58 replies to this topic

[iDevonian]

I was wondering.

This doesnt really apply to most who may accept evolution, or at least be open to the idea but are simply uncertain.

For people, and there are some, who disagree with the concept of common descent (the idea that living things of today share a common ancestor, more specifically, animalia).

If scientists use the fossil succession to discover specific fossils in specific locations, how could that be possible if not for common descent?  In other words, how could a succession of fossils exist, such as... Fish--->Fish with legs---->amphibian, if fish had not evolved into amphibians?


All ideas and commentary is welcome.

Of course, I have heard responses for this question, and rebuttals.  It isnt a loaded question (maybe someone has a genuinely good idea that I havent heard before), but I am asking it with willingness to wraaaastle.

Also, I am simply curious as to what people believe.

Thank you all.

[inferno]

Hey, that's actually a simple way of proving evolution.
Otherwise a creationist would have to explain why God allowed these random varieties to magically *pop* into existence just like that. Wouldn't make sense otherwise.

[Robin Hood]

iDevonian, on 23 February 2013 - 09:19 PM, said:

I was wondering.

This doesnt really apply to most who may accept evolution, or at least be open to the idea but are simply uncertain.

For people, and there are some, who disagree with the concept of common descent (the idea that living things of today share a common ancestor, more specifically, animalia).

If scientists use the fossil succession to discover specific fossils in specific locations, how could that be possible if not for common descent?  In other words, how could a succession of fossils exist, such as... Fish--->Fish with legs---->amphibian, if fish had not evolved into amphibians?


All ideas and commentary is welcome.

Of course, I have heard responses for this question, and rebuttals.  It isnt a loaded question (maybe someone has a genuinely good idea that I havent heard before), but I am asking it with willingness to wraaaastle.

Also, I am simply curious as to what people believe.

Thank you all.

I think it's mainly due to religious beliefs that people reject common descent.

[siraatoaliyinhaqqun]

I didn't understand your complete post as I don't know what fossil succession is however if you imply to say we humans were at one point of time animals then I would say that science does not have solid evidence for that. It may change its view as it has changed on many different things.

According to Islam there animals on this earth for millions of years and there were human beings too and this Adam is the last Adam who came roughly about 10,000 years ago. And there have been some humans who metamorphosised in to animals in contrast to the the theory of animals to human metamorphosis. And there will be a similar pattern happening soon inshallah

[eThErEaL]

iDevonian, on 23 February 2013 - 09:19 PM, said:

I was wondering.

This doesnt really apply to most who may accept evolution, or at least be open to the idea but are simply uncertain.

For people, and there are some, who disagree with the concept of common descent (the idea that living things of today share a common ancestor, more specifically, animalia).

If scientists use the fossil succession to discover specific fossils in specific locations, how could that be possible if not for common descent?  In other words, how could a succession of fossils exist, such as... Fish--->Fish with legs---->amphibian, if fish had not evolved into amphibians?


All ideas and commentary is welcome.

Of course, I have heard responses for this question, and rebuttals.  It isnt a loaded question (maybe someone has a genuinely good idea that I havent heard before), but I am asking it with willingness to wraaaastle.

Also, I am simply curious as to what people believe.

Thank you all.

I am sure that if we can imagine each species (like the fish, fish-leg creatures, and amphibians) to "appear" or "descend" at different times it should at least "seem" possible that evolution didn't occur right?  But I guess what you are asking is, why should one resort to that explanation when one can resort to what seems to be a simpler one (i.e. a transformation or evolution)?

[iDevonian]

eThErEaL, on 23 February 2013 - 10:24 PM, said:

I am sure that if we can imagine each species (like the fish, fish-leg creatures, and amphibians) to "appear" or "descend" at different times it should at least "seem" possible that evolution didn't occur right?  But I guess what you are asking is, why should one resort to that explanation when one can resort to what seems to be a simpler one (i.e. a transformation or evolution)?

Sure.

Well, just curious as to what others believe about the succession.  I wasnt really taking into consideration, the simplicity or complexity of what peoples answers may be.

It is true that options are most certainly out there, even very complex ones beyond evolution.

Edited by iDevonian, 23 February 2013 - 10:30 PM.

[pakistanyar]

iDevonian I think these discussions on evolution are not fit for the layman. These require more than Wikipedia and online videos. Keep these things between your peers. I'm a Biological Science Major and i don't discuss things like evolution with accountants or engineers. And even if you try it doesn't bring about wondrous results.

As for the fossil evidence it is "evidence" you cant deny that arms and legs appear after things without arms and legs.

For those that may not understand. To simplify it, if you dig  down 100 feet straight into the ground. In the First 10 feet you will find human bones. In the next few you might find dinosaurs and further down you will find animals with legs and arms. And even below that you will find animals without legs and arms and below that are very simple organism. This occurance known as the "fossil record" brings researchers to the conclusion that simple organisms came into existence before complex organism. And organism with legs and arms came into existence after organism without legs and arms.

If they had all been created at the same time, then no such differences would be observed in the fossil layers. Here's a pic.




And this is just dead bone fossil evidence. There is much more evidence in DNA, similar proteins, similar replication methods.

Edited by pakistanyar, 24 February 2013 - 01:40 AM.

[Rational Thinking]

We discussed the dinosaur bird 'succesion' You asserted we had dinosaurs, then reptile-like birds, then bird like reptiles.

On the thinkers discourse section.

I showed absolute proof this is certainly not the case at all.

No-one is mentioning the plethora of creatures in the pre-cambrian era, and in the cambrian era.

I can not accept evolution on scientific grounds - that really is as simple as that. I accept mutations, but i do not accept that organisms can undergo whole-scale evolution.

Again you are asserting that fish grew legs, when this is not the case.

As for the muslims who support it, Allah swt specifically says Adam a.s. was made in a non-earthly abode, then sent down on earth. It is an explicit narration. Evolution denounces God, kicks him out of being the creator. You and all the complex organisms you see around you are created by Chance, which should be worshipped rather than God.

Verily, if i was to be convinced by this theory, i would definitely revert to a deist.

"Since the fossil material provides no evidence of other aspects of the transformation from fish to tetrapod, paleontologists have had to speculate how legs and aerial breathing evolved..." (Barbara J. Stahl,"Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution", McGraw-Hill, NY 1974 pg. 148&195 Quote #48)

eThErEaL, on 23 February 2013 - 10:24 PM, said:

siraatoaliyinhaqqun, on 23 February 2013 - 09:47 PM, said:

I didn't understand your complete post as I don't know what fossil succession is however if you imply to say we humans were at one point of time animals then I would say that science does not have solid evidence for that. It may change its view as it has changed on many different things.

According to Islam there animals on this earth for millions of years and there were human beings too and this Adam is the last Adam who came roughly about 10,000 years ago. And there have been some humans who metamorphosised in to animals in contrast to the the theory of animals to human metamorphosis. And there will be a similar pattern happening soon inshallah

I am sure that if we can imagine each species (like the fish, fish-leg creatures, and amphibians) to "appear" or "descend" at different times it should at least "seem" possible that evolution didn't occur right?  But I guess what you are asking is, why should one resort to that explanation when one can resort to what seems to be a simpler one (i.e. a transformation or evolution)?

There is no evidence to suggest we came from ape-like ancestors.

We also share 99% of DNA with rats - that is why they are used in medical trials.

So many transitional forms have been caught out to be boguses/concoctions.

Edited by Rational Thinking, 24 February 2013 - 08:08 AM.

[iDevonian]

Rational Thinking, on 24 February 2013 - 07:56 AM, said:

We discussed the dinosaur bird 'succesion' You asserted we had dinosaurs, then reptile-like birds, then bird like reptiles.

On the thinkers discourse section.

I showed absolute proof this is certainly not the case at all.

I must have completely missed that proof.  What I did notice was you sourcing a bunch of pro evolution research though.  While challenging some ideas, you really only supported others which are, more or less, identical with respect to this discussion.


Let me see if I can find a diagram to demonstrate.




What your sourced argument had discussed, was moving archaeopteryx from the avialae clade, to the deinonychosauria clade.

In practical terms, in the tree of life that common descent defines, what you are doing is, you are taking one of the smallest twigs on the tree, moving that twig about a millimeter down the branch that it is on, then you are saying "oh look, there is no tree".

Which is why, you argument is...in practical terms, its not useful.  This is an awesome diagram btw.

What you have done is, you have made an argument that, twig A should go a millimeter down branch B, therefore, the twigs amongst this branch are open for discussion.

Which is far far from saying, twig A moved down branch B, being open for discussion should mean that every single twig and major branch is all out of order.  In regards to the dotted line, youre saying the dotted line should be option A and not B or C or D, which all reside in practically the same place.  Of course the diagram doesnt list the vast number of fossils that define these branches either. Keep that in mind.

So while arguing that archaeopteryx could potentially not be an ancestor, you were simultaneously sourcing articles stating that, fossils very similar to archaeopteryx would be or are the ancestors of birds.  Ill even quote your own source.

"Archaeopteryx is widely accepted as being the most basal bird, and accordingly it is regarded as central to understanding avialan origins; however, recent discoveries of derived maniraptorans have weakened the avialan status of Archaeopteryx. Here we report a new Archaeopteryx-like theropod from China. This find further demonstrates that many features formerly regarded as being diagnostic of Avialae, including long and robust forelimbs, actually characterize the more inclusive group Paraves (composed of the avialans and the deinonychosaurs). Notably, adding the new taxon into a comprehensive phylogenetic analysis shifts Archaeopteryx to the Deinonychosauria. Despite only tentative statistical support, this result challenges the centrality of Archaeopteryx in the transition to birds. If this new phylogenetic hypothesis can be confirmed by further investigation, current assumptions regarding the avialan ancestral condition will need to be re-evaluated."

Now I will move on to see if I can give an example of the successions ability to be predicted so easily just because it does exist.

pakistanyar, on 24 February 2013 - 01:36 AM, said:

iDevonian I think these discussions on evolution are not fit for the layman. These require more than Wikipedia and online videos. Keep these things between your peers. I'm a Biological Science Major and i don't discuss things like evolution with accountants or engineers. And even if you try it doesn't bring about wondrous results.

As for the fossil evidence it is "evidence" you cant deny that arms and legs appear after things without arms and legs.

For those that may not understand. To simplify it, if you dig  down 100 feet straight into the ground. In the First 10 feet you will find human bones. In the next few you might find dinosaurs and further down you will find animals with legs and arms. And even below that you will find animals without legs and arms and below that are very simple organism. This occurance known as the "fossil record" brings researchers to the conclusion that simple organisms came into existence before complex organism. And organism with legs and arms came into existence after organism without legs and arms.

If they had all been created at the same time, then no such differences would be observed in the fossil layers. Here's a pic.




And this is just dead bone fossil evidence. There is much more evidence in DNA, similar proteins, similar replication methods.

Thanks.

I think, Ill try to give an example on the succession as well that may help.  This is a fair post.

edit edit

Edited by iDevonian, 24 February 2013 - 09:32 AM.

[iDevonian]

I just want to point this out, rational thinker.

Just because, I enjoy the topic and have been reading a handful of research papers. If you read over your sources, and just google around for others, you will find that...

The bird-theropod dinosaur relationship, is so...well intertwined.  That, by arguing that X twig was on this part of the branch, but not that part, what you are doing, is...

its a perfect example of why the animals have transcended from one another, or together from a common ancestor.  This is what the fossil succession is all about.  Its this... X animal, followed by a blend, followed by Y animal.  Its not just non legged animal, partial legged animall, full legged animal.

Its more like, non legged animal, partial legged animals that are a blend of non legged and legged animals, followed by full legged animals.

I hope that makes sense to readers.  If fossils were from white to black, what rational logic is saying is that, shade gray A is darker than shade gray B.  But in reality, if you zoom out, what we are discussing, are shades of gray, which are transitions from white to black.  And so, this is why, his point is mute.

Not only is it mute, but its actually in support of the fossil succession. (his sources are in support of the succession, he isnt because he doesnt appear to be following his own sources).

So anyway, let me give another example here.

Now, to find fossils, people do not just go out and start digging anywhere they want.  If we did that, we would almost never find anything but dirt.

It should be recognized that, when fossil hunting, you go to rocks of a particular age and environment with an understanding of the fossil lineage, and with such, the lineage provides the fossils you seek.

If that makes sense.  When I go fossil hunting, i dont just go out in my back yard and start digging.  I bring up a geologic map, mark a certain range of time.  For example, if I want to find a half bird half reptile like archaeopteryx, I would look for rocks of later Jurassic age.  If I want to find a half fish half amphibian, id look in the devonian etc.

And this is exactly what is done.  A fossil like tiktaalik for example was found, not randomly.  The people got on a plane and flew to a remote place in the middle of nowheresville canada to find it.

They didnt just say "hey lets fly to the middle of nowhere and dig".  They said, hey, according to the fossil succession, this is where we will find a half fish half amphibian, lets go look.

And sure enough, they found tiktaalik.

It could not have been possible, if not for a succession.  If you went and dug in the wrong rocks, you would find either fossils of another period of time, or you would be digging forever and you would find nothing.  Ive gone out and looked for fossils a number of times, and Ive never found any fossil that I wouldnt expect to find.  I wish I had, but it just doesnt happen because, thats just not the way reality is.

edit edit

Edited by iDevonian, 24 February 2013 - 10:03 AM.

[iDevonian]

inferno, on 23 February 2013 - 09:30 PM, said:

Hey, that's actually a simple way of proving evolution.
Otherwise a creationist would have to explain why God allowed these random varieties to magically *pop* into existence just like that. Wouldn't make sense otherwise.

Yes exactly.  Not only that, but, the gray areas we are discussing, they often consist of tens, if not hundreds of species of fossils, depending on what we are discussing.

Which begs the question of, if animals were simply created, then removed then created, then removed.  What was Allah doing?  Making thousands of animals that look almost identical, then making them all dissapear, then making thousands almost identical again similar to the first batch and making them all dissapear again.

http://www.sanparks....t-evolution.jpg


would Allah make thousands of elephant A appear, then dissapear, then elephant B appear then dissapear, then C and D etc etc?  Or maybe they are just related, which is a very simple concept.  Not only that, but why would he create then take away over and over and over again?  As if writing a sentence, then erasing and rewriting the sentence over and over.

How about rather than writing and erasing over and over and over again, why not have a sentence with letters that are ever changing and modifying themselves?

Perhaps theyre the letters of DNA.



And, again, anything is possible, but its just a bit farfetched when you have live demonstrations of speciation and the mutation and transformation of DNA occurring right in front of us in this very day.

Hence my question.  If not common descent, what in the world could people possibly be considering? haha.  Rational logic is giving an effort by denying the entire record, that, if he could demonstrate would drop the case, but he...i mean, its basically his word against 99.9% of geologists.  And, as a geologist, I completely disagree with his idea, I think its drastically false.  As do the geologists in his own sources.

Of course, I do respect you Rational, I enjoy our discussions, I just disagree with your conclusion.

Edited by iDevonian, 24 February 2013 - 10:22 AM.

[Seekingtruth14]

Salam!

I am very interested in the theory of evolution and have not so much knowledge about it.

Ok, let us assume the evolution of the human as following:






Now, if archeologist find something like this:




What will happen with the theory of evolution (regarding the “evolution” of man)?

[iDevonian]

Seekingtruth14, on 24 February 2013 - 03:58 PM, said:

Salam!

I am very interested in the theory of evolution and have not so much knowledge about it.

Ok, let us assume the evolution of the human as following:






Now, if archeologist find something like this:




What will happen with the theory of evolution (regarding the “evolution” of man)?

If something like that is found, and is confidently supported by the fields used in its discovery and description, then you would disprove the theory.

Well, I guess to be more specific, you would disprove the idea that mankind evolved from the depicted ape in front of him (that specific ape). Then, what all you would disprove would come down to the bigger picture around this one.

If for example, you had two lines of apes (or 3 or 4 lines of apes to people) that transitioned at different times, or at the same time near eachother, then what you could have is mankind still walking in line after primitive apes, just not in the same line that you depicted. And so, you could find man before ape.

If that makes sense.

Right now for example, I can find mankind bones, next to chimpanzee bones.  However, there were more apes in the past that mankind had come from, so its expected.  But if I found mankind bones before chimp bones and any other primitive ape bones, then it would be a problem for the theory.

In a basic sense, you would disprove the theory by finding what is in the picture.  In a technical sense, in reality evolution doesnt work as 1 single line of apes to people, but rather its more like a tree, where there is a single line, but along that line, you have other attached lines going in different directions.

So, if you think about, what if I had a tree, and each species equates to a different thickness in branch.  What if I took a thick branch and moved it all the way to the very top of the tree?  Well, it would be too thick, and likewise u cant really take an itsy bitsy twig and say it is the trunk of the tree either.

You could move branches around the tree, but only within limitations, and if you defied those limitations, then you would disprove the theory.

I hope that makes sense.



There is a bit of wiggle room in where the branches are placed.

Edited by iDevonian, 24 February 2013 - 04:42 PM.

[iDevonian]

Like if I moved the tegopeltid branch down the joint branch it shares with the helmatiids, that may be ok.  But If I took the tegopeltid and put him next to the zandarellids.  Then that would be an issue because he tegopeltid looks more like a helmatiid than a zandarellid.

These are some weird terms.  Theyre all just trilobites as far as im concerned, but this is the first picture google brought up, so i used it.

[Seekingtruth14]

Thanks for sharing your knowledge.

I have seen a documentary called “Forbidden Archeology - Secret Discoveries of Early Man”

https://www.youtube....h?v=6oGqPc6poS4

In the documentary they show observations made by archiologist that “break the rule”.

The human of the modern anatomical type have been existing for millions of years into the past. That is what the documentary showed.

Anyhow, what is your opinion regarding the phenomenon called ” the Cambrian explosion”. ?

I quote from Wikipedia:

The Cambrian explosion, or Cambrian radiation, was the relatively rapid appearance, around 530 million years ago, of most major animal phyla, as demonstrated in the fossil record…

… The Cambrian explosion has generated extensive scientific debate. The seemingly rapid appearance of fossils in the “Primordial Strata” was noted as early as the 1840s, and in 1859 Charles Darwin discussed it as one of the main objections that could be made against his theory of evolution by natural selection…

http://en.wikipedia....brian_explosion

[iDevonian]

Seekingtruth14, on 24 February 2013 - 05:18 PM, said:

Thanks for sharing your knowledge.

I have seen a documentary called “Forbidden Archeology - Secret Discoveries of Early Man”

https://www.youtube....h?v=6oGqPc6poS4

In the documentary they show observations made by archiologist that “break the rule”.

The human of the modern anatomical type have been existing for millions of years into the past. That is what the documentary showed.

Anyhow, what is your opinion regarding the phenomenon called ” the Cambrian explosion”. ?

I quote from Wikipedia:

The Cambrian explosion, or Cambrian radiation, was the relatively rapid appearance, around 530 million years ago, of most major animal phyla, as demonstrated in the fossil record…

… The Cambrian explosion has generated extensive scientific debate. The seemingly rapid appearance of fossils in the “Primordial Strata” was noted as early as the 1840s, and in 1859 Charles Darwin discussed it as one of the main objections that could be made against his theory of evolution by natural selection…

http://en.wikipedia....brian_explosion

Early people have existed for a very long time.  If there is a specific part of the video youre referring to, I dont mind taking a look. But, ancient fossils of mankind date back hundreds of thousands of years.  More ape like ancestors, go back millions.

The cambrian explosion, is often cited as an "arms race".

Back 700 million years ago, the planet was completely covered in ice during one of its glaciation events or "ice ages".

The rifting of the supercontinent rodinia lead to the warming and alteration of the earths climate, which ended the ice age.

The cambrian explosion and the appearance of the ediacara biota, which predate the cambrian explosion, come along with the end of this massive ice age and great global climate change.

With the rifting of the supercontinent, what you have is, not only a planet that isnt a giant ball of ice and carbon dioxide, but you get an increase in continental surface area which borders oceans.  Which creates shallow marine environments which are suitable for the advance of complex life.

Much like the US and Russia rushing to build nuclear weapons in WW2, what you have in the cambrian organisms are life forms predator vs prey, quickly building weapons. Shells, teeth, eyes, and...many many structures that had all sorts of uses to the organisms, in sort of a race of life development.

edit edit

Edited by iDevonian, 24 February 2013 - 06:24 PM.

[eThErEaL]

Rational Thinking, on 24 February 2013 - 07:56 AM, said:

We discussed the dinosaur bird 'succesion' You asserted we had dinosaurs, then reptile-like birds, then bird like reptiles.

On the thinkers discourse section.

I showed absolute proof this is certainly not the case at all.

No-one is mentioning the plethora of creatures in the pre-cambrian era, and in the cambrian era.

I can not accept evolution on scientific grounds - that really is as simple as that. I accept mutations, but i do not accept that organisms can undergo whole-scale evolution.

Again you are asserting that fish grew legs, when this is not the case.

As for the muslims who support it, Allah swt specifically says Adam a.s. was made in a non-earthly abode, then sent down on earth. It is an explicit narration. Evolution denounces God, kicks him out of being the creator. You and all the complex organisms you see around you are created by Chance, which should be worshipped rather than God.

Verily, if i was to be convinced by this theory, i would definitely revert to a deist.

"Since the fossil material provides no evidence of other aspects of the transformation from fish to tetrapod, paleontologists have had to speculate how legs and aerial breathing evolved..." (Barbara J. Stahl,"Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution", McGraw-Hill, NY 1974 pg. 148&195 Quote #48)



There is no evidence to suggest we came from ape-like ancestors.

We also share 99% of DNA with rats - that is why they are used in medical trials.

So many transitional forms have been caught out to be boguses/concoctions.

Since you are arguing along the lines of empirical and scientific proof I am curious to know what you would say about ERVs found in humans and gorillas.

[eThErEaL]

iDevonian, on 23 February 2013 - 10:28 PM, said:

It is true that options are most certainly out there, even very complex ones beyond evolution.

Unfortunately due to my limited knowledge in molecular biology I find myself incapable of "critically" examining a number of the evidences relating to DNA which are put forth by evolutionists.  

But as far as the metaphysical interpretation of fossil records are concerned evolution seems to be impossible and not simply implausible.  This is because what I understand by "species" (I am talking about it's broadest category) are actually eternal ideas fixed in God; I don't see them as being physical and therefore subject to change or evolution.  Also these eternal ideas are hierarchical (because species can be distinguished qualitatively from each other) such that when manifested on the physical plane follow a specific order and sequence.  And this is what could very well explain the fossil records.

Edited by eThErEaL, 25 February 2013 - 04:40 AM.

[iDevonian]

eThErEaL, on 25 February 2013 - 04:35 AM, said:

Unfortunately due to my limited knowledge in molecular biology I find myself incapable of "critically" examining a number of the evidences relating to DNA which are put forth by evolutionists.  

But as far as the metaphysical interpretation of fossil records are concerned evolution seems to be impossible and not simply implausible.  This is because what I understand by "species" (I am talking about it's broadest category) are actually eternal ideas fixed in God; I don't see them as being physical and therefore subject to change or evolution.  Also these eternal ideas are hierarchical (because species can be distinguished qualitatively from each other) such that when manifested on the physical plane follow a specific order and sequence.  And this is what could very well explain the fossil records.

If it helps, the way I see it.  "species" is just a word.  Its like "mom" or "dad".  Mom and dad do not indefinitely exist (I guess they do in our DNA).  But...mom and dad pass away, and I am not my mom or dad.  I am them, but not really.  They fade from history while I live on.

So, if you believe it is possible for parents to have children that are different from them, in humans.  You should be able to reconcile the idea of animals doing the same.  The word "species" really is no different from something like your last name. This is the "smith" family.  This family gives birth to children who are to become the "roboto" family.

Physically, the Smith family exists indefinitely, however, in a physical sense, the roboto family and smith family are different.  Physically very similar to their parents, yet still different enough physically that we can tell them apart.

Back in the day, you had french people and native american people.  There was no such thing as hispanics.  And so, while no new species of human had arisen, sub species taxons had.  The french and native americans havent completely dissapeared.  They exist as hispanics in mexico today. But hispanics are a new type of human, just as a new species is a new type of other animal.

So what makes something like a species eternally fixed to God, but not something like native americans or mom and dad?

George Washington can appear in history and dissapear, as can his family.  So why cant a species come and go?

[Seekingtruth14]

iDevonian, on 24 February 2013 - 06:24 PM, said:

Early people have existed for a very long time.  If there is a specific part of the video youre referring to, I dont mind taking a look. But, ancient fossils of mankind date back hundreds of thousands of years.  More ape like ancestors, go back millions.

The cambrian explosion, is often cited as an "arms race".

Back 700 million years ago, the planet was completely covered in ice during one of its glaciation events or "ice ages".

The rifting of the supercontinent rodinia lead to the warming and alteration of the earths climate, which ended the ice age.

The cambrian explosion and the appearance of the ediacara biota, which predate the cambrian explosion, come along with the end of this massive ice age and great global climate change.

With the rifting of the supercontinent, what you have is, not only a planet that isnt a giant ball of ice and carbon dioxide, but you get an increase in continental surface area which borders oceans.  Which creates shallow marine environments which are suitable for the advance of complex life.

Much like the US and Russia rushing to build nuclear weapons in WW2, what you have in the cambrian organisms are life forms predator vs prey, quickly building weapons. Shells, teeth, eyes, and...many many structures that had all sorts of uses to the organisms, in sort of a race of life development.

Salam!

Thanks for your respons!

I have directed specific questions to you regarding the theory of evolution. Now I am going to ask more general questions about the theory.

Now, if you discuss with an atheist about the creation of the different life forms, they will easily say that evolution was behind this process and not “The Creator”.  They will further explain that the creator is not needed because we already have evolution.

What does this mean? In which way does the theory of evolution disprove the existence of God?

Secondly, do you believe that the theory of evolution is a theory or do you believe it is a fact?

Thanks for your help dear brother!

iDevonian, on 25 February 2013 - 07:02 AM, said:

So, if you believe it is possible for parents to have children that are different from them, in humans.  You should be able to reconcile the idea of animals doing the same.  The word "species" really is no different from something like your last name. This is the "smith" family.  This family gives birth to children who are to become the "roboto" family.

This is very interesting!

But why can’t a monkey breed with a dog? What decides the rule?

[iDevonian]

Seekingtruth14, on 25 February 2013 - 01:30 PM, said:

Salam!

Thanks for your respons!

I have directed specific questions to you regarding the theory of evolution. Now I am going to ask more general questions about the theory.

Now, if you discuss with an atheist about the creation of the different life forms, they will easily say that evolution was behind this process and not “The Creator”.  They will further explain that the creator is not needed because we already have evolution.

What does this mean? In which way does the theory of evolution disprove the existence of God?

Secondly, do you believe that the theory of evolution is a theory or do you believe it is a fact?

Thanks for your help dear brother!

The theory is just an observation of what exists, it doesnt hold relation to whether or not God exists. The atheist is wrong. The only God evolution disproves, in my opinion, is a God who created life without it, or atleast a related form of common descent.

Seekingtruth14, on 25 February 2013 - 01:30 PM, said:

This is very interesting!

But why can’t a monkey breed with a dog? What decides the rule?

Im not a biologist, but from my understanding, the genetic differences between...typically different species, prevents chromosomes from properly combining during the phases that occur during reproduction.

[eThErEaL]

iDevonian, on 25 February 2013 - 07:02 AM, said:

If it helps, the way I see it.  "species" is just a word.  Its like "mom" or "dad".  Mom and dad do not indefinitely exist (I guess they do in our DNA).  But...mom and dad pass away, and I am not my mom or dad.  I am them, but not really.  They fade from history while I live on.

.

Yes, what you are describing is a very common understanding people have today. I would say, however, that mom and dad have a reality beyond time or beyond their formal appearances and beyond their physical changes (it is this reality or substance which makes them intelligible to us).  They have an eternal and changeless substance fixed in God which underpins, governs, and actually causes their various formal or physical appearances from the time they started to become parents to the time they become old and die.  Because to regard mom and dad as merely conventional ways of speaking is to deny the very reality, being, intelligibility and substance of mom and dad.  So the physical appearance of mom and dad at any point in time is not their eternal substance but is governed by their eternal substance which bestows an order and meaning to the many physical appearances that mom and dad come in.  Part of the eternal substance, reality, meaning and intelligibility of mom and dad is that they have children.  Can we say the same for species?  Can we say that the eternal substance and meaning of a species is that it bears a new species like a mother bears a child?  If so, since when?  Since Darwin came up with it?  The answer is emphatically no because it would negate any meaning that species has for us now in the present moment.  Because species exist in the present moment, not in the past, and not in the future.  In the present moment a species means that it has a distinct set of qualities and that it's individuals don't come from other species.  If we disregard the present moment or if we count the present to be as equally real as the past and the future (in other words, if we disregard Eternity) then species can be what you are saying it is (i.e. it can can give rise to new species with a completely different set of qualities).. In other words, species can then be taken as a mere word we use conventionally.  

I believe that knowledge or awareness is reality or actuality and that physical properties like shape, size, quantity, and position are just potentialities and therefore mere "shadows" or reflections of reality (knowledge).  Evolutionists seem believe the opposite or reverse.

Quote

So, if you believe it is possible for parents to have children that are different from them, in humans.  You should be able to reconcile the idea of animals doing the same.  

The eternal meaning of being a parent means that it can have children.  By eternal I simply mean this very moment which doesn't flow or which does not go to the future and does not come from the past.  It simply is.  Now, the eternal meaning of a species is that it's individuals are characterized by a unique set of qualities not found in individuals belonging to a different species.  Also individuals of a certain species don't reproduce with individuals of another species.  This is the meaning that a species has for us eternally (at this present moment).  So to be human is to be a rational animal. And to be human means to be able to reproduce with other humans and not with non-humans.  This is the meaning that the human species has for us at the present moment (which is the only moment).  To say that Humans "can" also be purely animal or purely rational and that they may have been begotten (even in a gradual way) from what we wouldn't call humans now is a way of saying, "a truly present moment (Eternity, God) does not exist."!  

Quote

The word "species" really is no different from something like your last name. This is the "smith" family.  This family gives birth to children who are to become the "roboto" family.  Physically, the Smith family exists indefinitely, however, in a physical sense, the roboto family and smith family are different.  Physically very similar to their parents, yet still different enough physically that we can tell them apart.

What meaning does family have for us at this eternal and present moment?  Does the meaning of family allow for it's members to also belong to another family?  Yes it does.  How about Species?  No, it does not.

What seems obviously impossible (e.g. for non-human to become human or for human to become non-human) has now been regarded by evolutionists as possible just because they claim that there is no real meaning for species (it doesn't have a meaning that can be grasped like the way we grasp the meaning of a species at this present moment). In other words, for evolutionists, there are no species.  In fact there is nothing!  Since everything is derived from everything else.  There is only matter/energy.  And even that came from nothing "the so called big bang".  

Quote

Back in the day, you had french people and native american people.  There was no such thing as hispanics.  And so, while no new species of human had arisen, sub species taxons had.  The french and native americans havent completely dissapeared.  They exist as hispanics in mexico today. But hispanics are a new type of human, jus as a new species is a new type of other animal.

So we can ask the same question.  What does the Hispanic race mean for us at this present moment?  Does this meaning make it impossible for an individual to have been half French and half Native American?  Does it make it impossible for a Hispanic to give birth to a Chinese, and to create a new race?  It doesn't make it impossible, it exists within our understanding or meaning of the Hispanic race that we have at the present moment.  

This is not like a species coming from another species where species amounts to being empty of meaning.

Quote

So what makes something like a species eternally fixed to God, but not something like native americans or mom and dad

Everything which exists is eternally fixed in God.  The question is, does the evolutionary conception of species (which they admit is just a word) even exist?  

Quote

George Washington can appear in history and dissapear, as can his family.  So why cant a species come and go?

Species inasmuch as they are reflected through their individuals can become extinct.  And as long as they are meaningful for us, as long as we can talk about them in an intelligible way, as long as their form exists in our minds, it is proof that they are eternal. We can talk about dinosaurs even though they don't exist. But their form, their meaning, exists and is intelligible.  They "are" a reality right now even if there are no individuals to manifest them.  Even Washington is a reality right now.  Everything that is intelligible is real!

I hope what I said makes sense....!  I know it might not be easy to understand this kind of metaphysics. But I hope that you at least find it intriguing or perhaps something you might want to explore later on.  Your questions were thought provoking and made me understand my own position better.  Thank you.

Edited by eThErEaL, 25 February 2013 - 10:57 PM.

[iDevonian]

eThErEaL, on 25 February 2013 - 10:28 PM, said:

I believe that knowledge or awareness is reality or actuality and that physical properties like shape, size, quantity, and position are just potentialities and therefore mere "shadows" or reflections of reality (knowledge).  Evolutionists seem believe the opposite or reverse.



The eternal meaning of being a parent means that it can have children.  By eternal I simply mean this very moment which doesn't flow or which does not go to the future and does not come from the past.  It simply is.  Now, the eternal meaning of a species is that it's individuals are characterized by a unique set of qualities not found in individuals belonging to a different species.  Also individuals of a certain species don't reproduce with individuals of another species.  This is the meaning that a species has for us eternally (at this present moment).  So to be human is to be a rational animal. And to be human means to be able to reproduce with other humans and not with non-humans.  This is the meaning that the human species has for us at the present moment (which is the only moment).  To say that Humans "can" also be purely animal or purely rational and that they may have been begotten (even in a gradual way) from what we wouldn't call humans now is a way of saying, "a truly present moment (Eternity, God) does not exist."!  

I didnt understand your first paragraph, the term "mexican", or George Washington refers to a unique set of qualities that are not found in other individuals of other families either.  Being human doesnt necessarily mean to be able to reproduce, though im not sure if that matters to the discussion.  Also, homo sapien sapiens, humans, actually can and have reproduced with non homo sapien sapiens, we have reproduced with neanderthals.  Mexicans and george washington have been begotten in a gradual way, from what we wouldnt call george washington before.

eThErEaL, on 25 February 2013 - 10:28 PM, said:

What meaning does family have for us at this eternal and present moment?  Does the meaning of family allow for it's members to also belong to another family?  Yes it does.  How about Species?  No, it does not.

Your meaning of family, is not something that exists outside of your mind.  I would say, in a physical sense, I can not change families anytime I want. I could not magically become part of the george washington family just because my last name is washington for example. I could not become george washington just because my name may be george washington.

If george washington exists eternally as something non physical, then I would say, families do as well, as would a species.

eThErEaL, on 25 February 2013 - 10:28 PM, said:

What seems obviously impossible (e.g. for non-human to become human or for human to become non-human) has now been regarded by evolutionists as possible just because they claim that there is no real meaning for species (it doesn't have a meaning that can be grasped like the way we grasp the meaning of a species at this present moment). In other words, for evolutionists, there are no species.  In fact there is nothing!  Since everything is derived from everything else.  There is only matter/energy.  And even that came from nothing "the so called big bang".  

George washington is derived from his parents, but it doesnt make him not exist.

eThErEaL, on 25 February 2013 - 10:28 PM, said:

So we can ask the same question.  What does the Hispanic race mean for us at this present moment?  Does this meaning make it impossible for an individual to have been half French and half Native American?  Does it make it impossible for a Hispanic to give birth to a Chinese, and to create a new race?  It doesn't make it impossible, it exists within our understanding or meaning of the Hispanic race that we have at the present moment.  

Hispanics cannot give birth to chinese people.

eThErEaL, on 25 February 2013 - 10:28 PM, said:

This is not like a species coming from another species where species amounts to being empty of meaning.


Everything which exists is eternally fixed in God.  The question is, does the evolutionary conception of species (which they admit is just a word) even exist?  

I dont think I understand your position.  If it helps, a family too, like a species is something that alters with time. My family when I was born is not the same as my family today, nor will it be the same as my family in the future, nor my family when I pass away.

Maybe if you try defining what a family is, then may I could respond adequately, but until then, I really have no idea what youre talking about.

eThErEaL, on 25 February 2013 - 10:28 PM, said:

Species inasmuch as they are reflected through their individuals can become extinct.  And as long as they are meaningful for us, as long as we can talk about them in an intelligible way, as long as their form exists in our minds, it is proof that they are eternal. We can talk about dinosaurs even though they don't exist. But their form, their meaning, exists and is intelligible.  They "are" a reality right now even if there are no individuals to manifest them.  Even Washington is a reality right now.  Everything that is intelligible is real!

ok, so what is the difference then? Actually, I think  Ill challenge this.  There are animals that, if you saw them, you would be incapable of determining whether they were a dinosaur or not.  They are not as intelligible as you claim.  A species is a term used to describe individuals, as is the term dinosaur.

eThErEaL, on 25 February 2013 - 10:28 PM, said:

I hope what I said makes sense....!  I know it might not be easy to understand this kind of metaphysics. But I hope that you at least find it intriguing or perhaps something you might want to explore later on.  Your questions were thought provoking and made me understand my own position better.  Thank you.

Ill read it over a couple more times to see if i can figure out what youre saying.

[eThErEaL]

iDevonian, on 26 February 2013 - 06:40 AM, said:

I didnt understand your first paragraph, the term "mexican", or George Washington refers to a unique set of qualities that are not found in other individuals of other families either.  Being human doesnt necessarily mean to be able to reproduce, though im not sure if that matters to the discussion.  Also, homo sapien sapiens, humans, actually can and have reproduced with non homo sapien sapiens, we have reproduced with neanderthals.  Mexicans and george washington have been begotten in a gradual way, from what we wouldnt call george washington before.

If they really have reproduced (which I wouldn't be surprised) then what essential qualities distinguished them from us? They would still be considered "rational animals" right? They are still human then.

I am not saying that every human individual should be able to produce, but every human individual (developed perfectly) should have the potential to produce other humans.  Some humans are born deformed for example.  That just means they aren't fully developed as a human.

Quote

Your meaning of family, is not something that exists outside of your mind.  I would say, in a physical sense, I can not change families anytime I want. I could not magically become part of the george washington family just because my last name is washington for example. I could not become george washington just because my name may be george washington."

I agree there is something that is stable about a family.   There is a meaning a family has which cannot be betrayed.  Which is why family has an eternal reality or substance as well.  

Quote

If george washington exists eternally as something non physical, then I would say, families do as well, as would a species

Yes!

Quote

George washington is derived from his parents, but it doesnt make him not exist.

Yes. But that's because part of his eternal (present) meaning is that he is the son of someone else.  

Quote

Hispanics cannot give birth to chinese people.

I mean half Chinese half Hispanic.

Quote

I dont think I understand your position.  If it helps, a family too, like a species is something that alters with time. My family when I was born is not the same as my family today, nor will it be the same as my family in the future, nor my family when I pass away.

Right but a family altering from other families is consistent with what we understand by a family when we look at a family.  a species (like human) altering from another species (e.g. from some kind of a monkey) is not consistent with what we understand by a species when we look at one right now.

Quote

ok, so what is the difference then? Actually, I think  Ill challenge this.  There are animals that, if you saw them, you would be incapable of determining whether they were a dinosaur or not.  They are not as intelligible as you claim.  A species is a term used to describe individuals, as is the term dinosaur.

If I saw them, would they reproduce with dinosaurs?  Would they do what Dinosaurs do?  Would they bear the essential qualities of a dinosaur?

[iDevonian]

I havent the slightest clue what youre talking about.

But it sounds as though you agreed with me, in that species, george washington and families, would all be eternal if one were.

Which I think is contrary to what you had said earlier about species not being "eternal".

Let me start from the beginning.

Edited by iDevonian, 26 February 2013 - 05:31 PM.