and so on. This is because protein expression differs - not necessarily because of an increase in genetic material - and a single nucleotide base change is enough to alter protein expression. In fact... less than 5% of our genome encodes protein (to produce what we physically are). A huge proportion is DNA that was inserted into our genome by viruses, and serves no purpose whatsoever.

Another example is the amoeba. It has (much) more genetic material than we do. The amount of genetic information does not correlate with organism complexity. I guess I'm just trying to propose an alternative to the idea that mutation only means loss.

I believe evolution is not biblical for a different reason - that being that us, descending from chimps, detracts from the idea that we were created in his image. This being said, as a science student, my eyes are open to information that is presented to me in a logical manner. I must believe in evolution because of the evidence... this in turn has led me to question all that I was brought up with. But I'll save that for the religion topic.

 

[Moussette]

There is also another theory stating that extraterrestrial life forms changed our genetic signature. That would be an explanation concerning the extreme difference between the **** Neanderthalensis and the **** Sapiens.

 

[Stefan Bauwens]

My brother showed me the other day a small part of a documentary(I still have to watch it fully), but it was saying that quite some giant skeletons were found(even like 20 together!). Basically he was pointing all things out that before the great flood(according to the Bible) there probably were giants(It also says in the Bible "There were giants in those days"). Also after the great flood you see the ages of everyone dropping(from average 900 years to 120(which God notes btw)).

It also said that in those days there wasn't rain, but some kind of fog that watered the plants. When the flood happens it says:

Genesis 7:11

11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on kthat day all lthe fountains of the great deep were broken up, and themwindows of heaven were opened.

There's a theory that there was some water layer around the world and when the flood happened it rained it down. And because of that water there was much more oxygen on the earth, causing animals and humans to live longer, since oxygen is very healthy and cures many diseases apparently.

(Excuse me for being so vage, but I didn't see the whole documentary yet)

Reptiles keep on growing as older they get. So if you have a 900 year old one, that might be called a dinosaur.

Also, when a human gets older the part of skull above the eyes keeps on growing. So if you have a skull of a 900 year old man it will probably look like those caveman skulls.

 

[Eternal Mametchi Fan]

Haha, this is all so confusing I don't know what to think! However, I am interested in reading about all the different points of view and others' opinions. It is fascinating how everyone has a different idea on how the world works.

 

[Midorime]

Reptiles keep on growing as older they get. So if you have a 900 year old one, that might be called a dinosaur.

But dinosaurs have been proven to not be related to reptiles at all, but rather are the ancestors to birds. Sorry but I get somewhat huffy when they're called 'lizards' when in reality they were not and many of them were feathered. No offense, just a pet peeve I have.

 

[The Ultimate Doomer]

But dinosaurs have been proven to not be related to reptiles at all, but rather are the ancestors to birds.

That hasn't been "proven". That's just some theory that may not even be true.

 

[Counting Bodies Like Sheep]

There's a theory that there was some water layer around the world and when the flood happened it rained it down. And because of that water there was much more oxygen on the earth, causing animals and humans to live longer, since oxygen is very healthy and cures many diseases apparently.

Oxygen is not healthy and does not cure disease. Rather, higher oxygen concentrations will indeed kill us - take the setting of general anaesthesia for example. The air sacs of the lung collapse, a phenomenon known as atelectasis, and this is due to the patient breathing in a higher oxygen concentration than usual. In fact, the very reason we age and eventually die is (ironically) because of our need to breathe oxygen. Kinda cruel, now that I think about it. Anyway I'm getting a bit off track here.

But dinosaurs have been proven to not be related to reptiles at all, but rather are the ancestors to birds.

I'm with you, Midorime. I've always loved birds because they are feathery little dinosaur cuties ...and this is not a concept that is questioned or under scrutiny.

 

[The Ultimate Doomer]

 

[Stefan Bauwens]

I cannot say what exactly happened so many years ago, and perhaps there were also other things besides reptiles, but I think that reading of a bone that it had feathers is a bit too far...

Also, oxygen is healthy, of-course for some people with certain diseases it may not be, but then again, maybe having enough oxygen would have prevented them from having those diseases.

https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-topics/topics/oxt/

 

[Counting Bodies Like Sheep]

Also, oxygen is healthy, of-course for some people with certain diseases it may not be, but then again, maybe having enough oxygen would have prevented them from having those diseases.

https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-topics/topics/oxt/

You cite articles without having appropriate background information. COPD and pneumonia make up a vast minority of illnesses - COPD is primarily due to cigarette smoking... which probably wasn't an issue back in Noah's time, and although oxygen is sometimes given during pneumonia treatment, the patient will still die without antibiotics.

The relationship between dinosaurs and bones has been long-established using molecular phylogenetic techniques. Modern studies in genetics, biochemistry and virtually all branches of natural philosophy lend support to the theory of evolution. I just want to explain that evolution is not a matter of scientists flogging a dead horse - if there were no real evidence out there, we would propose a more befitting idea. The reason evolution is by and large accepted (even in the official stance of the Catholic church) is because the evidence for evolution is solid - not because there is some worldwide mission to do away with religion.

 

[Midorime]

That hasn't been "proven". That's just some theory that may not even be true.

There are too many fossils found and links between to the two to push it off as some mere theory anymore. There have been studies that show the cranial cavity being similar to that of birds indicating a very similar brain structure. Some dinos have been found that are considered 'missing links' that show connections between dinosaurs and birds. They have been found in China and you can read about them here: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2009/sep/24/dinosaur-fossil-discovery-china

Here are more links:

https://www.nhm.org/site/research-collections/dinosaur-institute/dinosaurs/birds-late-evolution-dinosaurs

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121121130817.htm

I cannot say what exactly happened so many years ago, and perhaps there were also other things besides reptiles, but I think that reading of a bone that it had feathers is a bit too far...

They don't find it on the bone directly, the feathers have been imprinted around the skeleton in the earth it was fossilized in. For example, you can see the feather impressions around this skeleton: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9d/Archaeopteryx_lithographica_%28Berlin_specimen%29.jpg/250px-Archaeopteryx_lithographica_%28Berlin_specimen%29.jpg

 

[Stefan Bauwens]

I also believe that there are died-out creatures that don't live today anymore. And Midorime, thanks for the picture. In those cases it is obvious it was a winged creature, but even though the many similarities to a bird, it doesn't mean it's evolution, just as I don't think it's unlikely all the birds came from the same ancestor.

Anyway, here's another page explaining why it's so healthy: https://drlwilson.com/Articles/OXYGEN.HTM

It also states that too much is not good, but I never did say, nor can I really know, how much more oxygen they had.

I believe you can have been deceived by the evolution theory, but if you remain deceived you're lying to yourself. It's so obvious to me that evolution is flawed, plus de-evolution make much more sense.

And I believe evolution is so popular because it is an excuse for no God.

 

[Counting Bodies Like Sheep]

Anyway, here's another page explaining why it's so healthy: https://drlwilson.com/Articles/OXYGEN.HTM

It also states that too much is not good, but I never did say, nor can I really know, how much more oxygen they had.

Find me a published journal article on oxygen being healthy and I will consider it. There are many unscientific facts presented in this article, which is unsurprising as it was written in the context of homeopathic medicine. To end this discussion on oxygen (so we can get back to the real topic at hand, ie evolution) I would like to say that it does not even matter if concentrations are higher. Fact is, unless you have a lung disease, a higher proportion of oxygen CANNOT be absorbed by your blood even if it is available in the air you breathe. Therefore, the supposition that greater oxygen concentrations in the air prolonged the life of the general population by hundreds of years is, frankly, preposterous.

 

[The Ultimate Doomer]

Well there was apparently a higher concentration of oxygen in the past, and it did apparently cause some animals/organisms to grow bigger. That's why dragonflies, for example, got so much bigger than they do today.

 

[hwd45]

There's evidence to show that a long time ago Oxygen levels were much higher, for example in the Carboniferous period:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carboniferous

This is thought to have caused animals to be much, much larger, insects and arachnids in particular.

While higher oxygen levels may be responsible for larger beings (although I'm not sure of the exact process that caused it), there isn't a reason that higher oxygen levels will make animals live longer or be healthier. Oxygen allows for respiration, but just because more respiration may be occurring doesn't mean the animal or individual in question will live longer or be healthier- if anything it will only shorten their life. While lack of oxygen means zero aerobic respiration which will eventually cause death, a high concentration of oxygen is poisonous and can also cause death. Breathing oxygen-enriched air can help one's physical performance, however, since during exercise the body is in oxygen debt and begins to perform anaerobic respiration but with oxygen enriched air more aerobic respiration can take place...

Wait, this isn't about evolution