The Demise of Evolution

roman2819 said:

For so many years, evolution has been presented as the alternative theory to creation, that it means no creator, and everything happen on its own.

Click to expand...

That's still a lie, no matter how many times you repeat it.

JackRT said:

The Theory of Evolution does not in any way address the origins if life, it only attempts to explain what has happened since then. So, your assertion that denial of God is the conventional understanding is in no way accurate.

Click to expand...

So according to you, evolution does not say how life begin, but it explains how they evolved? Would you state a few examples of what evolved into what? Amphibians to reptiles? Or monkeys to humans? Some people here keep saying I do not understand evolution, so I m waiting to hear clear concise key points about this theory which has allowed itself to be seen as a no-god theory for more than 50 years. Dont say what evolution is not, try to say what it is, what are the main features.

OldWiseGuy said:

How does order come from disorder?

Click to expand...

Show me an example of not designed. You have no example so you can't determine designed.

OldWiseGuy said:

How does order come from disorder?

Click to expand...

Quite often from the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. You know, that law that creationists get wrong all of the time?

OldWiseGuy said:

I said my beliefs work well for me.

Click to expand...

I really doubt that. It probably only gives the illusion of working for you.

roman2819 said:

In Genesis God said to Abraham

Click to expand...

Allegedly. there is no evidence of this

roman2819 said:

So according to you, God created living things, and later, they evolved? Would you state a few examples of what evolved into what? Amphibians to reptiles? Or monkeys to humans? Some people here keep saying I do not understand evolution, so I m waiting to hear clear concise key points about this theory which has allowed itself to be seen as a no-god theory for more than 50 years. Dont say what evolution is not, try to say what it is, what are the main features.

Click to expand...

You did not understand the point. Life may have arisen naturally, in fact it probably did. The point was that regardless of the original source of life we know that life evolved after it was here.

And it is hard to give examples when you have such a poor understanding of the theory. You keep saying "evolve into something" as if there was a goal. There are no goals in evolution Except for perhaps survival. But the idea that a species tries to evolve into something else does not enter into it. Perhaps if you start with the idea of cladistics. That shows how there is no change in kind in evolution. Would be willing to give that a shot?

roman2819 said:

So according to you, God created living things, and later, they evolved? Would you state a few examples of what evolved into what? Amphibians to reptiles? Or monkeys to humans? Some people here keep saying I do not understand evolution, so I m waiting to hear clear concise key points about this theory which has allowed itself to be seen as a no-god theory for more than 50 years. Dont say what evolution is not, try to say what it is, what are the main features.

Click to expand...

No, what he is saying is that the theory of evolution does not deal with how the first life forms came into existence, only with how they evolved and diversified after that. The origin of life is studied as a separate branch of science altogether, called abiogenesis. And no, the theory of abiogenesis does not deny the existence of God either, no matter how you try to twist it.

roman2819 said:

Regarding similar DNA, could they mean that God created them that way, with similar DNA? Similarity does not point to evolution exclusively, does it?

Click to expand...

It's not just about similarity. It's about patterns of similarity.

The process of evolution is constrained by its mechanisms, primarily inheritance. And while there are known mechanisms for horizontal DNA transfer (such as viral insertions), the primary mechanism that contributes to an organism's DNA is genetic inheritance from its parent organisms.

Thus when examining the patterns of DNA in populations of organisms the pattern that emerges is one of inheritance. IOW, that organisms appear to share common ancestors as opposed to independent creation.

Now a designer wouldn't be constrained in this manner. A designer could mix 'n match DNA in ways far beyond the constraints of biological evolution. And if you look at what scientists do with genetic engineering, this is exactly what they do.

Thus you have everything from blatant chimeric organisms (like these glow in the dark rabbits made using jellyfish DNA), to encoding of computer data in a genome (like encoding an animated GIF into a bacteria) to the invention of completely novel DNA nucleotides.

The above represents things a designer could do that wouldn't fit with what we know of biological evolution. So why when we look at nature do we not see patterns of those things? Why instead does all life look like it evolved and share common ancestry?

If you want to make an argument for design then you need to be able to explain the patterns we see.

OldWiseGuy said:

Rocks have design.

Click to expand...

Can you give some examples of design in rocks? Preferably something more substantial than your usual one or two sentence answers would be appreciated.

Lazarus Long said:

Show me an example of not designed. You have no example so you can't determine designed.

Click to expand...

The earth's crust was designed, including the materials. However, mountains and rubble cast up by tectonic plate action have no design although they behave in accordance with the laws of physics.

OldWiseGuy said:

Not as it's currently presented. I do believe in comprehensive adaptation however.

Click to expand...

So what would convince you to change your mind? Since I'm down this rabbit hole and I am genuinely curious.

roman2819 said:

Cellular changes that clearly demonstrate that a species evolved into another.

Click to expand...

The thing is, biologic evolution is all about gradual change. Take a species. Split it into a couple populations. Each population changes gradually over great lengths of time. Eventually the two populations are different enough to be considered two different species. We can observe this kind of thing under laboratory conditions with organisms that reproduce rapidly. If you want to see it with something like humans or dogs or oak trees, you're out of luck, because they don't reproduce fast enough to observe speciation in laboratory conditions.

If you're looking for evidence of a member of a species giving birth to a member of a new species, no, that's not how it works. That kind of thing would pretty much disprove evolution.

Now, if some is going to say that the presence of item A (eg a certain tissue) found in 10 species is proof of evolution, my question would be: Could it also mean that the Creator designed item A to be part of these species?

Click to expand...

Sure.

My question regarding evolution : What are the main features or beliefs of Evolution?

Click to expand...

Biologic evolution is the change in frequency of alleles (mutated genes) in a population over time/generations. Evolutionary theory proposes that different species have common ancestors. The Theory of Evolution proposes that all living things derive from common ancestors. No belief is required. Scientists just look at the evidence, run their tests, and see if the various theories hold up.

For evolution to work, you need a population of organisms. So it doesn't deal with the origin of life itself.

For so many years, evolution has been presented as the alternative theory to creation, that it means no creator, and everything happen on its own.

Click to expand...

It's only been presented that way by creationists. That's not the fault of science. It can't be presented as an alternative theory to creation, because it only deals with the development of living organisms.

why didn't evolutionists come out to correct this belief which is held by majority of people in different parts of the world?

Click to expand...

They did. It's not their fault if certain creationists keep spreading lies about evolution.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

So what would convince you to change your mind? Since I'm down this rabbit hole and I am genuinely curious.

Click to expand...

I'm afraid my mind is made up on the topic, plus I'm more convinced than ever as I get older.

OldWiseGuy said:

I'm afraid my mind is made up on the topic, plus I'm more convinced than ever as I get older.

Click to expand...

I'm genuinely sad to hear that.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

I'm genuinely sad to hear that.

Click to expand...

I'm sad that you're sad as well. My beliefs are a package deal, and badly needed.

OldWiseGuy said:

I'm sad that you're sad as well. My beliefs are a package deal, and badly needed.

Click to expand...

And that's even sadder.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

And that's even sadder.

Click to expand...

Sad for others, not for me.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

I'm genuinely sad to hear that.

Click to expand...

It saddened me as well.

oh, nevermind