God and Evolution

I'm just saying it was contradictory because he claimed it was a fact then compared it directly to a theory.
Click to expand...
No he didn't. Let me reword it for you: change in allele frequency over time is and observed fact. Evolution is based on this. However, theories such as Punctuated Equilibrium and Gradualism try to explain those facts.
Something entirely different would mean that the idea of the loss of rage is not happening. Yet if it was a sieve this possibility exists.
Click to expand...
Yes, but only if 'rage' is unfavourable. If it is neutral, or beneficial in terms of survival, then it will not be selected against, and therefore not be removed.
if one is a strong evolutionary wouldn't you say that the introduction of "emotions" increases with the complexity of the organism?
Click to expand...
Almost everything has an influence at the genetic level. So yes, emotions are genetic.
 
Esstazq said:
Idle, I'm just saying it was contradictory because he claimed it was a fact then compared it directly to a theory. It is a theory, not a fact.
Click to expand...
Evolution is a Fact and a Theory.

Esstazq said:
In regards to the sieve, I'm not saying that it is a ladder. Consequent says "Or it may mean something entirely different. Evolution is a sieve, not a ladder." Something entirely different would mean that the idea of the loss of rage is not happening. Yet if it was a sieve this possibility exists.
Click to expand...
What, precisely, was intended by that incoherent babble?
 
I wish only to add that animals can definitely become angered. Those who disagree might want to talk with someone who has studied animal behavior. :) PMT
 
A sieve is a perfect metaphor for natural selection, not so much the big picture of evolution. I don't see how a ladder relates to anything though.
 
I agree that animals can become angry, not just mammals either, cuttle fish and chameleons being some obvious examples as they change their colour to suit their mood and they tend to turn black with rage.
One of the funniest things I've seen was when a chamelon was half way through courting a female, was just about to make her accept his advances, and then a group of lemurs came and started just generally annoying them and the female chameleon walked away, the male turned black with rage and even shook violently like he was going to explode, it was like a cartoon but i swear it really happened(in a nature documentary).
 
At first glance the idea the God used evolution as a tool for creating humanity often seems like an attractive way to integrate science and religion, but in the end it tends to raise more questions than it answers.

Many racial groups have horrible genetic disease as a result of evolution. Why would God target black people to suffer from sickle-cell anemia? Examples of this sort of thing abound. Blacks having sickle-cell anemia makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint, but it's difficult to imagine why God would intentionally design racial groups to suffer.

Remember, human evolution hasn't stopped. Since people are still evolving, does this mean that God's creative work isn't finished yet? If we aren't the 'finished product' that God intends to create, are we even necessarily human from a religious standpoint?

If god has control of evolution, then why did he design so much brutality into nature? If you accept that God controls evolution, it implies that he's directly responsible for most infectious diseases that plague humanity. Why would God evolve things like smallpox or the black plague? That doesn't sound very loving to me.
 
Dr Lou Natic said:
A sieve is a perfect metaphor for natural selection, not so much the big picture of evolution. I don't see how a ladder relates to anything though.
Click to expand...
Perhaps "staircase" would have served better. The obvious point is that evolution has everything to do with selection and nothing to do with "progress".

What, by the way, is "the big picture of evolution"?
 
I was merely refferring to the 'tree of life', the selective process of "who gets through" is comparable to a sieve but a sieve doesn't adequately illustrate "evolution" as such.

The obvious point is that evolution has everything to do with selection and nothing to do with "progress"
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
I think you'd have to say existence of god and evolution are contradictory, evolution is about getting rid of the bad/useless traits of a creature, why would god put bad traits in creatures in the 1st place? Also we are thinking very 2 dimensional here, humans and modern animals are not the only creatures to ever exist, if god created us did he also create dinosaurs?? i've not seen there creation mentioned anywhere in the bible(am i mistaken????) if god created us in his image then was there a point in dinosaurs? and then why kill them?
 
yeh it is, its about creatures changing to better themselves as a race, when a bad trait emerges that wasnt there before its called a mutation
 
Lemming3k said:
yeh it is, its about creatures changing to better themselves as a race, when a bad trait emerges that wasnt there before its called a mutation
Click to expand...
You should consider the word "better' first. better in what way? All evolution is is a matter of making a species more fit, ie "better" in its environment. Better as a concept doesnt really come into it, hence the word fit gets used.
Then as for mutation, it isnt bad, necessarily. Some mutations mean some species individuals survive better in a certain environment and as such pass on their genes better. Of course, some dont. But calling a bad trait a mutation isnt right at all.
 
Question: In truth, when the wind blows a seed up on to a mountain side, and that seed grows; then the wind blows more seeds in the same way and those seeds grow, and this creates food for some species, which species gravitates toward that region. Is all this not evolution? Whereas, I see no species getting wings or losing fins, I have observed the more simple changes by being away from an area for some time, and finding that a later view reveals that much happened during my absence, and apparently without the help of man. Do we not call this evolution as well?

And, please do not ask me what my point is, because I am asking a question, not trying to prove anything. Thanks. pmt
 
Many racial groups have horrible genetic disease as a result of evolution. Why would God target black people to suffer from sickle-cell anemia? Examples of this sort of thing abound. Blacks having sickle-cell anemia makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint, but it's difficult to imagine why God would intentionally design racial groups to suffer.
Click to expand...

Without the mutation to cause the sickle-cell, I can't imagine how many millions would have died of malaria. It's seen as a bad thing in the West, but it developed as a defense mechanism.
 
15ofthe19 said:
Without the mutation to cause the sickle-cell, I can't imagine how many millions would have died of malaria. It's seen as a bad thing in the West, but it developed as a defense mechanism.
Click to expand...
Sickle cell anemia protects you from malaria, yes, but it also eventually kills you. Since it doesn't usually kill you until after you've reached adulthood and had a chance to reproduce, it's beneficial from an evolutionary point of view; it makes a person more likely to pass on their genes. But it still doesn't seem like the sort of thing that a rational god would design into people.
 
P. M. Thorne said:
Question: In truth, when the wind blows a seed up on to a mountain side, and that seed grows; then the wind blows more seeds in the same way and those seeds grow, and this creates food for some species, which species gravitates toward that region. Is all this not evolution? Whereas, I see no species getting wings or losing fins, I have observed the more simple changes by being away from an area for some time, and finding that a later view reveals that much happened during my absence, and apparently without the help of man. Do we not call this evolution as well?
Click to expand...
No! The sort of thing that you describe is not evolution. Evolution (at least as biologists use the term) is genetic change in a population over time. Creatures migrating around from one place to another isn't evolution in the biological sense.
 
On sickle cell anemia, there are a few cases to consider. There are the people that are unaffected, ie, their hemoglobin is a normal shape. In the affected people, in which one amino acid in the hemoglobin protein molecule monomer is changed (hemoglobin is a tetramer of an identical monomer that associates with a haem molecule), causing a large shift in shape of hemoglobin, and the red blood cell, which leads to loss of function (as we all know, hemoglobin is essential for oxygen transport in the body). There are two copies of each chromosome in human cells, and therefore two copies of the hemoglobin gene. One copy is inherited from the mother, and the other one inherited from the father. This means that a person can inherit a good copy from the mother or father, and a bad copy from the other parent, or inherit two bad copies of the gene. Those who inherit 2 bad copies (homozygous for the sickle cell trait) rarely live past adolescence. However, those who have one good copy and one bad copy (heterozygous for the sickle cell trait) still have ~60% functional hemoglobin, and can survive well into adulthood.

People who are homozygous for the dominant normal hemoglobin gene are susceptible to malaria infection, which is caused by flagellate parasites that infect red blood cells. People who are homozygous for the recessive sickle cell trait are resistant to the parasite since it cannot infect red blood cells of sickle shape, but do not have adequate oxygen transport due to the lack of hemoglobin function. However, heterozygotes, or people who have one normal hemoglobin gene, and one sickle cell gene are resistant to malarial infection, and can sufficiently transport oxygen with their one good gene. The reason the deadly sickle cell gene is still around, is that it is selected for in areas where malaria is rampant, such as Africa.
 
I was speaking more of the seeds, which caused the migration in my scenario, which would be a process of development and change. Of course, this would not be biology.

Thank you for your response. Perhaps the word evolution is now used more as in Darwin's theory of evolution more specifically. Some interesting stuff here. PMT
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top