As a Christian, how many of you believe in evolution?

[USincognito]

I do think things can change and modify over time...however I do no believe we evolve from a little amoba creature...

The last time the ancestors of humans were what might be called "a little amoeba creature" would be about 700,000,000 years ago. A lot of evolution has taken place since then.

 

[USincognito]

I do believe evolution occurs and has occurred in different life forms. I'm still not convinced humans came from apes, but animals and other matter clearly have evolved over time, usually to adapt to change so they can survive.

Humans didn't "come from apes" per se. We are apes. All members of family Hominidae are what we colloquially refer to as apes.

 

[USincognito]

I've never heard of evolution, micro or macro, being defined by more success in mating. Please give an example.

That's basically the concept behind "survival of the fittest". "Fittest" means those beings or populations which are most reproductively successful over time in a particular environment.

 

[USincognito]

Hoax?

Yes

Do you believe that the world's biologists are in on this hoax?

They are willingly deceived, accepting scientific speculation above God's word.

When they have to appeal to a massive, world-wide conspiracy encompassing literally millions of scientists, then they have already lost the argument and aren't worthy of serious consideration.

Also worth noting, that the people who make the "hoax" claim can never actually discuss the science.

 

[_____a_____]

In a smaller chunk: Science today should not be thought of as the final mile. It will be considered primitive in the near future. It is a band-aid.

The universe is a far bigger place then just 'planet earth'.

Just because you believe yourself to be open minded, does not mean you actually are.

Dealing with what is already known, is easy. Dealing with the unknown, not so much.

What I have heard from you is you know a small part of what is known. But, have significant problems dealing with the unknown. Yet, you do not see your self this way. That does not mean your view of your self is correct.

Try and judge your self, by your own accomplishments, or lack thereof. Don't claim credit for other people's accomplishments. Which pundits of both science or religion tend to do.

I don't quite know how to respond to this, but I will try. Science... (ready for this?) is not just about Earth. Science, in fact talks about many, many things, not about Earth. NASA is all about exploration of other worlds. You are correct in two things, however, unknowns are hard to deal with as a species (just read my signature) and just because we think we are open minded, doesn't mean we are. Yet science today will be thought of primitive in the future. So what is wrong with your post? The fact that you ignore the huge gaping hole in your argument, science, will never stop being. Science is the explanations of observation. Science empowers us to understand, and allows us to strive to know more. Maybe science today will be looked on as primitive, maybe not, but science will always survive. Science is the building block of understanding, why then, do you seem to hate it?

 

[USincognito]

micro evolution, yes.

macro evolution, no.

How do you delineate between "micro" and "macro"?
Do you think that there is a qualitative difference between the two?
What mechanism do you suggest prevents "micro" from becoming "macro" over time?

 

[USincognito]

Evolution is a myth that robs from the glory and creativity of God .
Evolution is a figment.

How would you know? I notice that folks that are heavy on this sort of overblown rhetoric are always the least prepared to actually discuss the science supporting evolution.

Here, let's put that to the test. Could you explain to me why:
- Humans and chimpanzees share 203,00 endogenous retroviral insertions, but only have 300 that are lineage specific?
- All Haplorhine primates including humans share a broken GULO gene for making vitamin C?
- Why cetaceans have a non-functioning Sonic Hedgehog/Hand2 pathway for hind limb development as well as pseudogenes for terrestrial olfactory systems if they are not descended from terrestrial quadrupeds?
- Why all Therian mammals have vitellogenin pseudogenes for egg yolk sac development when Therian embryos never go through an egged stage in development?

 

[USincognito]

In other words, science is based on faith too.

No, not in other words. You simply don't understand that "proof" as used colloquially and in the courtroom is incorrect and not appropriate in a scientific context. "Proofs" are final and not subject to future data requiring a change, amendment, etc. Since all scientific propositions must have the potential for future falsification, no scientific proposition can be considered to be "proven".

And here's why I say "proof" in a courtroom is incorrectly used. A verdict is supposedly "proven in a court of law", but during the appeals process new evidence can be introduced (like genetic data) which can actually overturn a verdict. Because of that fact one cannot say a verdict is "proven in a court of law".

 

[USincognito]

If you're speaking of macro evolution there will never be any proof of it; it would contradict God's word, and that's not going to happen.

This is an admission that a participant in a discussion is not an honest one.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

How do you delineate between "micro" and "macro"?
Do you think that there is a qualitative difference between the two?
What mechanism do you suggest prevents "micro" from becoming "macro" over time?

evidence and examples

 

[USincognito]

evidence and examples

I'm sorry, but this response is vague and unhelpful. Could you expand on it a bit? I did ask three separate questions.

 

[inquiring mind]

Humans didn't "come from apes" per se. We are apes.

The hoax fully flowered.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

I'm sorry, but this response is vague and unhelpful. Could you expand on it a bit? I did ask three separate questions.

micro is the change in traits in a species over time ie going from having a flat nose to a pointy nose or shorter people to taller people.

macro is going from one species to another species like a rhino turning into a bunny over time.

there has been no evidence or examples of the latter.

 

[Foxfyre]

I am curious if any Christians believe that evolution occurs (take careful note of the phrase, "evolution occurs" it means if it has happened or will happen, regardless of whether or not humans evolved from other primates). Please take the time to answer, thanks for any responses.


(For full disclosure I am atheist)

** Convenient definition of evolution for those unsure: Evolution is changes in a life form due to mutations in their genetic code, leading to the success or failure (or neither) of the mutation, leading to the mutated creature having more success mating, therefore passing on the improved gene or no success, leading to the gene not being passed on. Or to put it simply, changes in a life form over time. **

I am Christian and I believe that evolution definitely happened, is happening, and will continue to happen as long as life exists on Earth. And for the record I also believe the Earth is spherical, and is one probably relatively small planet in a relatively small solar system amidst a universe so vast that we cannot comprehend it all and we don't know how old it is but most likely it has been here at least for at least several billions of years. I support teaching such science in all science curriculum at all levels.

I also believe evolution is but one component in the creation of the universe and life on Planet Earth, that many questions remain that evolution cannot answer, and that good science acknowledges at least that possibility and that we likely know only the tiniest fraction of all the science there is to know.

I also believe in intelligent design and a Creator God behind all of it. I do not expect that to be taught in science class, but neither do I want a science teacher saying that such is impossible or that those who support that concept of Creation are wrong.

 

[inquiring mind]

Are you saying it is impossible for anything to contradict gods word? If so, then you must be a flat earther as the bible describes a flat earth.

This is only an attempt to make the Bible look silly. I see nothing in scripture that should be interpreted as meaning the earth is flat.

 

[USincognito]

The hoax fully flowered.

Again, more vacuous verbiage instead of presenting or addressing any evidence. I've seen this pattern over and over with Creationists who are in over their head but they smugly "know" that evolution is a farce.

Let's put this to a test. Which of the following characteristics do humans lack?

Apes are collectively defined as any gill-less, organic RNA/DNA protein-based, metabolic, metazoic, nucleic, diploid, bilaterally-symmetrical, endothermic, digestive, tryploblast, opisthokont, deuterostome coelemate with a spinal chord and 12 cranial nerves connecting to a limbic system in an enlarged cerebral cortex with a reduced olfactory region inside a jawed-skull with specialized teeth including canines and premolars, forward-oriented fully-enclosed optical orbits, and a single temporal fenestra, -attached to a vertebrate hind-leg dominant tetrapoidal skeleton with a sacral pelvis, clavical, and wrist & ankle bones; and having lungs, tear ducts, body-wide hair follicles, lactal mammaries, opposable thumbs, and keratinized dermis with chitinous nails on all five digits on all four extremities, in addition to an embryonic development in amniotic fluid, leading to a placental birth and highly social lifestyle.​

 

[USincognito]

I asked three questions:
How do you delineate between "micro" and "macro"?
Do you think that there is a qualitative difference between the two?
What mechanism do you suggest prevents "micro" from becoming "macro" over time?

micro is the change in traits in a species over time ie going from having a flat nose to a pointy nose or shorter people to taller people.

That's a bit of a simplistic way of stating it, but it'll work as a definition for "micro".

macro is going from one species to another species like a rhino turning into a bunny over time.

Now see here's the problem. An extant taxon evolving into another extant taxon would not be evidence of evolution, but would falsify it. Existing things, like rhinos, don't evolve other existing things, like rabbits. Evolution is a one way street and every branch is a different and separate route. So, "macro" would be changes above the species level where an ancestral population splits into one or more species over time.

there has been no evidence or examples of the latter.

This is false. I'm going to bet that you're conflating direct observation with evidence, but that still isn't true. We have observed speciation occur numerous times. Some examples would be Italian Wall Lizards, Apple Maggot Flies and Faroe Island House Mice. And direct, real time observation is not the only way to gather evidence. There are numerous lines of evidence for common descent found in biogeography, anatomical and molecular vestiges, atavisms, anatomical homology, genetic similarity, etc.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

 

[inquiring mind]

Again, more vacuous verbiage instead of presenting or addressing any evidence. I've seen this pattern over and over with Creationists who are in over their head but they smugly "know" that evolution is a farce.

And I've seen this over and over again... charges of ignorance or lack of understanding when scientific speculation isn't accepted.

Apes are collectively defined as any gill-less, organic RNA/DNA protein-based, metabolic, metazoic, nucleic, diploid, bilaterally-symmetrical, endothermic, digestive, tryploblast, opisthokont, deuterostome coelemate with a spinal chord and 12 cranial nerves connecting to a limbic system in an enlarged cerebral cortex with a reduced olfactory region inside a jawed-skull with specialized teeth including canines and premolars, forward-oriented fully-enclosed optical orbits, and a single temporal fenestra, -attached to a vertebrate hind-leg dominant tetrapoidal skeleton with a sacral pelvis, clavical, and wrist & ankle bones; and having lungs, tear ducts, body-wide hair follicles, lactal mammaries, opposable thumbs, and keratinized dermis with chitinous nails on all five digits on all four extremities, in addition to an embryonic development in amniotic fluid, leading to a placental birth and highly social lifestyle.

Then followed by more conjecture and inferring instead of accepting God's word Genesis 1:26-27. Science is a wonderful thing until it's used to usurp God's glory.

 

[_____a_____]

This is only an attempt to make the Bible look silly. I see nothing in scripture that should be interpreted as meaning the earth is flat.

Psalm 104:5 - "He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." [The Earth moves in many ways, around the Sun, through the Milky Way, etc.]

Ecclesiastes 1:5 - "The Sun rises and the Sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises." (From the NIV Bible) [The Sun doesn't revolve around the Earth as this suggests.]

Job 9:6 - "He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble." (From the NIV Bible) [It says that the Earth rests on pillars which it clearly doesn't.]

Isaiah 11:12 - And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth. (KJV Bible) [A sphere cannot have corners.]

Now do you still want to tell me that the bible says the Earth is not flat?

Don't get me started on Isaiah 40:22. That has nothing to do with a sphere. A sphere is not a circle.

 

[_____a_____]

And I've seen this over and over again... charges of ignorance or lack of understanding when scientific speculation isn't accepted.


Then followed by more conjecture and inferring instead of accepting God's word Genesis 1:26-27. Science is a wonderful thing until it's used to usurp God's glory.

Have you considered that it could be describing God guiding an evolutionary process? Not that it is, or that "God" is real. But, the Bible shouldn't be used as a source as I have previously demonstrated.