To the evolution deniers

[redleghunter]

The idea that over large amounts of time these small changes will eventually lead to very large changes stems from a completely ignorant understanding of what caused these small changes to begin with.

There inlays the problem. Well scoped.

 

[redleghunter]

We as visitors of this forum are just posting in that christian-created section.

I always thought this sub forum was the result of chance and random selection.

 

[redleghunter]

Just curious, but do you believe that mutations actually occur?

Sure we observe such in our modern society. None of the mutations seen today 'help' mankind to the next level. Mutations we observe today are negative. That could mean, by chance, humankind has been randomly selected for oblivion.

 

[Almost there]

Science is about how. Religion is about why. The latter is the higher pursuit.

Regarding the science of evolution: For something to be a theory it has to be testable. Most of what we call "evolution theory" is really evolution hypothesis.

 

[pitabread]

Sure we observe such in our modern society. None of the mutations seen today 'help' mankind to the next level. Mutations we observe today are negative. That could mean, by chance, humankind has been randomly selected for oblivion.

So you don't believe that neutral or beneficial mutations occur?

 

[redleghunter]

So you don't believe that neutral or beneficial mutations occur?

Show some that we observe today.

 

[Almost there]

So you don't believe that neutral or beneficial mutations occur?

Interesting paper on the subject: Examples of Beneficial Mutations in Humans | Ratio Christi

My take is that all mutations are probably negative. Interestingly, I'm finding that a lot of folks think that a change in a population is the same as a genetic mutation. A classic example is the peppered moth. It is no more an example of evolution than the changing of the racial makeup of the population of north america the last 500 years or the brand makeup of cars driven in the US is an example of evolution, other than it is the evolution of a population.

 

[Almost there]

Show some that we observe today.

Obviously you have not followed the evolution of the Corvette.

 

[BradB]

And it never will. Fossilization is a VERY rare process. What you are asking for here, is akin to me asking you for a picture of your face of EVERY second of your entire life, just to "prove" to me that you are aging. It's not reasonable to demand such a thing.

If no one alive on earth had ever seen a person age "EVER" and everyone looked the same after 90 years of life as they did after 20 years of life, and I were telling you that one day because of the aging process I was going to wrinkle up, loose, my hair and shrink in height, then it would not be unreasonable for you to ask for a photo at least close enough between aging stages to be able to tell it was the same person through each stage. I am not asking for a link from every single generation and no creationist asks for such a thing. You are hyperbolizing what we ask for in order to make us appear unreasonable and bolster your own ego. What we are saying is what most honest evolutionary paleontologists will even admit to. That being their are large gaps between every major form. Dinosaurs said to be related jump from no back sail to suddenly a huge back sail. Creatures with no legs leap to suddenly having legs etc. We need at least one example of a finely graduated chain between any two major forms that doesn't depend on great imagination to link them as relatives.

The reason was that the fossil record exhibits periods of relatively small to no changes and other periods of accelerated changes/evolution.

That's what I just said.

Bacteria becoming immune to anti-biotics: pretty beneficial for the bacteria.

I guess you completely ignore what people say right? I said "multi-celled."

Insects becoming immune to pesticides: pretty beneficial for the insects.

Yes the result of already existing genes in the gene pool. If Hitler would have killed off all brown and red headed people he would not have caused a new mutated gene of blondes. The blonde genes that already exist would have become the predominant genes. Must insect populations that become "immune" return to normal again after just a few generations.

Tibetans having unique gene sequences, not found anywhere else, allowing them to live at high altitudes without getting sick: pretty beneficial for those living on high altitudes.

That's neat. Now if you will just give me and example of what I asked for I can believe evolution is possible.

And then there's they many, many evolution experiments, with control populations and everything, where we have seen speciation happen right under our noses.

Just observing "speciation" is not an example of observed "random mutation" and natural selection. I said we need an example of an OBSERVED random MUTATION adding new and BENEFICIAL information to the genome of a MULTIcelled organism.

So what was the purpose of giving Homo Sapiens a mouth that is actually to small to house all its teeth, which is why most people have to have their wisdom teeth pulled out to avoid agony?

The why did God do this or that game fails to take into account the fact that we live in a fallen creation where things that it says were once "good" are no longer so. I could ask the same things...why would humans evolve to have more teeth than they need? It seems the "agony" would make them less desirable by a mate and cause such a bad trait to die off. Etc... The fact is I am not God and can't say why He created things the way He did. But this fact doesn't negate the possibility that He did.

 

[BradB]

Just curious, but do you believe that mutations actually occur?

Yes they do occur all the time. I can whack my TV with a stick and maybe make you call it a mutated one that is all in shades of light or dark red. But someone else would just call it a broken TV set. Two headed snakes and frogs with five legs are not mutations that demonstrate the kind of random mutations needed to move a single celled organism out of the swampy goo to become me and you. Evidence for this requires us to observe (in a controlled environment) a random mutation that adds new and beneficial information to the genome of a multi-celled organism. A controlled environment in which we could be sure that the gene was not present in any of the population prior, and beneficial in the sense that it gives the organism an advantage over its distant relatives.

 

[BradB]

Science is about how. Religion is about why. The latter is the higher pursuit.

Just a quick question. Is God religious or is He scientific? Or if He created say... a bird house would we use science or religion to study the bird house? What if God Himself told us we can study what He created to know He exists? He told us He created the observable universe so should we study the universe with religion or should we use...science? Look at Romans 1:20 and tell me what you think He expects us to use to know that He is?

 

[Almost there]

Just a quick question. Is God religious or is He scientific? Or if He created say... a bird house would we use science or religion to study the bird house? What if God Himself told us we can study what He created to know He exists? He told us He created the observable universe so should we study the universe with religion or should we use...science? Look at Romans 1:20 and tell me what you think He expects us to use to know that He is?

God is not religious or scientific. God is.

Science is simply a word that means:
he intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

i.e. science is a thing people do. It is not superior to art, nor inferior. It is a way of understanding, but it is dangerous to think you understand based on what you think you will discover. An hypothesis is not reality. A theory is not reality until it is proven through experiment and observation. This is why gravity is still a "theory".

One can learn much with a non-evolutionary mindset. One can learn some even if they have an evolutionary mindset. But what trumps both is reality. And reality is only observed through experiment.

 

[Ophiolite]

A theory is not reality until it is proven through experiment and observation. This is why gravity is still a "theory"..

Theories are never proven. The fact that you believe they may be suggests your grasp of the principles of science is flawed. Knowledge of the character of a theory is rather basic science. It calls into question the reliability of anything you may say on scientific matters.

 

[BradB]

God is not religious or scientific. God is. Science is simply a word...

But what I wanted to address, which you seem to have side stepped, is your comment that "science is about why, and religion about how." I am kind of hair triggered to react to this kind of thinking because it implies that- knowing the God who created us has no basis at all in science. The old "faith is not faith if requires evidence" mentality. Again God is the one that said through studying the universe He made we can be sure He exists. (Romans 1:20) So much so that we are without any excuse. Indeed God tells us that the path to having faith starts with being sure that He "is" and then trusting that He will reward those who diligently seek Him. (Heb. 11:6) So one must recognize that faith requires a degree of evidence and that that evidence is rooted in what we observe through our scientific endeavors...rather we want to call it science or not. God calls us as believers to be ready always to give a "reason" for the hope that lies within us. This would then require our reasons to be...reasonable. In ancient times the disciples reasoned against the popular false gods that people followed and pointed them towards the one true God. Today the world worships at the alter of "knowledge" so called and we must be able to show them they likewise are bowing to a false religion and to point them to the one true God.

This means starting with their mindset that "observation trumps all," and demonstrating that what we observe does not conflict with what God has revealed to us. In fact God's word is actually supported by what we observe in science...so long as what we observe is being interpreted honestly and not slanted to fit a conflicting world view.

 

[Almost there]

Theories are never proven. The fact that you believe they may be suggests your grasp of the principles of science is flawed. Knowledge of the character of a theory is rather basic science. It calls into question the reliability of anything you may say on scientific matters.

Or I could have just been imprecise in my use of words.

Careful about judging someone from the content of a single post.

 

[Almost there]

But what I wanted to address, which you seem to have side stepped, is your comment that "science is about why, and religion about how." I am kind of hair triggered to react to this kind of thinking because it implies that- knowing the God who created us has no basis at all in science. The old "faith is not faith if requires evidence" mentality. Again God is the one that said through studying the universe He made we can be sure He exists. (Romans 1:20) So much so that we are without any excuse. Indeed God tells us that the path to having faith starts with being sure that He "is" and then trusting that He will reward those who diligently seek Him. (Heb. 11:6) So one must recognize that faith requires a degree of evidence and that that evidence is rooted in what we observe through our scientific endeavors...rather we want to call it science or not. God calls us as believers to be ready always to give a "reason" for the hope that lies within us. This would than require our reasons to be...reasonable. In ancient times the disciples reasoned against the popular false gods that people followed and pointed them towards the one true God. Today the world worships at the alter of "knowledge" so called and we must be able to show them they likewise are bowing to a false religion and to point them to the one true God.

This means starting with their mindset that "observation trumps all," and demonstrating that what we observe does not conflict with what God has revealed to us. In fact God's word is actually supported by what we observe in science...so long as what we observe is being interpreted honestly and not slanted to fit a conflicting world view.

You say it in a different way than I would, but we are on the same page regarding how we both see this issue.

My comment about how vs why is just pointing out that they science and Christianity are two different things with two different approaches. Christianity is about man's relationship with our Creator and, a subset, man's relationship with his fellow man. It is about WHY we exist and are made the way we are. Science is about man's attempt to figure out how things work.

That is usually where I go when I debate this with those whose god is science. It misses the core point and focuses on the human intellect. And as I often say, even if you are really smart, it only makes you one of the smart ants. Big deal.

The bible is amazing in how it discusses reality in such a way as to not give away the whole show, yet still is relevant in a world that understands to a great degree, realty at the sub-atomic level. That is no small feat. Even Darwins tome of 150 years ago has not worn well with time, though it is still scripture to plenty of underclassmen.

BTW, a strong argument can be made that gravity pushes.

 

[Ophiolite]

Or I could have just been imprecise in my use of words.

That was more than imprecision. It was incorrect, wrong, mistaken, misleading, in error. It reflected a basic misunderstanding of an important concept in science.

Careful about judging someone from the content of a single post.

I haven't made a judgment. I raised doubts. I sought to convey this through use of the words "suggests" and "calls into question". Colloquially, the jury is out. We are some distance from any judgment. (Indeed, we haven't heard more than the opening remarks from the defense, so I guess the jury hasn't actually gone out yet.)

I regret this may come across as hostile. That is not the intent. I value precision and accuracy. I shall welcome each and every instance where you (correctly) call me out for a deficiency in either.

 

[Almost there]

That was more than imprecision. It was incorrect, wrong, mistaken, misleading, in error. It reflected a basic misunderstanding of an important concept in science.

I haven't made a judgment. I raised doubts. I sought to convey this through use of the words "suggests" and "calls into question". Colloquially, the jury is out. We are some distance from any judgment. (Indeed, we haven't heard more than the opening remarks from the defense, so I guess the jury hasn't actually gone out yet.)

I regret this may come across as hostile. That is not the intent. I value precision and accuracy. I shall welcome each and every instance where you (correctly) call me out for a deficiency in either.

Well, now I'm going to have to reread my originally offending post.

 

[Ophiolite]

The bible is amazing in how it discusses reality in such a way as to not give away the whole show, yet still is relevant in a world that understands to a great degree, realty at the sub-atomic level. That is no small feat. Even Darwins tome of 150 years ago has not worn well with time, though it is still scripture to plenty of underclassmen.

A surprising number of biologists have never read it. I'll see if I can find some supporting data.

 

[Ophiolite]

Well, now I'm going to have to reread my originally offending post.

I don't know what your view is on wikipedia, but I believe this article captures well my understanding of "theory". It may help you to see my objection more clearly.