There is no evidence againts the Theory of Evolution.

[joshua 1 9]

Evidence, please.

Do your own homework on the impact that the study of DNA has been on what is now known about horse evolution. Or are you just to busy trying to sweep it all under the carpet?

 

[joshua 1 9]

Darwin did just fine, based on how much he covered in the establishment of the evolution. Just because he didn't single-handedly arrive at our current understanding is no reason to disparage his work.

I would not hold Darwin up as an example for our young people to follow.

 

[Hoghead1]

I would not hold Darwin up as an example for our young people to follow.

That seems sort of prejudicial, don't you think? Darwin was a major pioneer in science. He should be among teh top figures young people look up to. True, a minority of Christians in the American Bible Belt have trouble with Darwin, but not so at all with Christians in England or Christians in mainstream American Christianity. Wh8ile you may not think so, the rest of the world does, and so there is a major statue of Darwin in the British Museum of Natural History, and, at last, a painting of AR Wallace. Any9ne who has a statue of himself in a British museum is a hero to me. P.S. There is a statue of George Stephenson in Charring Cross (sp) Station, no? I am a member of a organization that rebuilt. and operates a historic steam locomotive.

 

[SteveB28]

He is not saying anything any different then I am. He is just a lot more articulate then I am. I would almost think he was sneaking in here at night and reading my posts except that he takes it all a lot further then I have ever studied it or thought about. Of course as Christians we have the mind of Christ and we are to be of one mind and one accord.

What!?

For starters, YOU say there's no mention by Collins of mutations. And yet, HE says that's precisely one of the major factors in evolution!

You are about as close to Collins as you are to Alpha Centauri!

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Yes. As much as I disagree with Frances Collins' religious views, we need more of his ilk to open up the minds of US creationists.

As much as i'd love to see people like Collins reach out to educate creationists, I doubt many of them want to waste their time. It turns into a game of pigeon chess and spending all their energy debunking creationist lies. Sometimes I wonder how many potential scientists we've missed out on because they were shielded from reality. We need as many smart young people going into research we can get.

 

[SteveB28]

As much as i'd love to see people like Collins reach out to educate creationists, I doubt many of them want to waste their time. It turns into a game of pigeon chess and spending all their energy debunking creationist lies. Sometimes I wonder how many potential scientists we've missed out on because they were shielded from reality. We need as many smart young people going into research we can get.

Undoubtedly. One of my career strands was in educational circles and I used to ponder on similar issues. I wondered how many exceptionally bright minds were 'lost' due to other influences - drugs and alcohol, emotional trauma, obsessions with recreational or sporting pursuits, and so on.

When I speak of people like Collins, I don't suggest that they be active role models, intent upon removing the blinkers from creationist eyes, but that they simply do the work they do in the real world and let their results speak for themself.

 

[Hieronymus]

And so, the irony being, that there is actually no evidence against creation.
Even if somehow they can come up with an actual theory as to how exactly the universe and life came to be, it can still be created.
It will probably still be more likely too.

 

[SteveB28]

And so, the irony being, that there is actually no evidence against creation.

And, far more significantly, there is none supporting it! The onus is on he who proposes a claim to support it, not for others to find evidence against it.

Even if somehow they can come up with an actual theory as to how exactly the universe and life came to be, it can still be created.
It will probably still be more likely too.

Nothing to do with evolution.

 

[joshua 1 9]

What!?

For starters, YOU say there's no mention by Collins of mutations. And yet, HE says that's precisely one of the major factors in evolution!

Lets take a look at what Collins says:

"If God is real, and I believe he is, then he is outside of nature. He is, therefore, not limited by the laws of nature in the way that we are. He's not limited by time. In the very moment of that flash in which the universe was created, an unimaginable burst of energy, God also had the plan of how that would coalesce into stars and galaxies, planets, and how life would arrive on a small planet near the outer rim of a spiral galaxy. And ultimately, over hundreds of millions of years, give rise to creatures with intelligence and in whom he could infuse this search for Him and this knowledge of good and evil. And all of that happened in his mind in the blink of an eye. While it may seem to us that this whole process has the risk of randomness and, therefore, an unpredictable outcome, that was not the case for God."

Read more at http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Scien...tific-Adventures.aspx?p=2#cbcOCBQMtiCblXld.99

According to Collins God had a plan and we, meaning you and me were a part of that plan from the beginning of the Universe. That is VERY opposed to atheistic evolution along the line of Harvard Professor Gould who says if you go back to the beginning of the Earth you would end up with very different results. So there is clearly a difference in what Collins is saying.

What part of this quote from Collins are you having trouble understanding: "While it may seem to us that this whole process has the risk of randomness and, therefore, an unpredictable outcome, that was not the case for God". This is exactly what I am saying only of course Collins is more articulate and has a better command of the English language compared to me. So I will just promote what Collins has to say as he is more clear and concise then me.

 

[SteveB28]

Lets take a look at what Collins says:

"If God is real, and I believe he is, then he is outside of nature. He is, therefore, not limited by the laws of nature in the way that we are. He's not limited by time. In the very moment of that flash in which the universe was created, an unimaginable burst of energy, God also had the plan of how that would coalesce into stars and galaxies, planets, and how life would arrive on a small planet near the outer rim of a spiral galaxy. And ultimately, over hundreds of millions of years, give rise to creatures with intelligence and in whom he could infuse this search for Him and this knowledge of good and evil. And all of that happened in his mind in the blink of an eye. While it may seem to us that this whole process has the risk of randomness and, therefore, an unpredictable outcome, that was not the case for God."

Read more at http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Scien...tific-Adventures.aspx?p=2#cbcOCBQMtiCblXld.99

According to Collins God had a plan and we, meaning you and me were a part of that plan from the beginning of the Universe. That is VERY opposed to atheistic evolution along the line of Harvard Professor Gould who says if you go back to the beginning of the Earth you would end up with very different results. So there is clearly a difference in what Collins is saying.

What part of this quote from Collins are you having trouble understanding: "While it may seem to us that this whole process has the risk of randomness and, therefore, an unpredictable outcome, that was not the case for God". This is exactly what I am saying only of course Collins is more articulate and has a better command of the English language compared to me. So I will just promote what Collins has to say as he is more clear and concise then me.

Again, your desperate plea is that "Collins believes in God and believes that he was behind the process of evolution."

Fine, both of you can revel in that belief to your heart's content.

The inescapable fact, however, is that Collins accepts the theory of evolution by natural selection in its entirety! No, more than that, he states that the theory is closest to 'proven' in all of science.

So you can continue to salivate about Collins' religious beliefs all you like. Sooner or later, you have to face facts - Frances Collins is THE most staunch supporter of the theory of evolution that you could find!

 

[Hieronymus]

And, far more significantly, there is none supporting it!

Hahaha!
There is plenty.
There is no proof though, nobody can prove the exact events in our most distant past.

 

[SteveB28]

Hahaha!
There is plenty.
There is no proof though, nobody can prove the exact events in our most distant past.

There is no evidence. Present what you claim it to be.

 

[joshua 1 9]

And, far more significantly, there is none supporting it!

Theistic Evolution is Creationism so all the evidence for evolution is evidence for Creationism. The only different is Divine Cause or Intelligent Designer vs some sort of random event or spontaneous theory. It is the NON Theistic Evolution that is NOT supported by the evidence.

 

[Larniavc]

ToE is a conglomerate of theories. Some of them right, some of them are wrong.
Most of what Darwin and his cronies speculated about has been proven to be wrong.

Which speculation has been proven wrong?

 

[Larniavc]

http://news.discovery.com/earth/how-much-did-darwin-get-wrong.htm

From your own source.

"But even intellectually honest media outlets have proclaimed "Darwin was Wrong" many times over. In reality what they're doing, and what this latest study has done, is point out that Darwin's thoughts on evolution were profound and far-reaching, and while they almost invariably remain true to this day — surprise! — in 150 years, scientists have managed to discover a few new things about how evolution works."

I lol'd.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Which speculation has been proven wrong?

To begin with Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium shows that Darwin's gradualism theory was wrong.

 

[SteveB28]

Theistic Evolution is Creationism so all the evidence for evolution is evidence for Creationism. The only different is Divine Cause or Intelligent Designer vs some sort of random event or spontaneous theory. It is the NON Theistic Evolution that is NOT supported by the evidence.

Explain how evidence supports the one, but not the other. How does the process of gene mutation plus natural selection demonstrate a greater likelihood of supernatural intervention?

 

[Larniavc]

To begin with Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium shows that Darwin's gradualism theory was wrong.

Please show how the two cannot both describe change in allele frequency over time in different situations in your own words.

 

[Jimmy D]

To begin with Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium shows that Darwin's gradualism theory was wrong.

Would it be rude of me to suggest that you read the Origin of the Species before declaring it wrong? Here a link to an article that explains it.....

http://theobald.brandeis.edu/pe.html


"When we see a species first appearing in the middle of any formation, it would be rash in the extreme to infer that it had not elsewhere previously existed. So again, when we find a species disappearing before the last layers have been deposited, it would be equally rash to suppose that it then became extinct. We forget how small the area of Europe is compared with the rest of the world ... when we see a species first appearing in any formation, the probability is that it only then first immigrated into that area." (p. 423)

"... varieties are generally at first local; and that such local varieties do not spread widely and supplant their parent-form until they have been modified and perfected in some considerable degree. According to this view, the chance of discovering in a formation in any one country all the early stages of transition between any two forms is small, for the successive changes are supposed to have been local or confined to some one spot." (pp. 427-428)

"... it might require a long succession of ages to adapt an organism to some new and peculiar line of life, for instance, to fly through the air; and consequently that the transitional forms would often long remain confined to some one region; but that, when this adaptation had once been effected, and a few species had thus acquired a great advantage over other organisms, a comparatively short time would be necessary to produce many divergent forms, which would spread rapidly and widely throughout the world." (p. 433)

It is obvious from all of these quotes that Darwin did not think the "gaps" between fossil species were only due to geological processes, but that they are a direct consequence of natural speciation processes. Phyletic gradualism is a strawman when attributed to Darwin, and this is one of the reasons why so many evolutionary biologists reacted strongly to the initial presentation of the hypothesis of PE. Furthermore, it is erroneous even to claim PE as an original concept, since all of the tenets of allopatric speciation and the conclusions labelled as PE were stated by Charles Darwin over 100 years before Eldredge and Gould proposed their "novel" hypothesis.
.....(Skip to conclusion).....

Punctuated equilibrium is a valid scientific hypothesis, and when geological strata are complete with good temporal resolution and the fossil record is well-represented, the hypothesis is testable. PE, as construed by Eldredge and Gould, is founded upon the modern allopatric speciation model which lies well within mainstream population genetics. However, PE is not novel, and in large part PE originated with Charles Darwin in The Origin of Species (Darwin credits British paleontologist Hugh Falconer with first proposing that stasis is more predominant in the fossil record than periods of morphological change). Thus, in any meaningful sense of the word, the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium is resolutely "Darwinian."

 

[Jimmy D]

Lets take a look at what Collins says:

Yes lets:

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html?eref=rss_tops

"So, some have asked, doesn't your brain explode? Can you both pursue an understanding of how life works using the tools of genetics and molecular biology, and worship a creator God? Aren't evolution and faith in God incompatible? Can a scientist believe in miracles like the resurrection?

Actually, I find no conflict here, and neither apparently do the 40 percent of working scientists who claim to be believers. Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things.

But why couldn't this be God's plan for creation? True, this is incompatible with an ultra-literal interpretation of Genesis, but long before Darwin, there were many thoughtful interpreters like St. Augustine, who found it impossible to be exactly sure what the meaning of that amazing creation story was supposed to be. So attaching oneself to such literal interpretations in the face of compelling scientific evidence pointing to the ancient age of Earth and the relatedness of living things by evolution seems neither wise nor necessary for the believer."