EVOLUTION - X (A helpful mnemonic to remember?)

Follower_of_Jesus said:

Thanks Jacks - yes, I'm getting that impression
Thank you for the welcome, and also for appreciating the purpose of the video.
Even if folk are not able or willing to watch it, I hope they will understand my intentions are good.

Click to expand...

I'm generally not willing to watch any video longer than 5 minutes unless it's something I deliberately seek out.

Follower_of_Jesus said:

Hello Speedwell. Thank you for your comments.
I confess that I am no scientist, and that micro-evolution is an observable fact, but I am not at all convinced that Darwinian macro-evolution is a fact, but rather a theory based on an interpretation of the evidence.
Without there being a God, I can see how this might be the best interpretation too - until we know more and science modifies that theory.
However, if/when we allow the possibility of there being a Creator God, then suddenly we can allow the possibility that the evidence can be interpreted in a different way (animals made fully formed in their defined groups).
If this (special creation) is even a possibility, then it leads me to think again about popular theories and the reasons why we believe/teach them - that is what the video is all about - considering the reasons why we believe what we do, and the implications and difficulties with a belief in macro-evolution.
Ultimately - the whole topic is interesting, but not essential - the essential thing is to be ready to face the consequences for our moral law-breaking when we finally come face to face with our Maker as Judge. If God is not just and fair - then I may as well do whatever I like and not worry about any consequences. But if God is morally just and fair - then I am in big trouble, and deserve to be punished.

Click to expand...

this points out one of the problems perfectly . Scientists actually define macroevolution as speciation. . So the fact that genus Equus contains horses, donkeys and zebras is macroevolution! Creationists have their own definitions for scientific terminology . Scientists don’t use creationist definitions mainly because they’re mostly designed to confuse laymen.

Follower_of_Jesus said:

Hello Speedwell. Thank you for your comments.
I confess that I am no scientist, and that micro-evolution is an observable fact, but I am not at all convinced that Darwinian macro-evolution is a fact, but rather a theory based on an interpretation of the evidence.

Click to expand...

It depends on how one defines "macroevolution." As the term is generally used by scientists, it includes speciation--which has been observed.

Without there being a God, I can see how this might be the best interpretation too - until we know more and science modifies that theory.

Click to expand...

It works just fine with a God as well.

However, if/when we allow the possibility of there being a Creator God, then suddenly we can allow the possibility that the evidence can be interpreted in a different way (animals made fully formed in their defined groups).
If this (special creation) is even a possibility, then it leads me to think again about popular theories and the reasons why we believe/teach them - that is what the video is all about - considering the reasons why we believe what we do, and the implications and difficulties with a belief in macro-evolution.

Click to expand...

None of them were very good reasons for rejecting evolution.

Ultimately - the whole topic is interesting, but not essential - the essential thing is to be ready to face the consequences for our moral law-breaking when we finally come face to face with our Maker as Judge. If God is not just and fair - then I may as well do whatever I like and not worry about any consequences. But if God is morally just and fair - then I am in big trouble, and deserve to be punished.

Click to expand...

That's all very well, but I can't see how it has anything at all to do with what we are discussing.

Let's cut to the chase, here. You are going to have to make up your mind whether you are attacking evolution theory because you have been convinced that it is "atheistic" and you are out after atheists--or whether you are attacking evolution merely because it offends your interpretation of Genesis. And can tell you from the get-go that attacking evolution as "atheistic" is a waste of your time. There are too many theists here--Christians like myself included--who won't stand for it. Trying to turn the creation v. evolution discussion into atheism v. theism dispute is a cheap trick and we've all seen it before.

Follower_of_Jesus said:

The post was merely putting across my view that the theory of Darwinian evolution has some flaws which can be well memorised using the above video (which oddly seems to be commented on without being watched).
Is that okay?

Click to expand...

Argument by YouTube, particularly by an unqualified presenter, is generally frowned upon here. By all means use a video from an authoritative source in support of some argument, but if you have an argument to make, just make it in your own words. If you don't know the subject well, you can make a tentative argument, or pose it as questions. People here are accustomed to explaining evolution and correcting misapprehensions.

But you should be aware that arguments from incredulity or conflicting faith beliefs don't fly in the science forums - although this should be true of rational discussion & debate in any field.

I look forward to your contribution - perhaps, as suggested previously, tell us the most serious flaw you see in evolutionary theory.

Follower_of_Jesus said:

The post was merely putting across my view that the theory of Darwinian evolution has some flaws which can be well memorised using the above video (which oddly seems to be commented on without being watched).

Click to expand...

This website is a text-based discussion forum. It shouldn't come as a surprise that some of us are reluctant to spend our time watching youtube videos without a good reason. Your summary of it as a mnemonic - not even saying what the mnemonic stands for - just wasn't a good enough hook to draw me in. Are you interested in a text-based discussion of your ideas?

Follower_of_Jesus said:

Hello Speedwell, thanks for your reply.
I'm sincerely not trying to 'attack' anyone or any thing.
The post was merely putting across my view that the theory of Darwinian evolution has some flaws which can be well memorised using the above video (which oddly seems to be commented on without being watched).
Is that okay?
Forgive me if I've done something wrong...

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone watched the video all the way through but many of us watched at least part of it and skipped through to the end. The arguments are shopworn old chestnuts and badly presented. But if you want to discuss any of them in detail we would welcome you bringing it up.

I'm a little perturbed that I feel I am being accused of doing something which has only been mentioned by yourself!

Click to expand...

I am . sorry that you are perturbed; I think you are only confused. Because sometimes you are going on about theism v. atheism and at others you seem to want to discuss biblical creation v. evolution. The same with the presenter; sometimes he seems to be arguing against evolution and sometimes against other branches of science as well, but always against atheism. What gives? Do you think that without atheism evolution would just somehow "go away" and we all would have no alternative but to become biblical creationists?

Follower_of_Jesus said:

It's not easy to choose - and maybe the video's argument is cumulative, but if I had to choose just one I think I'd probably be considering the non-purposeful nature of mutations.

To get from a single-cell to modern man through a series of non-purposeful and random mutations is - I admit - an argument from incredulity,

Click to expand...

To those who understand how it works it seems quite plausible.

but then it often seems that the idea of God creating distinct fully formed animals kinds also seems to get dismissed out of incredulity...

Click to expand...

No, just for lack of evidence.

This is not an 'attack' on atheism, and I do wish Speedwell would stop making it out as if that is my intention...

Click to expand...

Not your intention. It is merely a consequence of being confused about the difference between atheism and accepting scientific theories as plausible.

Follower_of_Jesus said:

Hello!
I am new to ChristianForums.com so please accept my apologies if this has been planted in the wrong place (perhaps a moderator can correctly place it for me)...but I wanted to share with you a video which has helped me to remember common sense objections to Darwinian Evolution, in the form of a mnemonic: EVOLUTION-X
It has certainly been very useful for me, especially when suddenly thrown into a discussion of Creationism v Evolution and I wanted to try and remember my key points - and so I thought I'd share it
It uses secular sources as much as possible, and is best viewed in YouTube as there is some text on it and so is better full-screen. Copy and paste this to view and share from YouTube: https://youtu.be/K07COV0fcm4
Thank you - and may God bless you!

Click to expand...

With all due respect, if you need a mnemonic to remember common sense objections to something, maybe they aren’t derived from common sense. If you really want to be able to debate scientists on evolution, you’ll need to study the theory deeply and thoroughly. And then, you won’t need a mnemonic.

Follower_of_Jesus said:

Thank you Jacks....I'm grateful for your advice (and welcome). I think I may need to take a step back and try to help some folk identify their pre-suppositions before they can change the 'filter' on their worldview. Let's try again...

Click to expand...

I’m game.

I spent 30 mins watching the video so I could do the work of the OP and post a summary. No surprises for guessing that it's a bunch of PRATTs (irreducible complexity), strawmen (evolution includes abiogenesis), misinformation (Nebraska Man & Piltdown Man presented as claimed transitional forms), misunderstanding (testable and repeatable science actually means laboratory tests rather than using hypothesis in discovery of Tiktaalik for example) and incredulity (there hasn't been enough time for humans to evolve). Throw in a smattering of silly assertions (there are limits to micro-evolution, but no explanation of what those limits are) and there we have it.

For the mnemonic:
Equality
Variety within kinds
Overwhelming
Law of biogenesis
Unprovable
Transitional forms
Irreducible complexity
Our DNA
Non-purposeful mutations
Extrapolation

A very poorly researched, dishonest video. Really not worth the effort.

Follower_of_Jesus said:

Thank you for that well timed encouragement Charlie24.

Click to expand...

May I also encourage you - to learn your subject and the associated arguments.

Like others, I started to watch the video and gave up after hearing three or four of your 'reasons'. If you wish to seriously debate this you have a long way to go in lifting the standard of your arguments.

You might start with learning a few facts to replace the emotional/incredulous stuff and start treating your watchers like intelligent people.

OB

Follower_of_Jesus said:

It's not easy to choose - and maybe the video's argument is cumulative, but if I had to choose just one I think I'd probably be considering the non-purposeful nature of mutations.

To get from a single-cell to modern man through a series of non-purposeful and random mutations is - I admit - an argument from incredulity, but then it often seems that the idea of God creating distinct fully formed animals kinds also seems to get dismissed out of incredulity, which means, as previously suggested, it is more a case of how one interprets the evidence.

Click to expand...

Mutations provide the variation between individuals that make some cope a little better and some a little worse, which is reflected in the number and viability of their offspring. Over time the population will consist of variations of the offspring of those that coped the best. You should be able to see how this will result in the population changing over time.

Small changes over relatively few generations, e.g. a few hundred, are often called 'micro evolution'. Once two populations of a creature have become sufficiently different that they generally don't interbreed, or they're considered to merit being considered separately, they will be called separate species (or subspecies). This point is sometimes called 'macro evolution'.

If you're wondering how major changes came about, such as very different body plans, number of limbs, etc., the basic body plans arose fairly early in multi-cellular life, and involved mutations in the networks of genes that regulate embryo development. This is a rather complex and technical field, but the principle is that structural development is modular; limbs, body segments, etc., are produced by sets of genes and their number and position is regulated by other sets of genes.

So a mutation in a regulator gene can cause major body structure effects, e.g. achondroplasia, extra digits, even extra limbs. In highly specialised creatures these mutations will generally be a major disadvantage, but in relatively simple early life there would have been strong competition between creatures with many different body plans, eventually resulting in the fairly limited number of basic body plans we see today.

If you accept microevolution and speciation (macroevolution), What particular step(s) in the process from early single-cell life to contemporary multi-cellular life do you find problematic?

Where do you suppose God might step in, and what evidence should we expect to find of this - i.e. how could we distinguish between natural evolution and the hand of God?