Temptations of the devil, eh? haha no.
How do I explain human evolution? I don't. I do not believe that we evolved from apes. (or any other animal for that matter...)
I know we've all seen the picture in our biology books where there's an ape on one side, and a modern human on the other. And in between there's all these transition figures of the ape becoming human.
Many people see this example as an argument for evolution.
Consider this: I take a piece of half-worked clay, and I shape it into a piece of pottery. Let's say that it takes me 2 hours and I take a picture of it every 10 mins as I'm working on it, and of the finished product. When I'm finished I lay out all the pictures in a line. The line of pictures is analogous to the picture of the line of evolving ape-to-humans.
Did the clay evolve? No, I designed it into a piece of pottery.
So does this mean that humans could not possibly have evolved? No.
But does it mean that there cannot possibly be a designer involved? No.
So I say, that that particular icon-of-evolution argument does not distinguish one way or the other. It can show evolution or intelligent design.

Yes, my brains just clicked back into the swing of things. How do you explain human evolution, as well, boiler? There's only a few "what goes here spaces" in it. What are all the other fossil records for humans? No, they're not temptations of the devil.

However, we have found fossils that show trasitions between different classes of animals. For example, there are/have been amphibious fish (lungfish are a modern example), mammal-like reptiles (dimetrodon), birdlike reptiles (many dinosaurs had feathers), and reptile-like birds (the hoatzin is a modern bird but its young are born with claws on their wings. the bird does not fly well and mainly climbs trees and swims). These transitions show us that each class wasn't created seperately, they evolved.

I see there's no changing your mind, boiler. You do, however, have a very convincing argument. I'm not saying that you're right by not arguing with you, I'm just saying that I've argued this a bajillion times. I think one can take more stock in something that can be proved, than something that they read in a book, even if the fossil record "follows" said book. Oh, wait, I did just argue with you. My apologies. lol

quote:

Originally posted by clpo13:
Just today I saw a sign on a church reader board. It said, "Big Bang theory? Who lit the fuse?" Now, I find this to be an interesting topic. I personally believe that there is a being, the Creator, which created the Universe via an explosive event knowns as the Big Bang. Believe me, there is proof that it happened. Enormous amounts of background radiation are present in the Universe that could have only come from a very, very large explosion. And since this radiation is present everywhere, everything must have come from that explosion: the Big Bang.

However, this is where I digress from the usual ideas. This Creator figure didn't go on to create every single thing in the Universe individually, such as Man and Woman (from dust and a rib, respectively). Instead, he made more of a blueprint, for the Universe and everything in it. So then he started the Universe rolling, and Creation created itself. Meanwhile, the Creator goes off to do other Creatorly things, which doesn't include listening to prayers about the lottery and making sure you get that special parking spot at the mall.

So yes, I believe in Intelligent Design. Yes, I also believe in evolution (not Darwinism, though). And yes, I believe in the Big Bang, too. They aren't all mutually exclusive. In fact, if you want to get all religious about it, science can prove religion right. Not all of it, but some of it. The important stuff at least. I suggest reading Angels and Demons by Dan Brown (thanks Worth for bringing that up). It's fiction, yes, but it brings this debate into the light.

Ahem. I agree with clpo. Read his posts. He is smart.

And, no problem, hun! I thought you'd probably already read that one. I meant to read it first but it was checked out and The Da Vinci Code was in and Mom told me it didn't really matter which one I read first so...I am now going to read Angels and Demons after I finish my summer project book.

Actually, I didn't say I would prove creation, and I don't think I can. But I do think it is a good theory, and deserves more investigation. How do I compare the gaps? If ya look at the Genesis account, it tells what creatures were created on what day. The fossil record shows new species popping up in the same order.

boiler: But just out of curiosity, how do you prove creation? And how can you compare the gaps in evolution to the beginnning of Genisis? I think intelligent design is just a watered down theory of creation, myself. Created to allow it to encompass all religions and all people. But, of course, that's just my opinion.

And on the original statement: Of course there are atheists. With your little theory, reactionary, there would be no other religions either. I'm not going to just close my eyes and say, "Oh, I don't agree with you so you don't exist." That's not the way it works, dear reactionary.

Yeah, that statistic was mentioned in passing, but it is an excellent book.

Hmm... so, we can't find evidence of these species, so we believe they existed... by faith, basically.
Well, guess there's nothin that says evolution can't use faith to fill in the gaps.
And I might just check out that book, Carl Sagan is a great mind. (Man, I'm reading so many books right now...)

It's an estimation of course, probably made through known trends in biodiversity and extinction, and the fact that we have an idea of previous biomasses. The bulk of organisms that have existed remain today as fossil fuels. If we consider how much oil and coal we use, how much has been used, and how much has left, and attempt to make an inference of how many lifeforms it takes to make that much oil and coal, we may be able to get an idea of how many species it contains. Monocultures do not survive, so lots of organisms tends to indicate lots of biodiversity, at least until we entered the scene.

I recognize that this is not a great example, the fossil fuel thing is just my own idea and I don't know how many people would agree with it. Also, most of the organic matter in such material is from single celled organisms and I don't think that's what we're concerned about at this second.

I would generally account for the missing fossils is that the earth has experienced many moist, warm periods. These conditions are ideal for decomposistion, but also for life to thrive (think of rainforests). The really interesting life forms may have rotted before they could become fossilized. Some may have ended up in areas where there was enough sediment that they could become fossilized, but sediment burial does not guarentee fossilization.

Another possibility is that some extinctions may have been so violent that life forms were totally destroyed. The most violent and total extinction on the record is the Permian extinction. Over 90% of life forms are estimated to have gone extinct. This was caused by massive volcanic explosions, huge fires, toxic fumes, et cetera. I'm counting on the geologists that figured out the conditions of the earth at that time. I would guess that fires would wreak havok on any remains, even bones. Plus, the Permian era was so long ago that most fossils may not have survived.

You make a good point though. We don't know for sure. It's all estimation. I read the estimate in Carl Sagan's "Billions and Billions". Excellent book by the way, if you haven't read it.

Ok, thank you for correcting me.
So, if we can't expect to find fossils for the many species that have lived but no longer live now, how do we know they actually existed?

Boiler-
Please recognize that Darwin's theorys are not a perfect reflection of evolutionary theory and that he wrote Origins of Species quite a long time ago. Darwin is to biology what Newton is to physics: brilliant for his time, important in his discoveries, but partly wrong.

Punctuated equilibrium and natural selection coexist. Natural selection explains the frequency change in alleles while punctutated equilibrium reflects the fossil record. We do not have a perfect fossil record. As I previously mentioned, fossils do not form easily and if they did we'd have them all over the place. Fossils are for the most part, rare. That is how we find species that we never knew existed - those fossils were rare.

You seem to be confusing natural selection with gradualism. Natural selection does not explain the patterns of evolution, it explains how evolution works. The idea that organisms evolve slowly and smoothly is called gradualism. Natural selection means that individuals with a favorable trait are more likely to survive and reproduce. Punctuated equilibrium means that evolution occurs in "short" spurts insterspersed with relative stability. "Short" is a very relative term, and here probably means hundreds of years at least.

Environmental factors that cause higher mutation rates could cause the "rapid" periods of evolution (natural selection depends on mutations and variety). I'm sick of this missing link bullsh**. We cannot expect to find such fossils. Environmental factors have to be perfect for fossils to form. Scientists estimate that 50 billion species have existed on earth, and only 1% of that accounts for the currently existing species. We cannot expect to find fossil evidence of 50 billion species. It is totally illogical.

Just today I saw a sign on a church reader board. It said, "Big Bang theory? Who lit the fuse?" Now, I find this to be an interesting topic. I personally believe that there is a being, the Creator, which created the Universe via an explosive event knowns as the Big Bang. Believe me, there is proof that it happened. Enormous amounts of background radiation are present in the Universe that could have only come from a very, very large explosion. And since this radiation is present everywhere, everything must have come from that explosion: the Big Bang.

However, this is where I digress from the usual ideas. This Creator figure didn't go on to create every single thing in the Universe individually, such as Man and Woman (from dust and a rib, respectively). Instead, he made more of a blueprint, for the Universe and everything in it. So then he started the Universe rolling, and Creation created itself. Meanwhile, the Creator goes off to do other Creatorly things, which doesn't include listening to prayers about the lottery and making sure you get that special parking spot at the mall.

So yes, I believe in Intelligent Design. Yes, I also believe in evolution (not Darwinism, though). And yes, I believe in the Big Bang, too. They aren't all mutually exclusive. In fact, if you want to get all religious about it, science can prove religion right. Not all of it, but some of it. The important stuff at least. I suggest reading Angels and Demons by Dan Brown (thanks Worth for bringing that up). It's fiction, yes, but it brings this debate into the light.

Forgive me if I sound like a textbook, I don't mean to. If I confuse anyone, I'm sorry, just let me know and I'll try to clarify.
Evolution has long since held the belief that organisms are the way they are because of natural selection. It's taken millions of years for them to get that way. If that is the case, the fossil record should reflect it.
Then, evolutionists came out with another theory: it is called Punctuated Equilibrium. Basically, it is the opposite of natural selection. It says that evolution can take huge leaps at a time, after Darwin himself said that "Natural selection is a slow process... she can never take leaps...". Punctuated Equilibrium is an attempt to explain the gaps in the fossil record. (If all these organisms went through millions of years of evolution, where are the millions of years' worth of fossils? We don't have any) When Darwin wrote Origin of Species, he acknowledged that we had not yet found these "transition state" organisms' fossils, or "the steps in between". 100 years later, we still haven't found them.
If we had the necessary transition-state fossils, we wouldn't have needed to come up with Punctuated Equilibrium, because there wouldn't be gaps. Actually, right now, the fossil record looks a lot like Genesis chapter 1...

Nick, I'm only a little into Dan Brown's Angels and Demons but thus far it seems to support that science and religion can coexist like this...Of course, I'm only seventy pages into 500+. Someone else who has read more of it could give you some more insight on the subject.

quote:

But, science is coming up with physical evidence that strongly points toward a Designer of the Universe.

Such as??? I've been hearing this load of crap for years! If science is coming up with physical evidence that strongly points toward a 'Designer of the Universe', where is the evidence? And, are they respected scientists??

Hmm... so what is science saying about the existence of God?
The Intelligent Design Theory is not laughed at in the science community. Lately, more and more scientists are seeing physical evidence that points toward the existence of a Creator. The kalam argument and the Fine-Tuning argument are just a couple examples, I personally find them fascinating.
Science will never be able to say with 100% certainty "there is no god". But, science is coming up with physical evidence that strongly points toward a Designer of the Universe.
Certainly seems like science is discovering God. As far as faith separating science from religion, I don't think that's the case.
According to some of the modern scientific evidence, it takes more faith to NOT believe in God than to believe in him.

Faith...is just a glorified way of saying "I don't know."

quote:

There are no knowers in religion. Only believers.

This is what seperates religion from science. Faith. The Church have been going on about it for centuries becuase they know that they cannot prove that there is a God and they've spent 2000 years on it. I don't think anyone here will be able to do what they have failed to do for 2000 years on a thread on a youths debating site.

http://www.jhuger.com/watchmaker.php
This is for anyone who likes using the comparison of the earth to finding a watch (or painting) lying around.