LifeCycle Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 I just don't see it... All these variables coming together to get us to where we are today. Fully-functional beings with the balance of nature and all it's spectacular features to coax us along. I don't understand how intermediate creatures can evolve. Flight for example... How does that even work? How does a creature have an arm that later turns into a wing - thrive while it's in the intermediate state? How is half of an arm and half of the makings of a wing even useful? How can a creature survive this state to later achieve it's later greatness? They would be sitting ducks. I just don't see how imperfect creatures can thrive and flourish when they are not fully functional - especially with creatures that require the use of other creatures in their final state, to survive. I think there's a mention of symbiotic relationships and evolution... But that idea baffles me. Whales and plankton for example... It all seems a little too perfect to be coincidence... And it is in this subject that my agnosticism really becomes magnified. I simply don't know enough to embrace the idea that all of this is mere coincidence. It seems awfully and magnificently unlikely to me. Anyone else in this place of confusion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted October 1, 2012 Super Moderator Share Posted October 1, 2012 I simply don't know enough to embrace the idea that all of this is mere coincidence. Evolution is not coincidence. I see why you're confused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 Have you tried to read any books about it or take a class in biological/physical anthropology or such? Honestly, it does take a little effort to get into and appreciate. Evolution isn't always an easy thing to grasp. It takes a little time of study. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurisaz Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 Who said it was coincidence? If you wonder whether there wasn't a designer at work, sure there was... nature and its laws. And lots of time to try out possibilities. As for your flight example, there's not really a problem with it once you get the how-to of evolution. One is tempted to think as soon as something assumes a new function, it must lose its old one. Not so. Imagine beasties that jump. Easy, no? Now imagine some of them develop something like little wing skins between their extremities. They aren't so large that the critters can't run or climb or (whatever) anymore, but they do mean that the animals can jump further. Enter natural selection, and enough time, and you get... you know I know it can be confusing, I've been there too. I just (probably) had the advantage that no one tried to force some "therefore gawd!!!!" agenda on me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LifeCycle Posted October 1, 2012 Author Share Posted October 1, 2012 I simply don't know enough to embrace the idea that all of this is mere coincidence. Evolution is not coincidence. I see why you're confused. That settles it then. Half wing/half arm is useful and obviously survive-able - even though, this creature today would quickly die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LifeCycle Posted October 1, 2012 Author Share Posted October 1, 2012 Have you tried to read any books about it or take a class in biological/physical anthropology or such? Honestly, it does take a little effort to get into and appreciate. Evolution isn't always an easy thing to grasp. It takes a little time of study. No, I've done basic study... Looking for all these intermediate creatures on some fossil record and have come up short. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LifeCycle Posted October 1, 2012 Author Share Posted October 1, 2012 Who said it was coincidence? If you wonder whether there wasn't a designer at work, sure there was... nature and its laws. And lots of time to try out possibilities. As for your flight example, there's not really a problem with it once you get the how-to of evolution. One is tempted to think as soon as something assumes a new function, it must lose its old one. Not so. Imagine beasties that jump. Easy, no? Now imagine some of them develop something like little wing skins between their extremities. They aren't so large that the critters can't run or climb or (whatever) anymore, but they do mean that the animals can jump further. Enter natural selection, and enough time, and you get... you know I know it can be confusing, I've been there too. I just (probably) had the advantage that no one tried to force some "therefore gawd!!!!" agenda on me. Even with laws, coincidence still exists. If I drop a ball from atop a tower, it will fall due to gravity. It's coincidence that it landed on some dude and knocked him the fuck out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravenstar Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 Wings.. I think the evidence now points to feathers as being first a display characteristic, a warmth/insulation thing and then later a flight thing.. not sure on this but fossils have been found with land dinosaurs who had feathers for display. Early (small) feathered dinosaurs were more gliders than fliers, and strangely came after the pterodons—who did have true flight. You do know that wings are only modified hands (and arms), right? Whale flippers are only modified limbs... eyes are modified and refined light/warmth sensors that even very simple creatures possess... etc... Cave spiders have no eyes, or very rudimentary ones because in their environment they don't need them. Sort of a backwards evolution.. they had eyes and now they don't because they found themselves in a cave with no light and over time those senses were weeded out as inefficient/useless through evolution. I can easily see how something like a flying squirrel could have evolved into bats... and from that can see how feathered dinosaurs could have evolved into birds. It also seems to me that your concept of intermediate forms is kind of.. well.. childish. No animal went from say, swimming (like fish) to walking on land with only one step in between. Lungfish and mudskippers are good examples of modern intermediate forms though. Another thing... everything is an intermediate form, because everything is still evolving, and it seems to work fine. We are the 'missing link' to what we may evolve into say in a million years.. if our species makes it that far. The important thing is to familiarize yourself with the immense periods of time required for these changes.. seriously, millions of years and untold generations all passing on the genes of the ones who fit their environment best, extreme environmental pressures and competition, radiation and random mutations and... Once you understand it it comes together like an elegant puzzle... and is the basis of many scientific advances... we benefit from it because when the Theory is applied it works, over and over and over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 I just don't see it... All these variables coming together to get us to where we are today. Fully-functional beings with the balance of nature and all it's spectacular features to coax us along. I don't understand how intermediate creatures can evolve. Flight for example... How does that even work? How does a creature have an arm that later turns into a wing - thrive while it's in the intermediate state? How is half of an arm and half of the makings of a wing even useful? How can a creature survive this state to later achieve it's later greatness? They would be sitting ducks. I just don't see how imperfect creatures can thrive and flourish when they are not fully functional - especially with creatures that require the use of other creatures in their final state, to survive. I think there's a mention of symbiotic relationships and evolution... But that idea baffles me. Whales and plankton for example... It all seems a little too perfect to be coincidence... And it is in this subject that my agnosticism really becomes magnified. I simply don't know enough to embrace the idea that all of this is mere coincidence. It seems awfully and magnificently unlikely to me. Anyone else in this place of confusion? Are humans fully functional? As compared to some previous critter, I suppose we are. A few hundred million years from now the superior human species might look back and wonder about evolution and point out that humanity of this age now only had half a brain. :-) Of what use is a man with only two arms and legs? We might be considered fully functional until that big nuclear whatever..then we might need to evolve some sort of radiation-proof skin. :-) But thankfully, in these United States belief in evolution (or creationism) doesn't normally have an impact on your average day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator TrueFreedom Posted October 1, 2012 Moderator Share Posted October 1, 2012 I simply don't know enough to embrace the idea that all of this is mere coincidence. Evolution is not coincidence. I see why you're confused. That settles it then. Half wing/half arm is useful and obviously survive-able - even though, this creature today would quickly die. Why would such a creature quickly die? We still have plenty of flightless birds surviving in the wild: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Flightless_birds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravenstar Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 You won't find 'all' the intermediate forms..because fossilization is a very rare process. Most dead animals, plants, whatever are completely absorbed by the earths eco-sphere, more are destroyed through tectonic processes. Fossils are rare. We have found enough though to support evolution, more than enough, and more every day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted October 1, 2012 Super Moderator Share Posted October 1, 2012 If your mind isn't already made up, and I fear it might be, you could start by taking a look at this: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/02/photogalleries/darwin-birthday-evolution/ There ARE transitional fossils. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LifeCycle Posted October 1, 2012 Author Share Posted October 1, 2012 Things to consider... I'll check out those links. I'm not sure my mind is made up, honestly. I just don't see evolution as a problem free explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 I simply don't know enough to embrace the idea that all of this is mere coincidence. Evolution is not coincidence. I see why you're confused. That settles it then. Half wing/half arm is useful and obviously survive-able - even though, this creature today would quickly die. Ah, but half a wing didn't evolve today. A one eyed man is king in the land of the blind. Did you know that airplanes are designed by evolution? They were not "intelligently designed". The primary difference between airplane evolution and that of biological creatures is that humans build one and the other is built though biological methods. However the natural selection is the same. Humans put random ideas about flying machines to the test. Many humans died in these attempts. When a design failed it was abandoned. When something worked it was kept. Humans had random ideas about what worked. These new ideas were put to the test and many humans died in the attempt. And so on . . . the evolution of the plane continued by natural selection with the humans learning when they got people killed. All the safety features on planes today were discovered by plane crashes. Air travel is safe today because of all the people who died so that we could learn. The same could be said of cars, submarines, ships and many other things where random trial and error meets discarding designs that do not work. Intelligent design is a myth. In the end if you do not believe evolution that is fine. It isn't essential that everybody understand it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted October 1, 2012 Super Moderator Share Posted October 1, 2012 I just don't see evolution as a problem free explanation. That's the nature of science. We probably won't ever have ALL the answers and details. The only way you can do that is to make up answers and declare it to be God's Own Truth. It's not that easy in real life. Regarding evolution, there is still more than sufficient evidence of that being the mechanism of the diversity of life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 Have you tried to read any books about it or take a class in biological/physical anthropology or such? Honestly, it does take a little effort to get into and appreciate. Evolution isn't always an easy thing to grasp. It takes a little time of study. No, I've done basic study... Looking for all these intermediate creatures on some fossil record and have come up short. If you have kids then you are an intermediate creature. It's that simple. Any species that has surviving descendents is an intermediate. Hundreds of years from now people will love very hot weather and everyone will be a much safer driver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 I just don't see evolution as a problem free explanation. That's the nature of science. We probably won't ever have ALL the answers and details. The only way you can do that is to make up answers and declare it to be God's Own Truth. It's not that easy in real life. Regarding evolution, there is still more than sufficient evidence of that being the mechanism of the diversity of life. This is all true, but it's being applied too early in this case. The questions TF has have been answered virtually without question, he just doesn't have a strong enough grasp of the subject to see it. In TF's defense, I am confident he has what it takes to understand it if he's willing to put in the time and educate himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravenstar Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 Ahh.. the certainty thingy all science has 'problems'.. that's what science is all about, trying to find answers to problems that are verifiable and describe how stuff works so we can use that to predict outcomes. Every answer science gets creates more questions and inquiry follows and new sciences are born! Hypotheses are put out, and then the scientists try to PROVE or DISPROVE them using empirical methods... until it is self-evident through repeated experimentation that this hypothesis is true.. then it becomes a Theory. However.. evolution isn't just a pat answer to a simple question, It's multi-disciplinary and answers many questions in many fields.. and it is all consistent and each of these fields, with evolution, support one another. It's predictive.. it's not even close to a guess.. it is fact. If it isn't fact then entire fields of science are wrong. seriously? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam5 Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 Anyone else in this place of confusion? Couple of good books on the subject, "Why evolution is true" Jerry Coyne, and "The Greatest Show on Earth" Richard Dawkins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
highrishman Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 I too, am at that step in my un-belief. I haven't found quite what I believe yet, but I also haven't done enough searching. As far as evolution goes, however, I've often come to realize that the universe is HUGE. There are billions of galaxies, in just the KNOWN universe. That's only what we can see. And inside each of those galaxies, are trillions of stars, and even more planets. I've thought to myself that out of those nearly infinite number of chances, the circumstances for life as we know it are bound to pop up somewhere. I guess that's where my understanding of evolution ends, and where my need to educate myself begins. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcdaddy Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 eef evilution is not troo, why so much eevidense for eet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravenstar Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 Highrishman Good to see that the actual size of the universe is provoking critical thought. Just want to say though... even without a proven theory for abiogenesis (an explanation for how life started) evolution still tells us how life progressed from that beginning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator TrueFreedom Posted October 1, 2012 Moderator Share Posted October 1, 2012 I just don't see evolution as a problem free explanation. That's the nature of science. We probably won't ever have ALL the answers and details. The only way you can do that is to make up answers and declare it to be God's Own Truth. It's not that easy in real life. Regarding evolution, there is still more than sufficient evidence of that being the mechanism of the diversity of life. This is all true, but it's being applied too early in this case. The questions TF has have been answered virtually without question, he just doesn't have a strong enough grasp of the subject to see it. In TF's defense, I am confident he has what it takes to understand it if he's willing to put in the time and educate himself. TF? I actually have a pretty good grasp of evolution. It was a factor in my deconversion. I am sure that you meant LC. Freudian slip... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thought2Much Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 Like all theories (and I am using the term "theory" in the actual scientific sense here), evolution is the best explanation we have for a phenomenon, observation, or set of measurements. In this case, how life has changed over time to get to the state it's in now is that phenomenon. At this time, evolution is the only viable explanation for the current state of life on earth that reasonably fits the data that we have, after over a century of testing the theory. Right now, there are no scientific challenges that present alternative explanations for how life has arrived at its present state. If another theory comes along that better explains all of the data that we have, then that is the theory that science will go with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 I just don't see evolution as a problem free explanation. That's the nature of science. We probably won't ever have ALL the answers and details. The only way you can do that is to make up answers and declare it to be God's Own Truth. It's not that easy in real life. Regarding evolution, there is still more than sufficient evidence of that being the mechanism of the diversity of life. This is all true, but it's being applied too early in this case. The questions TF has have been answered virtually without question, he just doesn't have a strong enough grasp of the subject to see it. In TF's defense, I am confident he has what it takes to understand it if he's willing to put in the time and educate himself. TF? I actually have a pretty good grasp of evolution. It was a factor in my deconversion. I am sure that you meant LC. Freudian slip... Yeah, so sorry. It wasn't Freudian, I confused the two of you; perhaps because you guys are often in the same threads discussing the same subjects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts