Another Evolution Question.

[Doveaman]

My problem with evolution is how is it that people believe in it without the actual observation of it taking place, something like our observation of a caterpillar changing into a butterfly.

They seem to be basing their conclusions on similarity of features in bones or whatever else.

It seem to me that evolution is just a big blind guess at what might be possible, but not what actually is, since there is no actual evidence for it.

Should a Christian put his or her trust in such blind faith?

 

[Avatar]

My problem with evolution is how is it that people believe in it without the actual observation of it taking place,

Um, have you observed the news lately? Brand new virus has evolved.

/end thread

 

[Doveaman]

Um, have you observed the news lately? Brand new virus has evolved.

/end thread

Come on...you can do better than that.

We are not talking about the evolution of diseases.

How about ape becoming man, how is that possible?

Or something easier, how about whales becoming elephants?

 

[Avatar]

Come on...you can do better than that.

How about ape becoming man, how is that possible?

Or something easier, how about whales becoming elephants?

I can do better than citing an example of evolution occurring that is at the top of the news this very minute?

 

[Doveaman]

I can do better than citing an example of evolution occurring that is at the top of the news this very minute?

No evolution of diseases, please. That does not count.

 

[Assyrian]

It is only a disease from our point of view. And pigs' pov too. But I am sure fish have a dim view of fishermen and rabbits of foxes. Just because you don't like it and it preys on you doesn't mean it hasn't evolved. From the virus's point of view it has very cleverly evolved to exploiting a new and very abundant resource. If a virus can be smug that is. Dismissing its evolution as a disease is simply avoiding the fact that it has evolved.

 

[Doveaman]

It is only a disease from our point of view. And pigs' pov too. But I am sure fish have a dim view of fishermen and rabbits of foxes. Just because you don't like it and it preys on you doesn't mean it hasn't evolved. From the virus's point of view it has very cleverly evolved to exploiting a new and very abundant resource. If a virus can be smug that is. Dismissing its evolution as a disease is simply avoiding the fact that it has evolved.

I do believe in the evolution of viruses, but this cannot be use as evidence for the evolution of man from ape, or the evolution of elephants from whales.

There has to be better evidence to prove this. The evolution of viruses is not good enough.

I would think evolutionist have better evidence than that.

For example, what evidence did father Darwin use?

From what I understand, his evolutionary ideas were developed in part as a result of his efforts to clear up a confusion about some old pre-historic bones he had stumbled upon.

Because the bones resembled a particular modern day animal he reasoned that the original owner of those bones must have evolved into that modern day animal.

Talk about blind conclusions, well that's a classic.

Unfortunately, his conclusions only led to even more confusion, a confusion that many modern day evolutionists are now trying to clear up by using the evolution of viruses as evidence for the evolution of man from ape.

Father Darwin himself probably didn’t have a clue about the evolution viruses.

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

I would think evolutionist have better evidence than that.

They do. Just because a non-specialist does not know all of the evidence does not mean that the entire field is bunk. I am tired of people claiming that there is no evidence for evolution simply because they haven't studied the arguments for it.

man from ape, or the evolution of elephants from whales.

Evolution does not say that humans evolved from apes, I am also quite sure that most evolutionists would not say that elephants evolved from whales. Evolution is about common decent. I.e. humans and apes have a common ancestor, not that one comes from the other. So you are correct, the evolution of diseases cannot be used to prove that humans evolved from apes, because the only people that think that evolution says that are the people that are arguing against evolution.

 

[Assyrian]

I do believe in the evolution of viruses, but this cannot be use as evidence for the evolution of man from ape, or the evolution of elephants from whales.

There has to be better evidence to prove this. The evolution of viruses is not good enough.

It certainly show evolution at work. And because viruses reproduce rapidly we can easily observe then evolving.

Anyway lets look at your first post.

My problem with evolution is how is it that people believe in it without the actual observation of it taking place, something like our observation of a caterpillar changing into a butterfly.

They seem to be basing their conclusions on similarity of features in bones or whatever else.

It seem to me that evolution is just a big blind guess at what might be possible, but not what actually is, since there is no actual evidence for it.

You are making a huge leap from not observing millions of years of evolution to saying there is no actual evidence. Science has always used indirect evidence and tests to determine things we cannot actually observe. In the second century BC Eratosthenes worked out the circumference of the earth by looking at how sunlight shone down wells in different parts of the world. But all the evidence for a round earth was just as indirect, the earth's shadow on the moon, assuming it is the earth's shadow, appears round during an eclipse. But no one observed the earth being a sphere and no one sailed around it for another 1700 years. Should people have rejected the sphericity of the earth because there was no direct observation, or were the indirect tests and measurements legitimate scientific evidence? In the 4th century AD the Christian bishop Lactantius dismissed a round earth on the basis that no one had ever gone to the cities on the other side to tell us what they were like. Was he right to do so?

When Copernicus said the earth rotates and moves around the sun, it was accepted by scientists and Christians (after a bit of a hiccup) because the evidence supported it. But it was very indirect evidence. The maths fitted heliocentrism better than geocentrism, pendulums in cathedrals wobbled in a way that could be explained by the earth rotating. It took a long time but eventually they had telescopes powerful enough to show some stars wobbled from one half of the year to the other, stellar parallax which heliocentrism predicted. But no one observed the earth rotating. Not until Neil Armstrong stood on the moon and watched a spherical earth (the first really direct observation of the earth as a sphere too) rotating against the blackness of the space. Should Christians have rejected heliocentrism until Neil Armstrong stood on the moon because it had never been observed? Or were they right to go with science?

Scientist have been talking about atoms and subatomic particles for over a hundred years, but it is only very recently that atoms and electrons have been observed. In fact the observation of electrons are really only computer graphic images built up from measurements taken. They have not actually been observed. Should we reject the existence of atom and electrons? Or is that simply the way good science works, finding ways to measure and test what we cannot directly observe?

It is the same with the fossil record. Of course we cannot observe australopithicenes evolving to homo sapiens, but Darwin proposed evolution on the basis of the similarities of living creatures. He was able to say from observation of similarities between man and apes that if we evolved, it is from very similar creatures both apes and man evolved from. And he predict that there were fossil to be found with features intermediate between man and ape. Was Darwin right? Well we have found the fossils with intermediate characteristics between man and ape in abundance. And the further back in time the fossils are found the more ape like the homininds. And the degree of similarity can be measured. Is that proof these fossils are our ancestors? No. But they are what evolution predicted, and found. And the change from austropithecene to human is so gradual that even creationist cannot agree which fossils are human and which are ape. Creationism did not predict transitionals, especially human ape transitionals. But evolution did, and what is more only the transitionals the theory of evolution predicted from the phylogenetic tree were found. You get reptile-bird transitionals and fish-tetrapod, but not TRex-kangaroo or duck-platypus. It is a bit like the stars wobbling being evidence the earth orbited the sun. There was no way to prove the wobble was caused by the earth's orbit, maybe there was another explanation. But geocentrism did not predict a wobble while heliocentrism predicted the wobble and found it. That is how scientific evidence works.

Since then we have found much more evidence of the relationship between ape and man, in the high degree of similarity in the DNA, even non codeing DNA, in broken genes and retroviral insertions we share with great apes. Even in our broken Vitamin C production gene, you can trace the evolutionary tree of the ape family in the the amount of changes in the gene since it was broken.

Should a Christian put his or her trust in such blind faith?

It is not blind faith it is well tested scientific evidence.

 

[gluadys]

I am also quite sure that most evolutionists would not say that elephants evolved from whales.

Indeed not. They are in different orders. Among living species whales are most closely related to the hippopotamus. And they are more closely related to cattle and deer than to elephants.

But there are sea mammals that are in the same order as elephants. As a group they are called Sirenia and include dugongs and manatees. One interesting feature of some Sirenia is that they still have vestiges of hooves their ancestors used on land. See the picture at the bottom of this page.


SirenianEvolution


None of this, of course, means that any of these animals evolved from one another. Is it a matter of common ancestry. Cattle, deer, hippos and whales shared one common ancestor. Elephants, Sirenia, horses, rhinos and tapirs shared a different common ancestor.

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

But there are sea mammals that are in the same order as elephants.

Thank you. That is what I thought. I was mainly trying to emphasize this point that you also made.

None of this, of course, means that any of these animals evolved from one another. Is it a matter of common ancestry.

For some reason the anti-evolution crew still believes that evolution says that humans descended from apes, etc.

 

[Mallon]

My problem with evolution is how is it that people believe in it without the actual observation of it taking place, something like our observation of a caterpillar changing into a butterfly.

They seem to be basing their conclusions on similarity of features in bones or whatever else.

It seem to me that evolution is just a big blind guess at what might be possible, but not what actually is, since there is no actual evidence for it.

Do you think convicted murderers should be sentenced to jail on the basis of forensic evidence alone? If no bystanders were there to see the murder, and the murder cannot be repeated, is it even worth prosecuting a suspect when all we have is evidence left at the crime scene to go by? The situation is analogous with the argument you cite.

Should a Christian put his or her trust in such blind faith?

I'm surprised to hear a Christian disparage faith.

 

[Doveaman]

For some reason the anti-evolution crew still believes that evolution says that humans descended from apes, etc.

I think many in the evolution crew believe that too.

I was talking to one on another thread.

Is there confusion among the crew?

 

[Avatar]

I think many in the evolution crew believe that too.

I was talking to one on another thread.

Is there confusion among the crew?

Could be.

Let's use our Christianity as an example.

Are there Christians less knowledgeable about Christianity than you?

Are they still Christians?

Are there Christians more knowledgeable about Christianity than you?

Are you still Christian?

Does a less knowledgeable Christian disprove Christianity?

Does a more knowledgeable Christian prove Christianity?

I hope you get the point.

 

[Doveaman]

Do you think convicted murderers should be sentenced to jail on the basis of forensic evidence alone? If no bystanders were there to see the murder, and the murder cannot be repeated, is it even worth prosecuting a suspect when all we have is evidence left at the crime scene to go by? The situation is analogous with the argument you cite.

That would depend on the skills of the forensic scientist.

Many innocent people were condemned to death based on so called evidence.

The evidence they had was misinterpreted.

 

[Mallon]

That would depend on the skills of the forensic scientist.

Many innocent people were condemned to death based on so called evidence.

The evidence they had was misinterpreted.

Right-o. The evidence can indeed be misinterpreted. But the point is that there exists evidence for occurrences that happened in the past, and that reconstructing the past on the basis of this evidence is not simply a matter of faith (as you state in the OP). The best possible explanation is that which accounts for all the evidence, and the evolutionary theory is just such an explanation, taking into account evidence from embryology, biogeography, genetics, palaeontology, population biology, etc.

 

[Doveaman]

Could be.

Let's use our Christianity as an example.

Are there Christians less knowledgeable about Christianity than you?

Are they still Christians?

Are there Christians more knowledgeable about Christianity than you?

Are you still Christian?

Does a less knowledgeable Christian disprove Christianity?

Does a more knowledgeable Christian prove Christianity?

I hope you get the point.

I get the point.

But the thing is, evolution has not been proven conclusively, unlike Christianity.

Evolution is assumed based on what is considered to be evidence, but it's not proven.

The evidence is to weak.

Christianity has been proven without a doubt.

 

[sfs]

I get the point.

But the thing is, evolution has not been proven conclusively, unlike Christianity.

Evolution is assumed based on what is considered to be evidence, but it's not proven.

The evidence is to weak.

Christianity has been proven without a doubt.

When was Christianity proven without a doubt, and how did I miss the demonstration (and subsequent party)?

 

[Doveaman]

Right-o. The evidence can indeed be misinterpreted. But the point is that there exists evidence for occurrences that happened in the past, and that reconstructing the past on the basis of this evidence is not simply a matter of faith (as you state in the OP). The best possible explanation is that which accounts for all the evidence, and the evolutionary theory is just such an explanation, taking into account evidence from embryology, biogeography, genetics, palaeontology, population biology, etc.

Despite all this it still ends up as a theory.

A theory suggest a possibility that may or may not be true.

'May or may not be true' is not something to base anyone's faith on.

When it becoems a fact I will probably be won over.

 

[Doveaman]

When was Christianity proven without a doubt, and how did I miss the demonstration (and subsequent party)?

I don't know where you were at the time, but all I can say is that I'm sorry you missed it.