Answer this, Please

Arthur Dietrich · #1 30th September 2003, 01:31 PM

A friend of mine wrote this:

I think the point you are trying to make is that other laws are sometimes defined using gravity. We believe in gravity because we can see and feel the effects. I choose to disbelieve in evolution both because of my religion and that I cannot see the effects.

I do agree that to some extent life evolves. We as humans become more apt to make new discoveries as a result of this evolution, thus our thought becomes more developed and our knowledge continues to grow. This is evolution. Also, it's important to separate the theory of evolution from simple adaptation. or perhaps to accept the combination of both. I believe in creationism, but I also believe that over time the human race has adapted to different climates. For example, Native africans have dark skin pigment to protect them from the harsher climate and sun. But I believe that these adaptations take place as God wills, and not as a mistake or an accident.

There *are* many loopholes in the theory of evolution as Darwin himself stated many times. I don't mind people studying, or even learning the theory of evolution in public school as long as it is taught as it was conceived -- A theory. There has been evidence that some evolutionist from time to time have altered old manuscripts so that evolution looks more likely. I'm quite certain the the Biblical veiw on Evolution has never changed. Therefor I choose consistancy over a rapidly chaning theory which may or may not be disproved.

Also, Since Evolution is an ongoing process, why do old animals still exist? That is, why is the world not populated only by humans, who are the most highly evolved? Additionally, why are lower order species not still evolving into other higher order species?

*End*

What I'm really looking for is some links. I know many have been provided in many threads here....but I think I'm coming down with something and honestly don't have the energy to look. Or think. XP

I know all of these points have been addressed here on this board. So..help? Please.

Jet Black · #2 30th September 2003, 02:01 PM

Originally Posted by Arthur Dietrich

A friend of mine wrote this:

I think the point you are trying to make is that other laws are sometimes defined using gravity. We believe in gravity because we can see and feel the effects. I choose to disbelieve in evolution both because of my religion and that I cannot see the effects.

it is not our fault he won't actually look at the evidence.

I do agree that to some extent life evolves. We as humans become more apt to make new discoveries as a result of this evolution, thus our thought becomes more developed and our knowledge continues to grow. This is evolution.

not really, unless you are thinking of memetics (see Dr Susan Blackmore's book "The meme machine" ... not read it yet myself though)

Also, it's important to separate the theory of evolution from simple adaptation.

but what is this adaptation? it is descent with modification, and natural selection as a driving force. the modification processes are genetic mutations and shuffling through sex.

or perhaps to accept the combination of both. I believe in creationism, but I also believe that over time the human race has adapted to different climates. For example, Native africans have dark skin pigment to protect them from the harsher climate and sun. But I believe that these adaptations take place as God wills, and not as a mistake or an accident.

well God may have personally willed every single genetic mutation, but it is still evolution, because natural selection weeds out the ones without the mutation.

There *are* many loopholes in the theory of evolution as Darwin himself stated many times.

he might want to poin these out. remember that Darwin's theory is very old now, over a hundred years old. the evolutionary theory has come on a long way since then.

I don't mind people studying, or even learning the theory of evolution in public school as long as it is taught as it was conceived -- A theory.

the old evolution is a theory card. I suggest he looks up the scientiic meaning of theory. Newton's and Einstein's gravities are "theories"

There has been evidence that some evolutionist from time to time have altered old manuscripts so that evolution looks more likely.

perhaps, but that doesn't refute evolution. evolution is based on almost infinitely more than "some old manuscripts". Creationists are also, if not far far more guilty of tweaking numbers and data to suit their purposes (and ignoring data, very important)

I'm quite certain the the Biblical veiw on Evolution has never changed. Therefor I choose consistancy over a rapidly chaning theory which may or may not be disproved.

rapidly changing? not that rapid. and why does it change? because the data tells it to. the theory must fit the data, and it does. the data (and I mean all of it) does not fit any creationist model. take a look at AIG and the change of their models, they have continually backed up. first the earth was 6ky old, then 10k because of dendochronology. speciation never occured, now it does. and now their final card (already a dud hand) is that new information is never created. The flood models have continually changed (in fact you hve to use many diferent models, all of which contradict one another, to explain the features we see, and still there are features not explained by a global flood)

Also, Since Evolution is an ongoing process, why do old animals still exist?

because they have found their niche, and fir it perfectly. look at marsupial moles and placental moles. they have completely different evolutionary paths, but they look almost identical, why? because that is the best shape to be if you are a mole.

That is, why is the world not populated only by humans, who are the most highly evolved?

because humans don't survive in cracks of buildings, out on the savannah, in deep dark caves miles underground, at the bottoms of oceans and so on. all evolution is about is survival. if you survive and have offspring, your kids will look a bit like you. this whole "they will evolve into sentience" is a fallacy.

Additionally, why are lower order species not still evolving into other higher order species?

see above.
[/quote]What I'm really looking for is some links. I know many have been provided in many threads here....but I think I'm coming down with something and honestly don't have the energy to look. Or think. XP
[/quote]
I didn't look for links, but this is the gist of it: part, no, all of the problem, is that your friend is uneducated on the topic of evolution. he is holding to some odd strawman and pointing out flaws in it's badly stuffed body, and the only way out of that trap is for him to go and get some proper scientific books on it. He may not agree with them, but at least he won't be arguing against his own, incorrect definitions.

Vance · #3 30th September 2003, 02:30 PM

I find the following page very useful in addressing Creationist claims:

http://home.earthlink.net/~misaak/guide/list.html

Some of the analysis is better than others, but it gives the general answer to every point I have seen them raise.

Arikay · #4 30th September 2003, 02:40 PM

A quick correction to what Jet Black said, I think he means "take a look at ICR and the change of their models"

As AIG, has not pushed back their date from 6000 years, they just ignore all data that would make them need to push the date back.

Jet Black · #5 30th September 2003, 03:02 PM

ICR, yeap. I get so confused since there are so many conflicting and deeply contradictory creationist models. heh. thanks for correcting me

Mike Flynn · #6 30th September 2003, 04:59 PM

Originally Posted by Arthur Dietrich

A friend of mine wrote this:
There *are* many loopholes in the theory of evolution as Darwin himself stated many times. I don't mind people studying, or even learning the theory of evolution in public school as long as it is taught as it was conceived -- A theory. There has been evidence that some evolutionist from time to time have altered old manuscripts so that evolution looks more likely. I'm quite certain the the Biblical veiw on Evolution has never changed. Therefor I choose consistancy over a rapidly chaning theory which may or may not be disproved.

I must agree with Jet Black on this one. Often when I teach QM a common initial reaction is 'but isn't this just a theory'? A theory is model that encompasses all of the evidence that has so far come to light. This is much harder to do than many people realize. Most theories, then, are naturally incomplete depending on the amount of evidence at hand. The point is, honest scientific theories represent an objective attempt to encapsulate the available evidence into a working framework.

Here's an example: Most people with a high school education today accept that matter contains particles that we call 'electrons'. But why? No one has ever 'seen' one directly. All of the evidence is indirect: we have seen the effect of its presence on the observable and 'inferred' its existence. Then we put our theory to the test: making and testing predictions on how the theory should work. Now we have a HUGE VOLUME of experimental results that tell us the same thing: not only does the electron exist, but we have measured its size, charge, mass, etc...all indirectly BTW. Not that all things are perfect in the world of science...we've learned that the hard way sometimes. We 'know' the electron exists, but to some degree its nature is still elusive, even today. But any new evidence merely sheds light on the current model, and helps us to refine it...this doesn't require a wholesale abandonment.

So does the theory of evolution have this kind of strong evidence in its favour? Well, thats the question that everyone likes to toss in forums like these. Evidence for evolution is quite diverse, ranging from biochemistry and genetics to the fossil record. NEW evidence is constantly being discovered. There are still many big, unanswered questions. But many pundents in the science community maintain that the new evidence will likely help us to REFINE the theory, not abandon it.

SOME creationists like to point to the unanswered questions and claim that the entire theory be tossed into the dustbin (not everyone...just some), in the meantime they substitute a theory with just as many (and often many more) unanswered questions and inconsistencies....this doesn't really wash in the scientific process. It would be like saying 'because we don't completely understand the electron, perhaps our ENTIRE formulation is wrong...lets start from scratch'.

Others argue that the evidence for macro evolution is not all that solid in the first place. And the science community has accepted it prematurely and should seriously reconsider its widespread acceptance. But science abhors a vacuum...to abandon evolution we would need a new theory to put in its place...one that stands up firmly to scientific scrutiny...even MORE than the current one. Otherwise, why change it? ARGUABLY, no ground-shattering theory has been devised that can displace evolution (but you should know that many would disagree with me on this).

All of this is just my opinion...and there are many others (that are just as valid): I don't think the Bible says anything substantial for or against evolution...The only 'catch' is accepting that some of the passages in the text must be using figurative language. For some, this is perfectly acceptable (like me). For others, this is a tough pill to swallow. For both sides: I think we can agree on the overall meaning of the text as it applies to our spiritual identity and salvation. I also believe (by my own experience of faith) that God doesn't much care exactly where we stand on many issues like these (of course there are 1000's of other theological issues to argue about)...as long as in the meantime we get around to accepting Christ.

I have also come to the understanding that we should not make the issues more important than people.

the_malevolent_milk_man · #7 30th September 2003, 06:22 PM

Jet pretty much covered it.

Really, what theory has more evidence than evolution?

Freodin · #8 30th September 2003, 07:12 PM

Originally Posted by Arthur Dietrich

... I'm quite certain the the Biblical veiw on Evolution has never changed. Therefor I choose consistancy over a rapidly chaning theory which may or may not be disproved.
...

There is no biblical view on evolution. There is a biblical view on life. Of course that has not changed: the authors are no longer around to change it. Genesis was written ca.2500 years ago.

In that regard, darwinian evolution has also never changed. "Origin of Species" is still the same book as it was when written.

Arthur Dietrich · #9 30th September 2003, 07:43 PM

I gave her Jet's answers and this was her response:

but what is this adaptation? it is descent with modification, and natural selection as a driving force. the modification processes are genetic mutations and shuffling through sex.

No, adaptation is any change in habbit or a mild, outer-force-induced change that continues to allow a species to exist, even in a change of habitat. According to you, if I species changes habitat, it will eventualy mutate to the point that it will become another species of animal.

quote:
because they have found their niche, and fit it perfectly. look at marsupial moles and placental moles. they have completely different evolutionary paths, but they look almost identical, why? because that is the best shape to be if you are a mole.

How, then, do you explain animals who adapt? Cyotes who live in cities, which are an environment obviously created from humans? wouldn't it benefit these Cyotes to evolve into humans and thus take better advantage of their habitats? Additionally, Humans can thrive on the savanah, nomads have been doing it for generations, so why do there still exist tigers, antelope, even insects?

Additionally, The reason I didn't go into the loopholes in Darwins theories was mostly because I assumed you'd heard them all and didn't want to hear them again. just trying to respect your time and the other readers' time as well ^-^

quote:
quote:
I don't mind people studying, or even learning the theory of evolution in public school as long as it is taught as it was conceived -- A theory.
the old evolution is a theory card. I suggest you look up the scientific meaning of theory. Newton's and Einstein's gravities are "theories"

Last time I checked, a theory was an unproved scientific statement. Also, last I checked gravity as a concept exists, and it is taught as such: A concept. But the actual force that holds us on the ground is very very real. Gravity, though there is still much speculation and theory behind the cause, has become a term for us not flying off into space. the Study of gravity is something more, but gravity as a noun and gravity as a principle are often two different subjects. Evolution only exists within the study of it, and therefore cannot be considered a force or a noun. Thus making it only theory. And I hold that it should be taught as thus.

Mike Flynn · #10 30th September 2003, 11:00 PM

Originally Posted by Arthur Dietrich

I gave her Jet's answers and this was her response:

How, then, do you explain animals who adapt? Cyotes who live in cities, which are an environment obviously created from humans? wouldn't it benefit these Cyotes to evolve into humans and thus take better advantage of their habitats? Additionally, Humans can thrive on the savanah, nomads have been doing it for generations, so why do there still exist tigers, antelope, even insects?

I'm sure Jet Black will have his thoughts but I thought I would throw a couple in...

The flaw in the reasoning here is that evolution claims that adaptations like the ones your discussing take MILLIONS of years.

'Cities' have not been around nearly long enough to see any clear and specific adaptations among the species we have today. It was merely thousands of years ago (a wink in the evolutionary time-line) that humans would have lived in a tropical climate, with little or no shelter...and we were FAR less populous, just like the other high order mammals. So the speciation we see today is basically THE SAME as it was 15000 years ago when there were no cities and towns at all. (although some species have become extinct)

If you think about it, without our technology and artifical structures (ie naked, without bottles to carry water, etc) we would be adapted to a relatively tropical climates. We can not survive naturally on the savannah without this advantage. I could never live in Canada without shelter. Humans are UNATURALLY populous because of the development of artificial habitation....nature can't keep up, causing widespread decline and extinction in many higher order species....they just can't adapt. The fittest species remain...including the coyotes who like to raid the garbage bins.

All life has a degree of inherent adaptability, but only time will tell which will be the fittest in the long run based on the current environmental conditions. One thing is certain: humans have essentially removed themselves from their natural environment and created artificial ones. This will alter the course of natural selection for our species drastically...but we won't see those effects for perhaps a million years.

Originally Posted by Arthur Dietrich

Last time I checked, a theory was an unproved scientific statement. Also, last I checked gravity as a concept exists, and it is taught as such: A concept. But the actual force that holds us on the ground is very very real. Gravity, though there is still much speculation and theory behind the cause, has become a term for us not flying off into space. the Study of gravity is something more, but gravity as a noun and gravity as a principle are often two different subjects. Evolution only exists within the study of it, and therefore cannot be considered a force or a noun. Thus making it only theory. And I hold that it should be taught as thus.

Theory: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena.

Your take on 'theory' is not accurate (as I mentioned before), but its quite common. You have to understand that evolution was not just pulled out of a hat. It represents an objective attempt by honest people to trace the origins of life based on a large body of evidence. Micro-evolution is readily demonstrable among living species today. Evidence for macro-evolution is much more difficult to identify since such phenomena are only observable over extremely long periods of time. But is evolution at least 'plausible' based on the body of evidence we have today? Absolutely.

I teach high-school students and I have taught the theory of evolution in the past (although its not my area of expertise). I've always noted that the book is far from closed on the subject....such is the nature of all science. In fact, I also made it a point to discuss the theory of intelligent design...but I also noted that it too has its own set of problems. But I never say "remember kids, its just a theory"...so are general relativity and quantum mechanics...but no-one really quibbles much about the validity of these (and they are not completely correct either). Really, the best way to get a tack on this is to research the theory for yourself, keeping an objective and open mind. Do the same for the alternatives...but watch out for the unqualified opinions on both sides of the debate...then judge for yourself.

I will end with this: what else would we teach in biology class? As things stand today, evolution is (arguably) the best supported theory on the origins of species that the scientific community has to offer. ID is worth mentioning, but nothing else has come to the floor that even comes close.