Design:All faith aside.

Good argument if the counter argument is a perfect God as the designer; but that's not what the OP said. It didn't assume a perfect creator, just a creator. Something more on the order of the "cosmic clockmaker".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It just changes. It wasn't a body or a being, to begin with. You get a new ecosystem.

To the extent he is correct the point is bootless - take the water away and you don't have an ocean, true, but so what ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not to worry.
There is nothing for me to move beyond, as I take nothing personally.

No he isn't.

This is where the confusion starts to set in for many.
What we may consider "optimal" has no bearing on the situation what-so-ever.
Let's use an example...
Let's say, for example, we kill off the baleen whales - that's a popular one.
What happens?
Well, frankly, no one knows precicely what will happen, but you can be assured there will be widespread change, not just to the local ecosystem, not even limited to the oceans at all, in fact.
Nearly every ecosystem on earth will likely be affected.
Plankton will spread through the ocean like wildfire, choking off many other species.
Bacteria will grow out of control, killing off many other species.
The ocean temperatures will change dramatically - which will affect climate across the globe.
The climate change will have devastating effects on many land and air species.

However...

Is just plain wrong.

Nature will adapt, as she always has, and the ecosystems will change, not die.
Perhaps the world will be a place that none of us would even recognize in a hundred years as a result of killing off the baleen whales.
Perhaps humans will even go extinct as a result - but the ecosystem will not change.
We may not survive, but nature will.
The ecosystem will change, but it will not die.
That's the simple beauty of evolution.
Survival of the fittest at it's very core.
The species which adapt best to the environment will thrive.

Whether humans go extinct, or just mosquitos, there will be a change, but evolution assures that nature herself will continue to exist, as long as there remains an environment condusive to life, and we have found life in nearly every environment (regardless how "harsh" it may seem in a anthropomorphic perspective).

It's really not complex at all, the results are.
As such , there was no need whatever to "envision" what the world looks like now, because there is no reason to think this is what the world was "supposed to" look like.
That reasoning implies there was a grand plan, and I see no reason to assume or believe such. Convince me otherwise if you can.

It is no diffeent than saying something as simple-minded as, "Look at all the many billions upon billions of pieces that had to be just so perfectly in place in order for us to even exist. This is surely proof of the existebce of God!"
What most people who make such statements fail to see or acknowledge is that such a statement presumes that humans were fated to exist in the first place - that the system was "designed" with us in mind.
They fail to recognize that the premise already includes the conclusion.
"God exists because God exists."

We are the result of our environment, not the other way around.
Such arrogance is unfounded.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I really dont know what to say but that seems to be a layman's interpretation. But i think we are working on two different definitions of the word ecosystem.

 

Well for one thing there would be no freshwater, not to mention (if it would even matter) what the weather would be like.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061013202025.htm

 

OK, OK !

Ya'll don't have to argue! I'm sure theres a more formal description of it somewhere.

Since we've only touched on some of the questions, maybe someone could direct me to some footage/pics of one animal turning into another animal, we should surely not have to argue about that.

If been happening forever, it has to be happening right now...

 

You are Ice Age, aren't you?
I'm done.

 

I'm your old professor and I'm testing you.
Or am I god and testing you..

All kidding aside, I'm just myself and I've realized that the fundamentals of science require a lot of faith...

OK back to these animals that are jumping species..... Evidence?

BTW, I'm getting to why this is in the social section.

 

So is that what you are talking about, with this "component" business ?

Yep. And of course you see quite a bit of variety in living beings, and notice that some breed more than others, right ? So you see the mechanism in operation just like the rest of us see it.

And the consequences - such as a growing population of American elm trees in the Northeastern US putting out seeds much earlier in their lives, when they are shrubs - are also visible to you, just as they are to everyone who wants to see them.

If you see something stopping it, that the rest of us don't see, then enlighten us at your convenience.

Ah,yes.

Likewise.

 

OK, I'll save time by stating that even IF new species can be made by isolation and environment, with all of our fossils we have none detailing a transition from say a mouse to a bat... If it takes as long as suggested, wouldn't the land be covered with fossils of animals in ALL states of the transitional process? Yet we have none?

 

ok, I never mentioned population?? Is this to me cause, on the quote it's spelled a little different..LOL

 

God would have to be able to do anything if you are relying on him as the organizing force. Adjusting your model to account for an imperfect God is a very weak argument, since the alternative explanation, that the Panda's thumb evolved through slow evolution parallelling the bear's unique and specialized diet, is far more logical and likely.

 

No, it would not. We're lucky to have any fossils at all - we don't, for most environments and most times.

 

To take the points you've highlighted...

(A) Evolution does explain observable phenomena. Fossils are observable. Modern animals are observable. Why is it that most fossils are from species that do not seem to be alive any more? Why is it that the fossils of still extant animals often do not have the great antiquity of the rest of the fossil record? Why is it that so many modern animals seem to have atavistic features? How does one account for genetic similarities between species? Etc. Evolution provides explanations for a wide variety of phenomena, which is part of why it swept through biology so compeletely.

(B) As for falsiiable, it is. If fossil evidence and genetic evidence stacked up agaisnt the theory (and they could havce) the theory would have been discarded. On the "empirically testable" front, there have been controlled experiments testing evolution. More of them, in fact, than controlled experiments testing the theory of Plate Tectonics. That you don't know about them is no reason to assume they do not exist, see, for example this one or here for a broader discussion.

In addition to those controlled experiments, moreover, you can also test it by using it to make predictions and then seeing if those predictions are correct. The most obvious prediction that evolution made, imo, was that given the difference between fossil animals and modern ones that transitional animal forms must have existed. Since then, for most modern animals, transitional forms have come to light.

(C) Controlled experiments are alswered by the "empirically tested" links above.

 

Every living thing that ever existed is in a state of transition, some are in the midst of more rapid transition, some appear to be more stable.

 

I could be wrong, but I believe we are seeing evolution in action with bacteria. In a biology class I took we grew cultures of bacteria and placed antibiotics in the culture. The more deadly the antibiotic was to the bacteria the farther away they would move from it and leave a clear circle around the drug, but when we placed penicillin in the culture by the next day the bacteria hadn't avoided it they just crawled all over it, had absolutely no effect. We might have overused penicillin and now the bacteria have developed an immunity to it. They reproduce faster than other animals so you can more readily see changes in their characteristics from generation to generation. Although I am studying to become a neurobiologist I entirely accept the concept of evolution. You have to take all scientific theory with several grains of salt because when it comes to biology the rules are in a constant state of change.

 

Thanks for stating the truth and keeping an opened mind, Great reply!

There is very little observable evidence that animals are spawning new species and NO evidence of larger jumps through families and genus that would be required for evolution to be correct.

Yet, it's taught as if it were fact.

I think it hurts science in the long run.

 

I don't think that's what she meant. There is evidence for both of those things. An open mind doesn't mean closing it to the evidence.

 

Baloney. There's tons.

 

Well,this was your last attempt to explain this.

Are you willing to try again? cuz it wasn't really clear how it related to my topic.