Evolution vs. Religion (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

LafayetteLady -> Evolution vs. Religion (4/18/2011 6:56:43 PM)

I don't want this to turn into an atheist vs. christian thread, or one side bashing the other, there is something I've been wondering about lately.

According to creationism, God created everything. According to evolution, everything evolved from a single cell. If evolution is true, then why didn't every cell continue to evolve? Why did frogs not continue to evolve? What stalled a shark's evolution?

Yes, I am a Christian, so I am in the creationism camp, and how everything came to be is easy to figure out. However, this point, for me, stalls the evolution camp. Now I'm not saying there isn't an explanation, just that I've never heard one.

So for those of you who can explain this to me, I would appreciate it. Keep in mind though, science is soooo not my thing, so please keep it simple!



outhere69 -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/18/2011 7:09:19 PM)

I've never seen any statement that all life came from a single cell.  Single cell cell organisms, yeah.

Looks like the earliest forms may have been bacteria running on RNA:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080717140459.htm

Here's another interesting page:
http://www.bacteriamuseum.org/cms/Evolution/eubacteria-and-archaebacteria-the-oldest-forms-of-life.html



ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/18/2011 7:09:44 PM)

It's easy. Evolution is the result of random mutations in individual members of a species, not across the entire population of a species. A few individuals mutate into something that eventually becomes another species, but most individuals don't. So the original species continues on.

Does that help?

Edit: It's like if you begin with 100 sheep, and 3 of them happen to have been born with slightly longer necks. One year there's a drought, and food is hard to come by, so the sheep with the long necks all survive because they can reach higher up the trees to eat the leaves. About half of the original 100 sheep starve to death, so you have about 53 sheep, 3 of them with long necks and the rest all with regular necks. A few years later, there's another drought, and the descendants of the original 3 long-necked sheep all survive, and about half the other sheep die.

In 100 years or so, the sheep with long necks have become common, and have begun to move into a different habitat, where there are more trees and they can take advantage of their ability to graze on the leaves instead of the same grass that all the other ground animals are competing for. Meanwhile, the descendants of the original short-necked sheep are still scampering about on the grasslands; they didn't evolve, but they didn't die out either. This goes on for ten or twenty thousand years, and the next thing you know, you've got sheep on the grasslands and giraffes in the savanna. Not every sheep evolved; they didn't need to. Only a few of them did, and the rest just decided to remain sheep.



WantsOfTheFlesh -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/18/2011 7:14:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady
According to creationism, God created everything. According to evolution, everything evolved from a single cell. If evolution is true, then why didn't every cell continue to evolve? Why did frogs not continue to evolve? What stalled a shark's evolution?

I'm not in any way an expert on evolutionism but I loosely subscribe to it because I can't believe the bible is a solid basis for mapping the development of the natural world. BTW unlike people like Dawkins I don't dislike religion - I think it serves an important function in society. As I understand it, the evolution of animals occurs out of necessity in a given environment. It isn't linear or continuous. Crocodiles have remained largely the same for 200+ million years because they are highly successful predators, only evolving to become a bit smaller perhaps due to the switch from megafauna.



dcnovice -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/18/2011 7:14:56 PM)

I was taught evolution by a Catholic priest in a Catholic high school, so I don't see a clash between evolution and religion.



Hillwilliam -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/18/2011 7:15:32 PM)

Sharks did continue to evolve. Modern sharks look very little like their ancestors of the Ordivician. Frogs did too. Early frogs are barely recognizable beside their modern descendents.

Organisms change as their environment changes or they die out. An organism in an untenable situation has 3 choices. Move, Adapt or Die.

There are some species that have been around for tens or hundreds of millions of years. If you look, you will usually see that their environment hasn't changed much.

The coelacanth is an example. Over a hundred million years old as a species and where do they live? Mid depths in the ocean. VERY stable environment. Temperature, light levels, pH and salinity haven't changed in millenia. If they do change slightly, migration in the ocean is easier than on land. The only thing that changes is their food source.

I hope that is simple enough. If it isn't. let me know and I'll try to do better explaining.




Hillwilliam -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/18/2011 7:19:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

I was taught evolution by a Catholic priest in a Catholic high school, so I don't see a clash between evolution and religion.



I taught Biology at a Catholic HS. When I was being hired, the monk (yes, some of them wore cassocks) who was the headmaster asked if I had any questions. I asked him about teaching evolutionary biology.

He said "In science class, I want you to teach science. In religion class, I'll teach religion"

Basically, he wanted Me to teach evolutionary biology and stay off his turf (religion).



housesub4you -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/18/2011 7:43:09 PM)

Things evolve everyday.  Just because they are not at the scale people want them to be, does not mean  it does not happen.

Things evolving today:  well, look at virus's, germs that we killed with "simple" poisons 10years ago, today need over 1000 times the amount.  why because they evolved, the weak died and the strong survived.

People look at history books and want millions of years of change to take place in less than a decade, if it does not they say evolution is not real because they do not see it happen. 

Do things evolve....just look at people....we are living longer, growing taller, than we did less than 100 years ago.  Sure you can say it is medicine, but in reality, medical breakthroughs account for the last 20-30 years tops....how do you explain the other 70???   People are changing, or in other words evolving.





tweakabelle -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/18/2011 8:04:02 PM)

If the OP is assessing evolutionary theory logically and against the available evidence, why not apply the same standards to creationist 'theory'?

Belief in creationism seems impossible to me if these standards are applied.



DomKen -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/18/2011 8:21:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady

I don't want this to turn into an atheist vs. christian thread, or one side bashing the other, there is something I've been wondering about lately.

According to creationism, God created everything. According to evolution, everything evolved from a single cell. If evolution is true, then why didn't every cell continue to evolve? Why did frogs not continue to evolve? What stalled a shark's evolution?

Every cell did continue to evolve. The organisms alive today are very different from the ones that they are descended from. Frogs and sharks are not single species but groups of hundreds of living species and a much larger number of extinct species. Those alive today evolved from those species that existed millions of years ago.

There is no requirement that every species will evolve to be very different from its ancestors. If a species is well suited to its environment and that environment remains stable then there is absolutely no reason to expect a radical change in the population over time.



Aylee -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/18/2011 8:21:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady

I don't want this to turn into an atheist vs. christian thread, or one side bashing the other, there is something I've been wondering about lately.

According to creationism, God created everything. According to evolution, everything evolved from a single cell. If evolution is true, then why didn't every cell continue to evolve? Why did frogs not continue to evolve? What stalled a shark's evolution?



Simply put. . .

The goal of evolution is not "replacing humankind" or "sentience" or "space travel."

The goal is compatibility with their environment and survivability in order to procreate.

A frog's evolution is not really stalled. It just works for them where they are at. A shark's evolution is not stalled. They are very functional and efficient at what they are and do.

You just are misunderstanding the goal of evolution. It is surviving and if they are surviving in their niche than random mutations are not going to be all that helpful.

Does this help you?



Arpig -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/18/2011 8:34:41 PM)

quote:

If evolution is true, then why didn't every cell continue to evolve?
They do, all the time, billions upon billions upon billions of times a day.

quote:

Why did frogs not continue to evolve
They did continue, and continue to this day.

quote:

What stalled a shark's evolution?
Nothing. Sharks, like all living organisms continue to evolve.

A good example of evolution in action within your own lifetime is the appearance of drug resistant bacteria. They did not exist 30 years ago, yet they do now. Where did they come from? how did they develop?

quote:

According to creationism, God created everything. According to evolution, everything evolved from a single cell.
Actually there is no inherent contradiction between the two. Look at it this way: God created everything, and evolution is the process by which He did so.

Hope this helps.



eihwaz -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/18/2011 8:39:03 PM)

Just to be clear, in Darwinian evolutionary theory,  what evolves are species, i.e., populations of individuals -- not individual organisms.  Also, Darwinian evolution primarily concerns the origins of species, not that of life itself.

According to Darwinian evolution, the primary cause of change is a process called natural selection wherein the environment -- climate, vegetation, availability of food, terrain, predators, accessibility of potential mates, and so on -- determines which traits make it more likely that an individual will survive and reproduce ("fitness").  Over time, those traits conferring the most survival and reproductive advantage -- or fitness -- come to predominate in the population, and the species becomes more or less optimized for its environment, and ceases to evolve (actually, evolves much more slowly).  If the environment changes -- hotter, colder, wetter, dryer, loss of food sources, new food sources, new predators, and so on -- a new set of selection pressures exerts itself to accelerate evolutionary change of the species.  Those are the basics.

If frogs and sharks haven't evolved much, that means that they're reasonably optimized for their environments at present, and have been for quite some time.

Note that evolution of species occurs over reproductive cycles and the unit of evolutionary time is the generation.  How slowly or quickly a species evolves depends in part on how often it produces a new generation of children.

Some Christians object to evolution on three grounds:
  • Evolution is definitely not compatible with a literalistic reading of Genesis.
  • Many Christians believe that God's purpose pervades, and operates through, even most minute elements of the creation.  Evolution, on the other hand, is non-teleological (doesn't by itself have an ultimate purpose) and involves random events.
  • Many Christians feel that evolution's proposition that humans evolved from other species rather than being created de novo by God undermines humanity's divine specialness.
As a person of faith, I perceive no contradiction between belief -- in particular an allegorical or mythic reading of Genesis -- and evolution.  I have no problem believing (non-rationally and non-scientifically) that God created the physical universe and everything within it, and that evolution generates the "endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful" (Darwin) of life.



Kirata -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/18/2011 9:03:38 PM)


The appearance in our universe of life as we know it is the outcome of an extraordinary confluence of circumstances. If the profits of a casino were found to be due to such an extraordinarily improbable accumulation of coincidences, it would be difficult to fault a reasonable person for concluding that something is going on.

Thus, individuals whose thinking is constrained by a materialistic world-view have "realized" that this could only occur in the context of an infinite multitude of universes in which such extremely unlikely confluences of circumstances could be reliably expected to occur. It is impossible to prove this conjecture, of course, but they regard the existence of such an extraordinarily improbable confluence of circumstances as prima facie evidence that it must be so.

Similarly, individuals whose thinking is constrained by a theistic world-view have "realized" that this could only occur in the context of some intent, some purpose. It is impossible to prove this conjecture, of course, but they regard the existence of such an extraordinarily improbable confluence of circumstances as prima facie evidence that it must be so.

The universe is a very peculiar place, however, and there exists a third view: a view not invested in the constraints that underpin both of these unprovable conjectures, a view not driven by a need for certainty so overpowering as to compel people to believe in things that can't be proven, a view with the humility to admit that we just don't know. And I suspect those who hold it have long shaken their heads at both of these crazy neighbors.

K.



TheHeretic -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/18/2011 9:10:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig
Actually there is no inherent contradiction between the two. Look at it this way: God created everything, and evolution is the process by which He did so.




This



Termyn8or -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/18/2011 9:13:49 PM)

FR without a read.....

"According to evolution, everything evolved from a single cell. If evolution is true, then why didn't every cell continue to evolve? Why did frogs not continue to evolve? What stalled a shark's evolution? "

Who says they didn't evolve ? Just because they don't have computers and speak English, how do we know that animals are stupid ? Try learning the language of wolves, in a wolf pack. You know they mate for life, along with a few other species'. Shame we can't seem to rise to that level.

T^T



LafayetteLady -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/18/2011 9:20:42 PM)

Wow didn't expect so many answers so quick. My mother once told me how God and evolution blended, but I don't remember, and she is no longer her to remind me.

Outher69:

I post from my phone so links aren't very helpful. Scientific ones even less so. I was looking to start a dialogue of the subject but thanks anyway.

Tweakabelle:

Everyone else has managed to not even touch on being argumentative about whether creationism is possible. They provided answers to my question. I am not looking for anyone to prove one is better or more logical than the other. Perhaps you can start your own post on that subject.

Everyone else:

Thank you for keeping it simple and using understandable analogies, especially Panda and Arpig. It isn't so much that I can't rationalize evolution with my personal beliefs, more that I guess as someone else said, because it occured over millions of years, I found it more difficult to see.



rulemylife -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/18/2011 9:54:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

I was taught evolution by a Catholic priest in a Catholic high school, so I don't see a clash between evolution and religion.


Let's be honest here.

What the Catholic schools taught was a bastardized version of evolution in which God is the guiding hand behind it.



Arpig -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/18/2011 10:28:08 PM)

quote:

What the Catholic schools taught was a bastardized version of evolution in which God is the guiding hand behind it.
And how does that alter the facts of the theory? What difference does it make who or what is considered the guiding principle behind the process?



NihilusZero -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/18/2011 10:49:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

It's easy. Evolution is the result of random mutations in individual members of a species, not across the entire population of a species. A few individuals mutate into something that eventually becomes another species, but most individuals don't. So the original species continues on.

Does that help?

Edit: It's like if you begin with 100 sheep, and 3 of them happen to have been born with slightly longer necks. One year there's a drought, and food is hard to come by, so the sheep with the long necks all survive because they can reach higher up the trees to eat the leaves. About half of the original 100 sheep starve to death, so you have about 53 sheep, 3 of them with long necks and the rest all with regular necks. A few years later, there's another drought, and the descendants of the original 3 long-necked sheep all survive, and about half the other sheep die.

In 100 years or so, the sheep with long necks have become common, and have begun to move into a different habitat, where there are more trees and they can take advantage of their ability to graze on the leaves instead of the same grass that all the other ground animals are competing for. Meanwhile, the descendants of the original short-necked sheep are still scampering about on the grasslands; they didn't evolve, but they didn't die out either. This goes on for ten or twenty thousand years, and the next thing you know, you've got sheep on the grasslands and giraffes in the savanna. Not every sheep evolved; they didn't need to. Only a few of them did, and the rest just decided to remain sheep.


*points*

This may also be interesting to the discussion:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0546875