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

[Subduction Zone]

When so much effort is made, quite rightly, to try and preserve endangered species, it is actually a denial of natural selection and therefore of one of the foundations of evolution. This is because those who are striving to stop the extinction of endangered species are working against the survival of the fittest, which is one of the main principles of evolution. Therefore these people don't believe in evolution in practice, even though they might say they do with their mouths.

But it isn't. "Survival of the fittest" is a gross oversimplification .

 

[xianghua]

Not especially.

not especially? this system contain about 10 genes (at least 10 proteins are homologous to the flagellum). are you saying that 10 genes can evolve in a single step?

And do you know what it means when you move the goalposts? It means that you concede the earlier argument.

if the first step isnt a small step then you cant show how the flagellum can evolve in small steps.

 

[xianghua]

I don't believe in evolution; I accept that evolution has and is occuring. .

can you give an example that it doesnt base on variation?

 

[xianghua]

Yes, I've never come across any good reason to believe that evolution doesn't occur.

but we never seen how a creature can evolve into a different creature. we only see variations (all dogs for instance are still dogs). so we cant realy observe evolution.

 

[xianghua]

Can science establish how the human eye evolved?

actually no. even with their own scenario they start with a "simple" light detector. the problem is that even such a detector is very complex and need several parts to be functional. so the starting point is too complex to begin with.

 

[Tom 1]

but we never seen how a creature can evolve into a different creature. we only see variations (all dogs for instance are still dogs). so we cant realy observe evolution.

The fossil record is pretty convincing, and changes in some organisms can be observed. I don't get why some Christians have an issue with evolution, and othe scientific theories - it seems to suggest a belief that God is somehow defined by the basic notions we get from reading the bible, all of which was written in a completely different time. All these kind of arguments do is to get in the way of understanding what the bible actually conveys.

 

[xianghua]

The fossil record is pretty convincing, and changes in some organisms can be observed

the porblem with that is that it base on assumption. for instance: we can arrange designed obects in hierarchy:

but as we know this dont prove they evolved from each other. (image from http://www.33lease.com/commercial-vehicles/)

the second problem is that we find many out of place fossils. so many fossils dont fit with the evolutionery hierarchy. so if a fossil in the correct place is evidence for evolution then an out of place fossil should be evidence against it. right?

 

[Shemjaza]

If Evolution is true, and involves survival of the fittest, then why try to save endangered species? If they cannot survive by themselves, then we need to allow evolution to take its course and let those species become extinct and for those species that are fit to survive without our help, to continue.

Evolution is a description of the reality of biology over populations, not a god to worship.

The theory of gravity describes why things fall, it doesn't mean we should be obliged to throw people off bridges.

Also, if the human eye evolved over millions of years into a complete eye, then those species, including humans could not have survived, because until their eyes were fully developed, they would have been blind and they would be so disadvantaged they would not have been able to survive without sight. Natural selection - survival of the fittest would happen, and creatures and humans without sight would fall by the wayside!

Humans come from other hominid populations... who already had eyes.

In fact the ancestors of modern reptiles, birds, other mammals and most fish also already had eyes.

Ancient primates evolved the colour vision we now enjoy, but that was just a variation from the already well established mammal version of the eye.

 

[Tom 1]

the porblem with that is that it base on assumption. for instance: we can arrange designed obects in hierarchy:

but as we know this dont prove they evolved from each other. (image from http://www.33lease.com/commercial-vehicles/)

the second problem is that we find many out of place fossils. so many fossils dont fit with the evolutionery hierarchy. so if a fossil in the correct place is evidence for evolution then an out of place fossil should be evidence against it. right?

I don't think there's any complex theory or interpretation of anything where every detail fits into place as expected.

 

[Subduction Zone]

not especially? this system contain about 10 genes (at least 10 proteins are homologous to the flagellum). are you saying that 10 genes can evolve in a single step?



if the first step isnt a small step then you cant show how the flagellum can evolve in small steps.

If you can't ask honest questions you can't expect people to engage with you. Try again.

 

[xianghua]

If you can't ask honest questions you can't expect people to engage with you. Try again.

if the first step contain about 10 different parts- then it can evolve stepwise too. and even if we can reduce it to about 2-3 parts. its still a lot.

 

[xianghua]

I don't think there's any complex theory or interpretation of anything where every detail fits into place as expected.

so we cant prove evolution or test it. and its only a belief.

 

[pitabread]

so we cant prove evolution or test it. and its only a belief.

Incorrect on both counts as usual.

 

[xianghua]

Incorrect on both counts as usual.

very informative answer as usual.

 

[Tom 1]

so we cant prove evolution or test it. and its only a belief.

I think there's plenty of evidence to support it. Setting up an absolute standard for proof isn't necessary to show that something is fundamentally convincing or solid enough to win out over alternative ideas.

 

[xianghua]

I think there's plenty of evidence to support it. Setting up an absolute standard for proof isn't necessary to show that something is fundamentally convincing or solid enough to win out over alternative ideas.

but we can say the same for creation for instance. so i dont see a real difference.

 

[Speedwell]

but we can say the same for creation for instance. so i dont see a real difference.

So what evidence is there that new species pop into existence from nothing fully formed?

 

[xianghua]

So what evidence is there that new species pop into existence from nothing fully formed?

the same evidence that a robot is made.

 

[Speedwell]

the same evidence that a robot is made.

New species show evidence of having been made a machine shop? Where is this species-making machine shop?

 

[xianghua]

New species show evidence of having been made a machine shop? Where is this species-making machine shop?

what? we know that a robot is made by d esign and not by a natrual process over millions of years. therefore a penguin ( a self replicating robot) is also the result of instant creation.