Part2 Evolutionist:explain your ideals w/out using scientific timetables or other created lifeforms as proof:?

Question

Most of the answers on my previous questions simply stated the inferiority of my imagination, the ridiculousness of my need to be a mental follower and the aggravating assumption that i should convert to evolutionism because it's smarter than believing in a higher power that created all things. What I suggested by not using timelines, is this: i don't discredit timelines...i simply believe that different life forms could have been CREATED at different times during the history of life and that the time period that they stomped this earth doesn't discredit creation or prove evolution. It’s true that life-forms are constantly evolving, in a sense, but it is also logical that they were CREATED inferior to modern life-forms. i also believe that instead of previous creations being considered "first drafts", they were simply "earlier creations".

if a man were the mysterious being that created life, there would be much more disturbing anomalies than "first drafts", dinosaurs, and non-logical or un-needed body parts like appendixes. That could prove that humans are a less-intelligent life form than the “ID’er” and that we don’t know everything yet. It doesn’t prove evolution. (it could be true that earlier humans needed appendixes and we don't...but it could also be true that the "ID'er" knows what they are needed for and that we could possibly need them in the future.. also doesn’t prove evolution.) also, i find that the same reasons some give for the fact that "every generations stands a little taller and walks a little straighter" is proof of intelligent progressiveness...

we see it in many species here on earth: every generation learns more and so the next generation is smarter and stronger; when their natural habitat changes, so do they. that doesn’t prove evolution. to me, it proves that we were created with remarkable capacity for learning and adaptation.

i guess my part two questions is this:

evolutionism is such a grand story, the way some people think of the Bible and of creationism...

can you tell me why evolutionsist think that their beleif is so much more than just a "big bang theory" or another intricate fable of human imagination?

cause with what you all are giving me, I have no profound reason to change my creationist point-of-view.

"dendronbat", .....or it could be that they were created by the same life-form, using similar processes....like a baker that uses a lot of the same ingredients in many of his DIFFRENT recipes, both past and present?....

Answer 1

Try picturing creation as something that God set in motion on his own schedule, not on time schedules that were obviously man-made. A "day", to God, might last a couple of hundreds of millions of years. Are you OK with that?

Then, if you will, consider that all of the "evolution" that ocurred was God's plan to prepare the way for the abundance of life as we know it today.

God is timeless. All things happen according to His will.

I realize that my explanation is a bit ambiguous, but there is so much that I am at peace with, both scientifically and spiritually. I could spend a lifetime in awe and wonder, and I doubt I could come across anything scientific that didn't "dovetail" right in with my spiritual beliefs.

Answer 2

If different life forms were created at different times durring the history of life, then we would not expect to see the landscape of fossilized genes in our genomes. This would only be true if we had evolved from ancestral forms.

Only 2% of our genome is actively involved in protein construction. Most of the rest, so-called junk DNA is actually deactivated (fossilized) genes of ancestral species.

Many other aspects of biology, besides molecular genetics, also infers an evolutionary process. Morphological homologies in related species, fossils which were clearly transitional forms, biogeographical distribution and species relatedness, etc..

And given what we know about heredity and reproduction, the application of mathematical algorithms would imply that the evolution of derivative species must happen over time.

reply to "baker" analogy
That would be like a baker using the ingredients to make roast beef, then deactivating the ingredients with stop codons, while baking a cake. At best, such an explanation would assume that if creative forces are indeed supernatural, they use bizarrely inefficient ways of creating things.

Answer 3

The known fossil record of a few hundred thousand species, and their position in the stratigraphic record and their paleogeography, is completely consistent with a branching tree of life, as predicted by evolution by natural selection. No, this is not 'proof' of evolution on its own. As you say, they could all be first drafts, iterations (although gradual transitions between some of the very most abundant species are known).... although you would have to come up with something to explain the biogeography.

BUT, despite what you have clearly been told, and as much as I wish the fossil record was so important, Evolution does NOT stand just, or even in major part, on the fossil record, as consistent as it is. No one in science says that. It is a misdirection by anti-science propagandists to avoid looking at the real evidence.

I'll give you a few links but they are just an introduction. You can't summarise 1000's of scientific studies in a few pages.

Answer 4

First, it is not "Evolutionism." It is the Theory of Evolution. This is not to be confused with "hypothesis." Scientific Theory (big T) works exactly as a scientific law except that it is far more complex. Remember, this is science and has nothing to do with any religions mythology (stories of that religion).

Second, the existence of light traveling across the universe answers the "don't give me timelines" debate. Light from a distant star (say 6 million light years away) cannot reach the Earth's surface until 6 million years after it has left said star.

Third, and the simplest way to explain evolution. A series of questions, if you will.

1 Do you believe you inherited traits from your mother and father (skin color, eye color, hair type, build, height) etcetera?
2 Do you believe you will pass traits onto your children along with your mate's traits? (ie skin color, etc.)
3 Do you believe that your child gets what is best from both of you and that you received what is best from your parents?

Yes to all 3. There is no other answer.

Over millions of years, our ancestors continued to pass on traits that made their progeny stronger. This is evolution. Evolution is a constant. We are evolving now.

BTW Try to scientifically disprove Evolution. We are talking thousands of years of thousands of scientists working individually from each other. Prove every scientific experiment ever proving Evolution to be true and I will believe you.

Answer 5

You are asking a complex question, and it has a complex answer ... so I agree with the person who recommends reading something a little more in depth than a post on Yahoo Answers. Any book by Dawkins would be good (my preference is "Ancestor's Tale" ... it's a *really* good read), but Stephen Jay Gould is my favorite, or even "Introducing Darwin" or "Introducing Evolution" would do.

But to attempt to answer your question (if I understand right):

When you are asking us to answer questions without using things like timetables and existing "created lifeforms" as evidence (btw we use the word "evidence", not "proof") ... you are asking us to answer a question without resorting to scientific evidence. That sort of violates the entire point of science.

Evolution cannot be argued without resorting to evidence. Without all that evidence, it is just a concept.

And what does the evidence tell us? It tells us that all those "created lifeforms" (your words, not mine), sure *SEEM* to be related by common ancestry. You can see it in the fossilized remains of these lifeforms. You can see it in the DNA of living lifeforms. You can see it in the anatomical structures of both living and dead lifeforms. You can see it in the distribution of these lifeforms (both living and extinct) around the earth. Etc. etc.

Absolutely, some being could have created all these things instantaneously in such a way that it only *SEEMS* to be the case. This being could have taken the trouble to put genes for creating gills or a tail in humans just to keep us guessing. Or this being could have taken the trouble to bury all these fossils around the world in just the right layers just to fool us. Or this being could have put all the animals in the right locations on the planet with their fossilized ancestors just to conform to the Noah's ark story.

All of this is *possible*. But scientists first have to assume the simpler explanation ... that the reason all these lifeforms show overwhelming evidence of being related by common ancestry is that they simply evolved.

Answer 6

Are you really open to the idea that evolution may be true?

Can I persuade you to read a book about evolution that is written for a lay person (like me) to understand?

I would highly recommend "Climbing Mount Improbable" or "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins.

This is not a simple subject and is impossible to answer fully on this short forum.

Answer 7

Creationist: Explain your idea without using the Book of Genesis. Yes, I am asking for non-Moses corroboration of Biblical Creation. It is logical that Moses lied -- used stories and superstitions to skive off with the working class of Egypt because he bore a grudge against Egypt for making him a prince without putting him in line for the throne.

Answer 8

one thing wrong with your "theory" we have mountains of dna evidence that links all species.

also, take a look at how we classify species, see any resemblences?

I wish I had the time to sit and write down what I really want to, but If you will allow me to make a suggestion to you, I challenge you to read "Evolution" by Douglas Futuyma, it's an incredible book aimed at undergraduate level, so it's really easy to follow and understand