Answer this, Please

[Arthur Dietrich]

A friend of mine wrote this:

I think the point you are trying to make is that other laws are sometimes defined using gravity. We believe in gravity because we can see and feel the effects. I choose to disbelieve in evolution both because of my religion and that I cannot see the effects.

I do agree that to some extent life evolves. We as humans become more apt to make new discoveries as a result of this evolution, thus our thought becomes more developed and our knowledge continues to grow. This is evolution. Also, it's important to separate the theory of evolution from simple adaptation. or perhaps to accept the combination of both. I believe in creationism, but I also believe that over time the human race has adapted to different climates. For example, Native africans have dark skin pigment to protect them from the harsher climate and sun. But I believe that these adaptations take place as God wills, and not as a mistake or an accident.

There *are* many loopholes in the theory of evolution as Darwin himself stated many times. I don't mind people studying, or even learning the theory of evolution in public school as long as it is taught as it was conceived -- A theory. There has been evidence that some evolutionist from time to time have altered old manuscripts so that evolution looks more likely. I'm quite certain the the Biblical veiw on Evolution has never changed. Therefor I choose consistancy over a rapidly chaning theory which may or may not be disproved.

Also, Since Evolution is an ongoing process, why do old animals still exist? That is, why is the world not populated only by humans, who are the most highly evolved? Additionally, why are lower order species not still evolving into other higher order species?

*End*

What I'm really looking for is some links. I know many have been provided in many threads here....but I think I'm coming down with something and honestly don't have the energy to look. Or think. XP

I know all of these points have been addressed here on this board. So..help? Please.

 

[Jet Black]

A friend of mine wrote this:

I think the point you are trying to make is that other laws are sometimes defined using gravity. We believe in gravity because we can see and feel the effects. I choose to disbelieve in evolution both because of my religion and that I cannot see the effects.

it is not our fault he won't actually look at the evidence.

I do agree that to some extent life evolves. We as humans become more apt to make new discoveries as a result of this evolution, thus our thought becomes more developed and our knowledge continues to grow. This is evolution.

not really, unless you are thinking of memetics (see Dr Susan Blackmore's book "The meme machine" ... not read it yet myself though)

Also, it's important to separate the theory of evolution from simple adaptation.

but what is this adaptation? it is descent with modification, and natural selection as a driving force. the modification processes are genetic mutations and shuffling through sex.

or perhaps to accept the combination of both. I believe in creationism, but I also believe that over time the human race has adapted to different climates. For example, Native africans have dark skin pigment to protect them from the harsher climate and sun. But I believe that these adaptations take place as God wills, and not as a mistake or an accident.

well God may have personally willed every single genetic mutation, but it is still evolution, because natural selection weeds out the ones without the mutation.

There *are* many loopholes in the theory of evolution as Darwin himself stated many times.

he might want to poin these out. remember that Darwin's theory is very old now, over a hundred years old. the evolutionary theory has come on a long way since then.

I don't mind people studying, or even learning the theory of evolution in public school as long as it is taught as it was conceived -- A theory.

the old evolution is a theory card. I suggest he looks up the scientiic meaning of theory. Newton's and Einstein's gravities are "theories"

There has been evidence that some evolutionist from time to time have altered old manuscripts so that evolution looks more likely.

perhaps, but that doesn't refute evolution. evolution is based on almost infinitely more than "some old manuscripts". Creationists are also, if not far far more guilty of tweaking numbers and data to suit their purposes (and ignoring data, very important)

I'm quite certain the the Biblical veiw on Evolution has never changed. Therefor I choose consistancy over a rapidly chaning theory which may or may not be disproved.

rapidly changing? not that rapid. and why does it change? because the data tells it to. the theory must fit the data, and it does. the data (and I mean all of it) does not fit any creationist model. take a look at AIG and the change of their models, they have continually backed up. first the earth was 6ky old, then 10k because of dendochronology. speciation never occured, now it does. and now their final card (already a dud hand) is that new information is never created. The flood models have continually changed (in fact you hve to use many diferent models, all of which contradict one another, to explain the features we see, and still there are features not explained by a global flood)

Also, Since Evolution is an ongoing process, why do old animals still exist?

because they have found their niche, and fir it perfectly. look at marsupial moles and placental moles. they have completely different evolutionary paths, but they look almost identical, why? because that is the best shape to be if you are a mole.

That is, why is the world not populated only by humans, who are the most highly evolved?

because humans don't survive in cracks of buildings, out on the savannah, in deep dark caves miles underground, at the bottoms of oceans and so on. all evolution is about is survival. if you survive and have offspring, your kids will look a bit like you. this whole "they will evolve into sentience" is a fallacy.

Additionally, why are lower order species not still evolving into other higher order species?

see above.
[/QUOTE]What I'm really looking for is some links. I know many have been provided in many threads here....but I think I'm coming down with something and honestly don't have the energy to look. Or think. XP
[/QUOTE]
I didn't look for links, but this is the gist of it: part, no, all of the problem, is that your friend is uneducated on the topic of evolution. he is holding to some odd strawman and pointing out flaws in it's badly stuffed body, and the only way out of that trap is for him to go and get some proper scientific books on it. He may not agree with them, but at least he won't be arguing against his own, incorrect definitions.

 

[Vance]

I find the following page very useful in addressing Creationist claims:

http://home.earthlink.net/~misaak/guide/list.html

Some of the analysis is better than others, but it gives the general answer to every point I have seen them raise.

 

[Arikay]

A quick correction to what Jet Black said, I think he means "take a look at ICR and the change of their models"

As AIG, has not pushed back their date from 6000 years, they just ignore all data that would make them need to push the date back.

 

[Jet Black]

ICR, yeap. I get so confused since there are so many conflicting and deeply contradictory creationist models. heh. thanks for correcting me

 

[Mike Flynn]

A friend of mine wrote this:
There *are* many loopholes in the theory of evolution as Darwin himself stated many times. I don't mind people studying, or even learning the theory of evolution in public school as long as it is taught as it was conceived -- A theory. There has been evidence that some evolutionist from time to time have altered old manuscripts so that evolution looks more likely. I'm quite certain the the Biblical veiw on Evolution has never changed. Therefor I choose consistancy over a rapidly chaning theory which may or may not be disproved.

I must agree with Jet Black on this one. Often when I teach QM a common initial reaction is 'but isn't this just a theory'? A theory is model that encompasses all of the evidence that has so far come to light. This is much harder to do than many people realize. Most theories, then, are naturally incomplete depending on the amount of evidence at hand. The point is, honest scientific theories represent an objective attempt to encapsulate the available evidence into a working framework.

Here's an example: Most people with a high school education today accept that matter contains particles that we call 'electrons'. But why? No one has ever 'seen' one directly. All of the evidence is indirect: we have seen the effect of its presence on the observable and 'inferred' its existence. Then we put our theory to the test: making and testing predictions on how the theory should work. Now we have a HUGE VOLUME of experimental results that tell us the same thing: not only does the electron exist, but we have measured its size, charge, mass, etc...all indirectly BTW. Not that all things are perfect in the world of science...we've learned that the hard way sometimes. We 'know' the electron exists, but to some degree its nature is still elusive, even today. But any new evidence merely sheds light on the current model, and helps us to refine it...this doesn't require a wholesale abandonment.

So does the theory of evolution have this kind of strong evidence in its favour? Well, thats the question that everyone likes to toss in forums like these. Evidence for evolution is quite diverse, ranging from biochemistry and genetics to the fossil record. NEW evidence is constantly being discovered. There are still many big, unanswered questions. But many pundents in the science community maintain that the new evidence will likely help us to REFINE the theory, not abandon it.

SOME creationists like to point to the unanswered questions and claim that the entire theory be tossed into the dustbin (not everyone...just some), in the meantime they substitute a theory with just as many (and often many more) unanswered questions and inconsistencies....this doesn't really wash in the scientific process. It would be like saying 'because we don't completely understand the electron, perhaps our ENTIRE formulation is wrong...lets start from scratch'.

Others argue that the evidence for macro evolution is not all that solid in the first place. And the science community has accepted it prematurely and should seriously reconsider its widespread acceptance. But science abhors a vacuum...to abandon evolution we would need a new theory to put in its place...one that stands up firmly to scientific scrutiny...even MORE than the current one. Otherwise, why change it? ARGUABLY, no ground-shattering theory has been devised that can displace evolution (but you should know that many would disagree with me on this).

All of this is just my opinion...and there are many others (that are just as valid): I don't think the Bible says anything substantial for or against evolution...The only 'catch' is accepting that some of the passages in the text must be using figurative language. For some, this is perfectly acceptable (like me). For others, this is a tough pill to swallow. For both sides: I think we can agree on the overall meaning of the text as it applies to our spiritual identity and salvation. I also believe (by my own experience of faith) that God doesn't much care exactly where we stand on many issues like these (of course there are 1000's of other theological issues to argue about)...as long as in the meantime we get around to accepting Christ.

I have also come to the understanding that we should not make the issues more important than people.

 

[the_malevolent_milk_man]

Jet pretty much covered it.

Really, what theory has more evidence than evolution?

 

[Freodin]

... I'm quite certain the the Biblical veiw on Evolution has never changed. Therefor I choose consistancy over a rapidly chaning theory which may or may not be disproved.
...

There is no biblical view on evolution. There is a biblical view on life. Of course that has not changed: the authors are no longer around to change it. Genesis was written ca.2500 years ago.

In that regard, darwinian evolution has also never changed. "Origin of Species" is still the same book as it was when written.

 

[Arthur Dietrich]

I gave her Jet's answers and this was her response:


but what is this adaptation? it is descent with modification, and natural selection as a driving force. the modification processes are genetic mutations and shuffling through sex.


No, adaptation is any change in habbit or a mild, outer-force-induced change that continues to allow a species to exist, even in a change of habitat. According to you, if I species changes habitat, it will eventualy mutate to the point that it will become another species of animal.

quote:
because they have found their niche, and fit it perfectly. look at marsupial moles and placental moles. they have completely different evolutionary paths, but they look almost identical, why? because that is the best shape to be if you are a mole.
​

How, then, do you explain animals who adapt? Cyotes who live in cities, which are an environment obviously created from humans? wouldn't it benefit these Cyotes to evolve into humans and thus take better advantage of their habitats? Additionally, Humans can thrive on the savanah, nomads have been doing it for generations, so why do there still exist tigers, antelope, even insects?


Additionally, The reason I didn't go into the loopholes in Darwins theories was mostly because I assumed you'd heard them all and didn't want to hear them again. just trying to respect your time and the other readers' time as well ^-^

quote:

quote:
I don't mind people studying, or even learning the theory of evolution in public school as long as it is taught as it was conceived -- A theory.​

the old evolution is a theory card. I suggest you look up the scientific meaning of theory. Newton's and Einstein's gravities are "theories"
​

Last time I checked, a theory was an unproved scientific statement. Also, last I checked gravity as a concept exists, and it is taught as such: A concept. But the actual force that holds us on the ground is very very real. Gravity, though there is still much speculation and theory behind the cause, has become a term for us not flying off into space. the Study of gravity is something more, but gravity as a noun and gravity as a principle are often two different subjects. Evolution only exists within the study of it, and therefore cannot be considered a force or a noun. Thus making it only theory. And I hold that it should be taught as thus.

 

[Mike Flynn]

I gave her Jet's answers and this was her response:

How, then, do you explain animals who adapt? Cyotes who live in cities, which are an environment obviously created from humans? wouldn't it benefit these Cyotes to evolve into humans and thus take better advantage of their habitats? Additionally, Humans can thrive on the savanah, nomads have been doing it for generations, so why do there still exist tigers, antelope, even insects?

I'm sure Jet Black will have his thoughts but I thought I would throw a couple in...

The flaw in the reasoning here is that evolution claims that adaptations like the ones your discussing take MILLIONS of years.

'Cities' have not been around nearly long enough to see any clear and specific adaptations among the species we have today. It was merely thousands of years ago (a wink in the evolutionary time-line) that humans would have lived in a tropical climate, with little or no shelter...and we were FAR less populous, just like the other high order mammals. So the speciation we see today is basically THE SAME as it was 15000 years ago when there were no cities and towns at all. (although some species have become extinct)

If you think about it, without our technology and artifical structures (ie naked, without bottles to carry water, etc) we would be adapted to a relatively tropical climates. We can not survive naturally on the savannah without this advantage. I could never live in Canada without shelter. Humans are UNATURALLY populous because of the development of artificial habitation....nature can't keep up, causing widespread decline and extinction in many higher order species....they just can't adapt. The fittest species remain...including the coyotes who like to raid the garbage bins.

All life has a degree of inherent adaptability, but only time will tell which will be the fittest in the long run based on the current environmental conditions. One thing is certain: humans have essentially removed themselves from their natural environment and created artificial ones. This will alter the course of natural selection for our species drastically...but we won't see those effects for perhaps a million years.

Last time I checked, a theory was an unproved scientific statement. Also, last I checked gravity as a concept exists, and it is taught as such: A concept. But the actual force that holds us on the ground is very very real. Gravity, though there is still much speculation and theory behind the cause, has become a term for us not flying off into space. the Study of gravity is something more, but gravity as a noun and gravity as a principle are often two different subjects. Evolution only exists within the study of it, and therefore cannot be considered a force or a noun. Thus making it only theory. And I hold that it should be taught as thus.

Theory: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena.

Your take on 'theory' is not accurate (as I mentioned before), but its quite common. You have to understand that evolution was not just pulled out of a hat. It represents an objective attempt by honest people to trace the origins of life based on a large body of evidence. Micro-evolution is readily demonstrable among living species today. Evidence for macro-evolution is much more difficult to identify since such phenomena are only observable over extremely long periods of time. But is evolution at least 'plausible' based on the body of evidence we have today? Absolutely.

I teach high-school students and I have taught the theory of evolution in the past (although its not my area of expertise). I've always noted that the book is far from closed on the subject....such is the nature of all science. In fact, I also made it a point to discuss the theory of intelligent design...but I also noted that it too has its own set of problems. But I never say "remember kids, its just a theory"...so are general relativity and quantum mechanics...but no-one really quibbles much about the validity of these (and they are not completely correct either). Really, the best way to get a tack on this is to research the theory for yourself, keeping an objective and open mind. Do the same for the alternatives...but watch out for the unqualified opinions on both sides of the debate...then judge for yourself.

I will end with this: what else would we teach in biology class? As things stand today, evolution is (arguably) the best supported theory on the origins of species that the scientific community has to offer. ID is worth mentioning, but nothing else has come to the floor that even comes close.

 

[ThePhoenix]

No, adaptation is any change in habbit or a mild, outer-force-induced change that continues to allow a species to exist, even in a change of habitat. According to you, if I species changes habitat, it will eventualy mutate to the point that it will become another species of animal.

That is part of the theory. Small adaptations can lead to new species. I forget how many adaptations it takes before a species is unable to breed with the original species, but it's pretty large. If your friend disbelieves the ability of species to change over time, direct her attention to dogs. Look at the number of dog breeds. Now look how many are found in the wild. All of the dog breeds were bred out of wolves. That's a lot of change in a short period of time. Is it possible that such change could happen without human intervention? Of course. Humans did not create the potential for change, merely exploit it. http://www.akc.org/breeds/recbreeds/breeds_a.cfm

How, then, do you explain animals who adapt? Cyotes who live in cities, which are an environment obviously created from humans? wouldn't it benefit these Cyotes to evolve into humans and thus take better advantage of their habitats? Additionally, Humans can thrive on the savanah, nomads have been doing it for generations, so why do there still exist tigers, antelope, even insects?

Cartoon view of evolution. Cities have been around for maybe 5000 years. Already species are adapting to them. If you think that every niche in a city can be filled by humans how many humans do you know that can survive on insects and waste products, and can fly. Ok, how many pigeons do you see in cities?

Additionally, The reason I didn't go into the loopholes in Darwins theories was mostly because I assumed you'd heard them all and didn't want to hear them again. just trying to respect your time and the other readers' time as well ^-^

Dinky stupid arguement. If you can't elaborate then don't mention a point. I have seen flaws in Darwin's original theory, but as it stands evolution lacks flaws signifigant enough to suggest discarding or even majorly revising the theory.

Last time I checked, a theory was an unproved scientific statement. Also, last I checked gravity as a concept exists, and it is taught as such: A concept. But the actual force that holds us on the ground is very very real. Gravity, though there is still much speculation and theory behind the cause, has become a term for us not flying off into space. the Study of gravity is something more, but gravity as a noun and gravity as a principle are often two different subjects. Evolution only exists within the study of it, and therefore cannot be considered a force or a noun. Thus making it only theory. And I hold that it should be taught as thus.

It is taught as a theory. A scientific theory. Yes you can't practically view the macro version of it in everyday life (though the fact that you get a flu shot each year for clearly new strains of the flu shows you the micro version). It's not a force. Neither is the theory of relativity. Both make predictions about what should happen if the theory is correct. Both have been repeatedly verified. No other hypothosis has been posited that meets those conditions. Therefore the theory of evolution is the only theory that sucessfully makes predictions and explains the evidence.

 

[Jet Black]

No, adaptation is any change in habbit or a mild, outer-force-induced change that continues to allow a species to exist, even in a change of habitat. According to you, if I species changes habitat, it will eventualy mutate to the point that it will become another species of animal.

there are numerous examples of speciation. the faroe island mouse being one of them. what I suspect your friend thinks I mean by speciation though is "if you stick a dog in a room with trays of whiskas cat food, bowls of milk and fish then after a few million years, it will turn into a cat" this is of course not what I mean.

How, then, do you explain animals who adapt? Cyotes who live in cities, which are an environment obviously created from humans? wouldn't it benefit these Cyotes to evolve into humans and thus take better advantage of their habitats?

no, that isn't how it works. that is the cartoon version of evolution, I suggest your friend gets an education in evolution, I see little point debating against strawmen arguments. However we do se eexamples of evolution in cities; raccoon brains have tripled in size for species which exist in cities, as the environment they live in is immensely more complex than a forest. rats have evolved, mosquitoes have evolved (there are species in the london underground that cannot breed with mosquitoes outside the london underground) Birds have changed their songs to cope with ciry noise, and so on.

Additionally, Humans can thrive on the savanah, nomads have been doing it for generations, so why do there still exist tigers, antelope, even insects?

beacuse those animals have their niche.

Additionally, The reason I didn't go into the loopholes in Darwins theories was mostly because I assumed you'd heard them all and didn't want to hear them again. just trying to respect your time and the other readers' time as well ^-^

well go on then. it isn't wasting my time at all. I have a fortnight off work, fill it in.

Last time I checked, a theory was an unproved scientific statement. Also, last I checked gravity as a concept exists, and it is taught as such: A concept. But the actual force that holds us on the ground is very very real. Gravity, though there is still much speculation and theory behind the cause, has become a term for us not flying off into space. the Study of gravity is something more, but gravity as a noun and gravity as a principle are often two different subjects. Evolution only exists within the study of it, and therefore cannot be considered a force or a noun. Thus making it only theory. And I hold that it should be taught as thus.

a theory explains the evidence. theories tend to be very robustly tested, and evolution is very very well tested. there will never be "proof" of evolution in the past, but there are, and will be millions and millions of things that cannot be explained any other way, except by a divine liar. Incidentally, evolution, decent with modification and natural selection as a selecting force, has been proved in the present, since we see it every day. there are many examples of evolution in action.

Again I suggest your friend gets an education in evolution. I don't wish to sound nasty, but when people say that cyotes should evolve into humans (and the very vague "one species should turn into another", it is clear that they don't understand what they are talking about.

 

[Jet Black]

'Cities' have not been around nearly long enough to see any clear and specific adaptations among the species we have today. It was merely thousands of years ago (a wink in the evolutionary time-line) that humans would have lived in a tropical climate, with little or no shelter...and we were FAR less populous, just like the other high order mammals. So the speciation we see today is basically THE SAME as it was 15000 years ago when there were no cities and towns at all. (although some species have become extinct)

actually there are quite a few examples of adaptations in cities, though it tends to be brain adaptations. Alot of animals have become much cleverer in cities because of the complex environment. examples are things like raccoons, rats and so on. I will hunt come down for you, but all the examples I know of wre in one of David Attenborough's books.

 

[ThePhoenix]

Wow, Jet Black - we think the same. We both even said Cartoon evolution in the same spot.

 

[Arthur Dietrich]

Wow. Thanks guys.

Oh...someone gave me a kiss in response to Jet's response. I feel bad keeping kisses that aren't mine...so..here..

*kiss from Nanuri*

I also feel a little bad asking you guys to answer these questions for me. Understanding I can do..explaining, however, is a different thing.

 

[Jet Black]

haha, thanks, I think it needs spreading around all the people offering responses though

is this debate somewhere where I can join in?

 

[Mike Flynn]

actually there are quite a few examples of adaptations in cities, though it tends to be brain adaptations. Alot of animals have become much cleverer in cities because of the complex environment. examples are things like raccoons, rats and so on. I will hunt come down for you, but all the examples I know of wre in one of David Attenborough's books.

Thats interesting...

Certainly here in Canada there are raccoons that live in the midst of large forests that have never seen cities ,etc. Are there differences in these raccoon's brains and those that live in the city in terms of brain size?

On these kinds of time scales, you'd think this would represent micro-evolution, correct? Variability in brain size would be a product of the natural diversity in populations of mammals like these. So larger-brains may have been selected in the micro-evolutionary sense.

Thanks, BTW.

 

[Nathan David]

On these kinds of time scales, you'd think this would represent micro-evolution, correct? Variability in brain size would be a product of the natural diversity in populations of mammals like these. So larger-brains may have been selected in the micro-evolutionary sense.

Yes. But that natural diversity exists in all populations of all kinds of life forms, even in non-living replicators like viruses. The larger brains were selected in a micro-evolutionary sense. Eventually some other trait may show up. Later, another. And another. A few hundred thousand or million years from now, you might have a population of animals with all those accumulated traits, that look and act very little like their raccoon ancestors. Voila, macroevolution. Natural diversity->natural selection->microevolution->macroevolution.

 

[Cantuar]

But I believe that these adaptations take place as God wills, and not as a mistake or an accident.

This has nothing to do with science; it's your friend's personal preference on a matter of theology. As long as her major requirement here is a theological one, it'd be nice if she'd stop pretending that her problem with evolution was scientific.

 

[Cantuar]

Evolution only exists within the study of it, and therefore cannot be considered a force or a noun. Thus making it only theory. And I hold that it should be taught as thus.

I wonder what your friend thinks scientific theories are for, then. I mean, she's talking as if theories exist in complete isolation from anything in the real world. In science, theories are explanations of bodies of observed facts; the theory of evolution by variation and selection is the currently accepted and strongly supported explanation of the fact of evolution (descent with modification from common ancestors). Even if the current theory of evolution were completely discredited (hard to see how, given the large amount of support, but that's another matter), the fact of evolution would still exist and would still require an explanation based on the scientific method (in other words, would require another theory).