Principled or preposterous? How do you get your head around Evolution?

[Gottservant]

Hi there.

So, you are a believing person. You want to make sense of the world and you have a brain on your shoulders, neatly concealed by your thinking head. What do you make of Evolution?

On the one hand, we have the fact that it gives us a principle. One principle. Survival of the fittest. At first, this seems like enough, to the naive (and we all start naive). But upon closer scrutiny, you realize that competition is not a necessary condition to development, it may help in some cases, in others it may not. So what are you expected to believe on the basis of this principle?

Well, on the surface it seems we are supposed to accept that anyone, at any time (given infinite allowances) can become something radically different to what they are. Once again, at first glance you might think that this was ok. But upon closer inspection you realize that the kind of flux necessary to facilitate such a transition is akin to a constant ball of lightning hanging over the head of said individual. So does it fail to be principled on that account?

Well, this is where it gets wierd. The fall back position is that you are actually an ape. Not a bear. Not an elephant. An ape. Now, I like apes and all, they are rather skillful creatures, but does anyone seriously think I am going to be principled if I believe myself to have come from an ape? The chances are slim (sinner, remember?). But it doesn't stop there. Actually before that you were slime and somehow, through some ridiculous feat of coincidence you have been transitioning the whole way to what you are.

But there is a problem here. If by some equally random fluke or otherwise, you come to this point and you haven't got a principle in mind, the chances are, you are not going to go looking for one. Not if you believe in Evolution. There is fundamentally nothing in the theory that says you should keep from devolving back into slime at any particular point. So of course, what is feeding your soul? The answer is, nothing. Not if you believe in Evolution.

So its obviously not principled.

That's my humble estimation. Call me crazy, but that means either the theory needs to change or scrapped altogether and the God hating streak in me (still a sinner remember) tells me that its not going to be scrapped. So how do you tell someone who believes in animals, that they have to be principled. Well, take a look at animals.

An animal, told frequently enough that it will get a reward for doing a certain task, will learn to associate the task with the reward. It's either smart or intelligent or both, but in any case, it adopts the attitude that even if one attempt to get the reward fails, trying again is worth it. This is overcoming. Just as Christ overcomes us by disciplining us, so we overcome animals by training them. So what is happening here? Obviously the animal is learning a principle, and its not survival of the fittest.

So basically, if you ignore the theory of Evolution, you can get on with being principled, the way animals are, but if you pay more attention to the theory, you are expected to be an animal, but not principled. What I want to know is, what the heck are you supposed to say to people who think this is normal? I just don't get it. I mean help me out here, is it about animals or not? If its about animals, why not do what animals do? If its not about animals, why limit yourself to one would-be principle? Isn't the point of a principled life, to study as many effective principles as you can?

Maybe I'm limiting Evolution to its own theory too much. Maybe I'm expecting people to believe in being principled too easily. What did Christ say? Blessed are the poor in spirit, for they shall inherit the Earth, not Blessed are the convinced of heart, for they shall convert the Hellish. If He said that He would have said Blessed are the convinced of God, for they shall encounter the Master. Somehow that helps, but I am only beginning to see how, and moreover I know that it is to do with the fact that I intend to be principled.

Yes, I intend to be principled.

Do you?

 

[EternalDragon]

Yes, I agree. Humans are vastly different in characteristics than any animal.

 

[The Barbarian]

On the one hand, we have the fact that it gives us a principle. One principle. Survival of the fittest. At first, this seems like enough, to the naive (and we all start naive). But upon closer scrutiny, you realize that competition is not a necessary condition to development, it may help in some cases, in others it may not.

Competition may or may not be selected for. In humans, for example, altruism is strongly selected for, since we are a social species.

So what are you expected to believe on the basis of this principle?

Well, on the surface it seems we are supposed to accept that anyone, at any time (given infinite allowances) can become something radically different to what they are.

No. Evolution is what happens to populations, not to individuals.

Once again, at first glance you might think that this was ok. But upon closer inspection you realize that the kind of flux necessary to facilitate such a transition is akin to a constant ball of lightning hanging over the head of said individual. So does it fail to be principled on that account?

Properly, it's merely a misconception about the way evolution works.

Well, this is where it gets wierd. The fall back position is that you are actually an ape. Not a bear. Not an elephant. An ape. Now, I like apes and all, they are rather skillful creatures, but does anyone seriously think I am going to be principled if I believe myself to have come from an ape?

Why wouldn't you be? I don't get that, at all. If God made us through evolution and gave us a sense of right and wrong, why is that a problem?
No one can ever explain that to me.

The chances are slim (sinner, remember?). But it doesn't stop there. Actually before that you were slime and somehow, through some ridiculous feat of coincidence you have been transitioning the whole way to what you are.

No. Humans evolved from primates, not slime.

But there is a problem here. If by some equally random fluke or otherwise, you come to this point and you haven't got a principle in mind, the chances are, you are not going to go looking for one. Not if you believe in Evolution.

If that were true, scientists and their families would be more inclined to antisocial activities than average. And the opposite is true.

There is fundamentally nothing in the theory that says you should keep from devolving back into slime at any particular point.

See above. You've been misled badly.

So of course, what is feeding your soul?

God. Why does it grieve you so, that He would use nature to create us?

Call me crazy

Misinformed.

So basically, if you ignore the theory of Evolution, you can get on with being principled, the way animals are, but if you pay more attention to the theory, you are expected to be an animal, but not principled.

What a bizarre idea. Who told you that?

Maybe I'm limiting Evolution to its own theory too much.

To do that, you'd have to know what evolution is. And you're not there, yet.

 

[Gottservant]

Competition may or may not be selected for. In humans, for example, altruism is strongly selected for, since we are a social species.

Competition is actually less and less selected for.

No. Evolution is what happens to populations, not to individuals.

Populations create evolved individuals, what you are saying is a one-way argument that makes no sense. Can I say individuals believe half of evolution? No? How then can you say "populations evolve not individuals"?

Properly, it's merely a misconception about the way evolution works.

Give me a principle that you think I am ignoring and perhaps I will start to have a reason to listen to you.

Why wouldn't you be? I don't get that, at all. If God made us through evolution and gave us a sense of right and wrong, why is that a problem?
No one can ever explain that to me.

Because right and wrong is about principle, not the next choice you make based on your flesh. For one thing. You want someone to explain to you why you didn't just become moral because you wanted to, its because no one but God has the power to. Morality is not a function of volition.

No. Humans evolved from primates, not slime.

You are straying from the pack on that one. Evolutionists clearly believe we started from slime.

If that were true, scientists and their families would be more inclined to antisocial activities than average. And the opposite is true.

Do they go to Church? Oh, so you just proved my point. The opposite is not true.

See above. You've been misled badly.

God. Why does it grieve you so, that He would use nature to create us?

Misinformed.

What a bizarre idea. Who told you that?

To do that, you'd have to know what evolution is. And you're not there, yet.

While I am glad I gave you enough structure to proceed methodically through your replies, I don't feel you added enough materially or morally to justify answering the rest of what you said. I am not interested in a tit for tat war with Evolution on the basis of one thing being right and not another. I am interested in Evolution developing principles that make it condusive to conduct in wider society, that extends beyond mere troubling over how competitive one is. There is a bigger picture here.

Someone who believes in Evolution as it is, is not going to see the need of the millions of starving people around the world. Can you prove me wrong? Evolution as it is, is not going to lead people to unite around peacekeeping in war torn regions. Can you prove me wrong? Evolution as it is, will struggle to motivate even slightly moral behaviour in working people who already compete for precious resources. Can you prove me wrong?

I am all for debate, but please, you should know that it goes no where if someone doesn't have a bigger picture in mind.

 

[gluadys]

Populations create evolved individuals,

No they don't. Individuals are not "evolved". Individuals have an assortment of the variations in a population. Occasionally, an individual will be born with a new inheritable variation.

How then can you say "populations evolve not individuals"?

Because that is the fact. All an individual can do is pass its own assortment (or some of it) on to its offspring. Evolution is a matter of the varying success different variations experience in getting into the next generation.

Give me a principle that you think I am ignoring and perhaps I will start to have a reason to listen to you.

You are ignoring the principle that evolution happens to populations, not to individuals.

It is easy to get confused if we don't remember that there are three or more interacting levels that comprise biological experience:

molecular and cellular level: this is where genetic variability and mutations occur. This generates standing variation in a population (gene pool).

level of individual organism: this is where genetic differences are expressed as variations in character traits. Different variations are seen in different percentages of the population e.g. in a butterfly population, perhaps 55% of the butterflies are yellow, 35% are white and 10% pale blue. Perhaps in the same population 85% have red-brown eyes and only 15% have black eyes.

level of the population: when a change occurs in the the % of the population that expresses a particular variation--that is evolution. Often it is evolution by natural selection. Sometimes it is evolution for a different reason (genetic drift, founder's effect, etc.) So if we look at our butterfly population 10 generations later and find that now 55% are still yellow, but only 25% are white while 20% are pale blue, and that red-brown eyes only appear in 80% of the population now, but 20% have black eyes--that is evolution.

No one individual can cause that change. That is why it is correct to say that individuals don't evolve; it is populations that evolve.

 

[Gottservant]

No they don't. Individuals are not "evolved". Individuals have an assortment of the variations in a population. Occasionally, an individual will be born with a new inheritable variation.

You just admitted it, in your own final sentence.

level of the population: when a change occurs in the the % of the population that expresses a particular variation--that is evolution. Often it is evolution by natural selection. Sometimes it is evolution for a different reason (genetic drift, founder's effect, etc.) So if we look at our butterfly population 10 generations later and find that now 55% are still yellow, but only 25% are white while 20% are pale blue, and that red-brown eyes only appear in 80% of the population now, but 20% have black eyes--that is evolution.

No one individual can cause that change. That is why it is correct to say that individuals don't evolve; it is populations that evolve.

Yet the red-brown eyes have a 80% chance of survival and the black eyes have a 70% chance of survival, so the red-brown eyes are 10% more evolved than the black eyes. Simple.

What I want you to understand is that the same "nerve" that determines how many there are in a population, is the same "nerve" that determines how much an individual reflects the population. I am not "adding interpretation" I am simply taking a different perspective. There is no principle that can rule against a different perspective. That's how I know what you are saying is nonsense; you are literally shutting off your brain with statements that have nothing to do with how things actually work.

 

[frogman2x]

Competition may or may not be selected for. In humans, for example, altruism is strongly selected for, since we are a social species.

SCience has not found of gene for altruism

No. Evolution is what happens to populations, not to individuals.

That is nonsense. It can't happent to a populaton unless it starts with 2 individuals

Properly, it's merely a misconception about the way evolution works.

How does evolution work. How did the first life form)and you can only guess)thatghad no bones, had not need for bones and have no genes for bones ever produce a kid with bones?

Why wouldn't you be? I don't get that, at all. If God made us through evolution and gave us a sense of right and wrong, why is that a problem?
No one can ever explain that to me.

"After it kind" says we did not evolve from a lower life form.

No. Humans evolved from primates, not slime.

Where is your evidence?

If that were true, scientists and their families would be more inclined to antisocial activities than average. And the opposite is true.

Only if there is a gene for that and if it is always pased on, which we know is not true.


God. Why does it grieve you so, that He would use nature to create us?

It doesn't grieve us. We reject if because it is not Biblical

To do that, you'd have to know what evolution is. And you're not there, yet.

To be there you need to show the scientific evidence for anything the ToE preaches.

kermit

 

[gluadys]

You just admitted it, in your own final sentence.

What I have admitted is that genes can mutate. Mutation is not evolution. That's like saying gasoline is a motor. You may need gasoline to supply energy to a motor, but gasoline alone will not propel your vehicle. Likewise, mutations alone cannot propel evolutionary change.

Further, you don't even need new mutations for a population to evolve. Selection can and does work on standing variation in a population. Selection is the real motor of evolutionary change.

Yet the red-brown eyes have a 80% chance of survival and the black eyes have a 70% chance of survival, so the red-brown eyes are 10% more evolved than the black eyes. Simple.

Your math is completely wrong. If the proportion of red-brown eyes is declining while that of black eyes is increasing, then those with black eyes must have a higher rate of survival than those with red-brown eyes. Using your survival rate, the black-eyed variant would soon be extinct.

And there is no "more evolved" about a variant. All variants are equally "evolved". They just vary in their rate of being passed on to the next generation.

What I want you to understand is that the same "nerve" that determines how many there are in a population, is the same "nerve" that determines how much an individual reflects the population.

How many there are in a population is determined by the resource base available to sustain it--not by any nerve. More food=increasing population; less food=decreasing population. Simple as that.

 

[gluadys]

Competition may or may not be selected for. In humans, for example, altruism is strongly selected for, since we are a social species.

SCience has not found of gene for altruism.

Behaviour is not usually influenced by just one gene; science has found that in social animals, those who cooperate tend to have more success surviving and reproducing than those who don't. Science has also found that altruistic behaviour is more common between animals that are closely related to each other (parents/offspring, siblings). This is known as "kin selection" and is explained on the basis that close kin tend to carry many of the same genes as oneself. So preserving the genes of close kin is equivalent to preserving and passing on one's own genes.

No. Evolution is what happens to populations, not to individuals.

That is nonsense. It can't happent to a populaton unless it starts with 2 individuals

Actually a new trait can enter a population through only one individual. It has to in species that reproduce asexually. But in species that reproduce sexually, a new trait also enters the population through one individual.

The reason this is possible is that a single change in a character trait does not inhibit mating with a member of the population which does not have that trait (e.g. having blue eyes does not prevent successful mating with a person who has brown eyes). So the individual with the new trait can mate with an individual with the normal trait and pass on the modified gene to about half of his/her offspring. They can do the same, and so in a few generations, there will be a small percentage of the population with the newly modified gene.

That percentage can grow if the new trait provides greater success in surviving and reproducing than the older variant does.

Properly, it's merely a misconception about the way evolution works.

How does evolution work. How did the first life form)and you can only guess)thatghad no bones, had not need for bones and have no genes for bones ever produce a kid with bones?

Bone is produced by the activity of cells. There are many types of cell activity in both unicellular and multi-cellular organisms which produce mineral secretions that then harden to form cell walls, tests, shells, teeth and bones.

Most bones in vertebrates start out as collagen--a form of protein--and, as you know, much of the activity of a cell is the production of proteins. So all you need is a modification of a gene to produce the requisite protein. Not a big deal.

Bone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why wouldn't you be? I don't get that, at all. If God made us through evolution and gave us a sense of right and wrong, why is that a problem?
No one can ever explain that to me.

"After it kind" says we did not evolve from a lower life form.

The notion that some life-forms are "higher" than others is scientifically outdated. Some life-forms have a longer history than others; some exhibit more complexity than others. These are objective descriptions.

"higher" implies ascending a ladder-like structure or a flight of stairs to the top of a dais (where the king sits enthroned?).

Evolution is not ladder-like. It is tree like. Every leaf (species) in the crown of the tree is relatively equally distant from the root and none is "higher" than another.

No. Humans evolved from primates, not slime.

Where is your evidence?

In the human genome, among other places.

God. Why does it grieve you so, that He would use nature to create us?

It doesn't grieve us. We reject if because it is not Biblical

Typical. Confusing your principle of biblical interpretation with the bible itself. God using the nature he created to accomplish his purposes is biblical. That, for example, is how God created each and every one of us in our mother's womb. And with a set of novel mutations in each and every new genome. That is also a recipe for evolution. Sounds like God intended evolution.

To do that, you'd have to know what evolution is. And you're not there, yet.

To be there you need to show the scientific evidence for anything the ToE preaches.

The scientific evidence is all around you. But you need to open your eyes and look at it.

 

[gluadys]

If evolution was the only way things happened then how is it that homosexuality is so dominant now. E.g Our company procedure have just been changed to align with same sex marriage laws regarding tax issues.

How can this evolve ? It is not as if they can pass the genes on.

Sure they can. Homosexuality (and lesbianism) is a strong inborn orientation toward one's own gender sexually, but it is not a barrier to actually mating with the other gender. Similarly, heterosexuals find it normal and desirable to be intimate with the opposite gender, but can engage in homosexual intercourse as well.

That is why homosexual liaisons are common in same-sex schools, prisons, the military and any other place where a person has ready access to their own gender, but not to the other. Some people who would never consider a same-sex liaison in a normal context do in these contexts.

Many homosexuals have been married or partnered with a person of the opposite gender, sometimes for many years, and do have children. I know of one man who fathered five children by his wife before getting a divorce and moving in with his homosexual partner. Another gay man I know has two children by a heterosexual marriage and I also know a lesbian couple, one of whom is the biological mother of the daughter they are raising.

So homosexual orientation by no means prevents people from passing on their genes.

 

[Gottservant]

Babble.

Bi-sexual is different from homosexual.

And we can infer from scripture that bi-sexuality starts as homosexual lust, since divorce was not from the beginning.

 

[Alvis]

Babble.

Bi-sexual is different from homosexual.

And we can infer from scripture that bi-sexuality starts as homosexual lust, since divorce was not from the beginning.

What?

 

[Fascinated With God]

Babble.

Sadly I agree, the pro-science crowd is making a hideous and extremely convoluted argument.

Bi-sexual is different from homosexual.

That is very true. I have tried to make this point to conservative Christians whenever this subject comes up, and I've never been able to get the point across, so I'm amazed that you acknowledge the truth of this.

And we can infer from scripture that bi-sexuality starts as homosexual lust, since divorce was not from the beginning.

No, bi-sexuality in males starts as childhood rape by an older male. That is why bi-sexuality (in men) is so dangerous, it can spread rather rapidly, completely unlike homosexuality. Although just one child abusing gay can cause a bi-sexual outbreak. In just a few generations male bi-sexuality could swamp a whole population in ancient times.

 

[Fascinated With God]

There is a flaw in your OP, backwards evolution happens all the time, that is why bacteria are everywhere, even miles down in the crust. In fact 99% of the biomass of the earth is in subterranean bacteria. It is estimated that if it were all on the surface it would cover the earth in a layer hundreds of yards deep in bacterial slime.

Another example is the "hobbit"; the remains of tiny half-sized humans that evolved on the island of Flores near Java. Brains are expensive and on an island everything tends to get smaller because the lack of large predators favors larger populations of smaller individuals rather than smaller populations of larger individuals. So these little guys devolved back to a chimp sized brain.

Devolving is part and parcel of evolution. I don't know why none of the other pro-science people weren't able to come up with this simple but obvious objection.