Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Skyceman
I think many people confuse evolution with adaptation though. They are two completely different things.
If a person exercises, the heart rate will increase and this is called a response. If a person trains for weeks with that exact exercise, then the heart rate will be lower than the initial response. That lowered heart rate for the same exercise might be called, adaptation. If such a modified response is instigated by an environment, then it may be called acclimation. If in response to a change in climate, then it may be called acclimatization. Calling any of these evolution misleads us because the immediate response is an attribute of the current physiological configuration from the DNA. From a store of arousal genetic reserves in the DNA, that configuration dynamically masters new requirements and stays current.Those reserves will synthesize the appropriate new proteins whether the stimulus comes from within, like the exercise, or from outside like the climate, or something else in the environment. By appropriating the four responses, evolutionists not only mislead us but they also complicate what is in reality quite simple. The design takes care of everything.
|
Right, adaptation is simply using the species' existing DNA in new ways, where macroevolution is the creation of a brand new species through changes to the DNA. This usually happens over a long period of time and the fact that it isn't observed (ie you don't see a fish turn into a frog in a generation) supports evolution theory. However speciation (creation of new species) has been directly observed in nature.
There are even what they call ring species, where different species of a common ancestor have evolved distributed along a line (such as around the base of a mountain or around a valley), but evolution has progressed enough that groups next to each other can interbreed, but groups across from each other cannot (indicating a seperate species).
Transitional fossil records also demonstrate macroevolution, as do genetic comparisons.
Creationists usually don't argue microevolution (what you call adaptation) exists, however there's nothing to stop many steps of microevolution turning into macroevolution (evolution at a species level or higher).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Skyceman
Exactly my point. So what started it all? Truly there is no answer to this question. It will always remain a mystery to science.
|
Well I won't concede never, but yes we can't go back and look so it's unlikely we'll ever know.. But now you're talking about abiogenisis which is different than evolution.
Abiogenisis is a fact, creation, natural processes, and seeding by aliens are simply three theories as to how it happened. Evolution doesn't depend on which of those are correct, only that it happened (as it obviously did).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Skyceman
How do you explain gradual evolution if species depend on being optimal for survival? How could a species that depends on being optimal survive to adapt?
|
Species don't depend on being optimal to simply survive, they depend on being the fittest. And they survive not because the environment kills them off if they aren't optimal, they survive because they out-compete the competition. If there's two things in a race, one always wins.
Plus things change. A lot of evolution occurs because populations become seperated into distinct groups with disctinct environments as they move and those environments change. Those two groups then diverge as their different environments create different changes.
Even that is over simplified; in reality it gets into rates of survival and reproduction and analyzing lots of different things. It's not a simple "this bird could eat this seed and this other one couldn't", it's more a "different beak sizes and rates of reproduction led to this bird becoming dominant in this area" or whatever.
Besides you've already acknowledged adaptation (change through natural selection).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Skyceman
How does the second law of thermodynamics work with evolution? Things break down - they do not get better over time.
|
If that were true, then how do snowflakes occur? They are complex structures that arise spontaneously from disordered parts.
This shows a fundumental flaw in many people's understanding; the second law of thermodynamics states that total entropy of a closed system cannot decrease. Entropy is not disorder (though some people casually use it that way).
Plus, the law allows for parts of a system to decrease in entropy as long as other parts offset that to net a total increase. Earth isn't a closed system; the sun pours heat, light, and radiation on us. So our planet can grow more complex because the entropy associated with the sun's fusion more than offsets the decrease from our planet.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Skyceman
I think they traverse with some science and faith together. I wouldn't write if off completely as not real science. There are many things in the scientific world that dumbfound science. Where the raw scientist is silent, a creationist follows holes up with faith and I don't see the crime in that. An outsider who has no spirituality will balk at their credibility and call them a nutcase but they do not understand where they come from.
|
Creationism and Intelligent Design are not science, only faith. There hasn't been one thing scientific about either of them, and ID goes further trying to decieve the public by saying it is a science but it's simply a front for propaganda
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001.html
It isn't a crime to propose theories and have thoughts of course, but we have to be on guard to ensure that it never is (from both sides). Already there has been demonstrated censorship of science from NASA by the US Government.. an isolated case, but that's a slippery slope that HAS to be protected against.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Skyceman
To me, the biggest danger is to turn off one's openness in understanding both sides. To often we hold onto a prejudice and pre-judge what a source maybe be trying to say. Anyway's my point is I do read and try and understand the links and sources you post and I hope you all do the same to keep an open mind.  |
I'll always keep an open mind. I've argued both sides of this; I've actually spent the majority of my life arguing the creationist side of it, so I know its arguments and its ways. Any new data is always welcome; but like I said I haven't seen much that stands up to any sort of serious scrutiny.
Plus one fundumental difference I see is while I don't see science proponents trying to get the government to enforce the teaching of evolution in churches, I do see religious people trying to get ID mandated in schools under the guise of an alternative science. Phillip Johnson himself (who spearheaded and led ID) said that ID isn't about science but about religion and philosophy. That disturbs me on several levels. Church and state should be seperate, and I do believe in "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Quote:
|
Thanks Photon - I appreciate that. While I'm here, would you mind if I ask how exactly you do that? My son seems to feed every 2 hours. How do you get him on a schedule when he needs to eat so frequently?
|
Heh, the first month or two are hell, no way around that.. It's after that that things can get better. I recommend a book called The Baby Whisperer for one. Not everything in it worked for us, but it gave us a good foundation to find what did work.
