Synthesis: reaching conclusions

Jerry Smith · #1 6th June 2002, 11:38 PM

This thread is to discuss what kind of conclusions we can draw about evolution, and how strongly, based on the discussion in two other threads, together with the known laws of nature.

1)Louis Pasteur demonstrated that complex organisms do not come into existence in nature by spontaneous generation. In other words, all organisms have parents. That this is the case universally in our experience gives it the status of natural law: it is never observed to be violated and constantly observed to hold.

2)No known mechanism prevents macro-evolution from occuring as a natural result of micro-evolution and reproductive isolation. At least, not that I know of. If there is one, perhaps it will be discussed in the Limitations on microevolution and speciation thread.

If indeed there is no mechanism that prevents macro-evolution from occuring as a natural result of micro-evolution and reproductive speciation, and if indeed all complex organisms must exist as the result of biological reproduction, and if there was a time when humans and other modern organisms did not exist, but life did exist on earth, then:

How much evidence do we need before we can safely accept the idea of macro-evolution? I'm hoping that the evidence we do have will be discussed somewhat comprehensively in the Evidence for macroevolution thread.

Is there any reason to be overly skeptical of macroevolutionary claims, based on what is known of biological reproduction and the processes of microevolution? If so, what is it? If not, is the evidence sufficient to overcome a reasonably skeptical attitude toward macroevolution?

AV1611VET · #2 17th January 2012, 04:22 PM

Originally Posted by Jerry Smith

Is there any reason to be overly skeptical of macroevolutionary claims, based on what is known of biological reproduction and the processes of microevolution? If so, what is it? If not, is the evidence sufficient to overcome a reasonably skeptical attitude toward macroevolution?

I'm not skeptical of macroevolutionary claims, I'm doctrinal about macrevolutionary claims; believing that God has set a boundary that evolution cannot cross.

Originally Posted by Jerry Smith

2)No known mechanism prevents macro-evolution from occuring as a natural result of micro-evolution and reproductive isolation.

Time.

FrenchyBearpaw · #3 17th January 2012, 05:22 PM

Originally Posted by AV1611VET

I'm not skeptical of macroevolutionary claims, I'm doctrinal about macrevolutionary claims; believing that God has set a boundary that evolution cannot cross.

Time.

And I'm skeptical of claims that cross the boundries of reality and are devoid of any evidence.

sfs · #4 17th January 2012, 05:52 PM

Originally Posted by FrenchyBearpaw

And I'm skeptical of claims that cross the boundries of reality and are devoid of any evidence.

I'm skeptical of threads that cross decades.

AV1611VET · #5 17th January 2012, 05:52 PM

Originally Posted by FrenchyBearpaw

And I'm skeptical of claims that cross the boundries of reality and are devoid of any evidence.

Oh, my -- what a statement.

Is there such a thing as a statement that crosses the boundries [sic] of reality and are not devoid of evidence?

cupid dave · #6 17th January 2012, 05:55 PM

Originally Posted by FrenchyBearpaw

And I'm skeptical of claims that cross the boundries of reality and are devoid of any evidence.

But you are equally skeptical about what is plainly stated in Genesis when science actually confirms the general idea.

For millennia people were certain that the Universe had always been here.
But Genesis says it had a beginning.

Hubble in @1940 produced evidence that supports a beginning.
And since then, we have even calculated when the clock first started to tick, i.e.; 13.5 billion years ago.

Then we read that once all the waters under heaven were collected into one Panthalassic Ocean that surrounded a Pangea-like singular continent.

In Gen 1:3-5 the bible says light first appeared as separate from the big bang beginning, which is now confirmed by the Dark Age of the Universe before stars formed.

AV1611VET · #7 17th January 2012, 05:56 PM

Originally Posted by sfs

I'm skeptical of threads that cross decades.

But not science, right?

It's okay to quote one of your prophets -- like Einstein -- but if Einstein said it in a forum, it suddenly comes with a shelf-life?

Put another way, if Einstein had posted in a forum, would his points become worthy of your skepticism after a set length of idle time?

Wiccan_Child · #8 17th January 2012, 06:00 PM

Originally Posted by cupid dave

But you are equally skeptical about what is plainly stated in Genesis when science actually confirms the general idea.

For millennia people were certain that the Universe had always been here.
But Genesis says it had a beginning.

Hubble in @1940 produced evidence that supports a beginning.
And since then, we have even calculated when the clock first started to tick, i.e.; 13.5 billion years ago.

That is incorrect. Hubble showed us that the universe has been expanding for 13.5 billion years, originating with a singularity wherein was all matter and energy - an expansion otherwise known as the Big Bang. However, there is nothing to suggest that the start of the Big Bang 13.5 billion years ago was, in fact, the start of the universe. We know the universe is at least 13.5 billion years old, but for all we know it could be much older, or even eternal.

Thus, it is false to claim that science has produced evidence of a beginning. As Stephen Hawking says, we can act as if the Big Bang was the start of the universe, but we're fooling ourselves if we think we know that it is.

FrenchyBearpaw · #9 17th January 2012, 06:00 PM

Originally Posted by cupid dave

But you are equally skeptical about what is plainly stated in Genesis when science actually confirms the general idea.

For millennia people were certain that the Universe had always been here.
But Genesis says it had a beginning.

Hubble in @1940 produced evidence that supports a beginning.
And since then, we have even calculated when the clock first started to tick, i.e.; 13.5 billion years ago.

Then we read that once all the waters under heaven were collected into one Panthalassic Ocean that surrounded a Pangea-like singular continent.

In Gen 1:3-5 the bible says light first appeared as separate from the big bang beginning, which is now confirmed by the Dark Age of the Universe before stars formed.

Correct. I make no equivocations that I disagree with your iterpretation of the bible.

AV1611VET · #10 17th January 2012, 06:01 PM

Originally Posted by cupid dave

But you are equally skeptical about what is plainly stated in Genesis when science actually confirms the general idea.

Higher aceldama teaches kids today to question everything; then wonder what has happened to 'our generation' when so many break the law.

My wife and I are just amazed at the sight of so many kids just cruising right through STOP signs as if they weren't even there.

I hate to see what the next generation is going to be like.