Do you know what the theory of evolution is about?

[Dannager]

Roger Penrose,
(The British mathematician and a close friend of Stephen Hawking.)

Calculated the mathematical probability of life evolving by random chance.

His results concluded that the odds are
[FONT=Verdana, Arial]1010123 (I'm sorry, I don't know how to adjust the font to write this, but it it 10 to the 10th to the 123rd power.) [/FONT]
to 1.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial][FONT=Verdana, Arial]In short, Penrose's number tells us that the 'accidental" or "coincidental" creation of our universe is an impossibility.[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial][FONT=Verdana, Arial]To put this number into perspective, it would be impossible to write. You would first write a one, and then follow it with a series of zero's. [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial][FONT=Verdana, Arial]The problem with that is that if we were to write a zero on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire known universe, we would run out of protons, before we completed writing down the number. [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial][FONT=Verdana, Arial]Those are pretty poor odds. [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial][FONT=Verdana, Arial]This is the basis of Evolution. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial][FONT=Verdana, Arial]Matter + Time + Chance = Life. [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial][FONT=Verdana, Arial]I'm sorry, but I just don't have that much faith in a theory that cannot even provide the most fundamental fossil record of evidence to support itself. [/FONT]
[/FONT]

You don't really understand what you're talking about very well, huh?

 

[MrSnow]

Before I post anything else, here's where I stand:
I do not hold to either YEC or OEC. I think that it is irrelevent. I think it's possible and noncontradictory to Scripture for either one to be true.

That said...

A mistake that is commonly made is to equate evolution with atheism or blind chance. "If one believes in evolution, then one believes that God had nothing to do with life". "If one believes in evolution, then one believes that God is a bystander in the game of life". Nothing could be further from the truth.

An atheist will say that there is no God, and therefore life came about by chance or accident. A christian will say that God created life. Plain and simple. An atheist will say that the universe came into being by chance or accident. A christian will say that God created the universe.

So what people do is to go the "guilt by assocation" route. Since atheists believe in evolution and also believe that life came about by blind chance, then ALL evolutionists believe that, regardless of their religious persuasion (or lack thereof).

Evolution and atheism are completely separate things.

Muslims believe that Noah was a prophet. I believe that Noah was a prophet. So what does that make me? What does it make the idea of Noah being a prophet?

 

[Mavros]

Ok i am not trying convert you into atheism, just saying in what i and most atheists believe

An atheist will say that there is no God, and therefore life came about by chance or accident.

Accident have nothing to do with evolution, mutations might be random but natural selection definatly isnt.

An atheist will say that the universe came into being by chance or accident.

Actually most atheist agree that we dont know what was before big bang and why it happend

So what people do is to go the "guilt by assocation" route. Since atheists believe in evolution and also believe that life came about by blind chance, then ALL evolutionists believe that, regardless of their religious persuasion (or lack thereof).

We dont believe that life come by blind chance, you seems to forget that "evolution" work also in chemical world since more stable chemicals are more common

Evolution and atheism are completely separate things.

True, for most atheists evolution and science arent main reason why we are atheist. Main reason why i am atheist is lack evidence for any god

 

[philadiddle]

I just wanted to expand on Mavros post a little bit.

Actually most atheist agree that we dont know what was before big bang and why it happend

Most scientists, both atheist and theist, think that "before" the big bang is irrelevant, since the big bang was the beginning of time, then there would be no such thing as "before". There are some theories by the minority that we are formed from another parallel universe via a white hole or something of the sort.

We dont believe that life come by blind chance, you seems to forget that "evolution" work also in chemical world since more stable chemicals are more common

I agree. There is no blind chance, but rather, laws that govern things. Theists believe these laws are God's design and how He made us, atheists believe they just exist because they exist. (please note that you can't hear my tone, don't read that with a tone that is condesending towards atheism because I don't mean it that way.)

 

[philadiddle]

So, still wanting some creationists to explain what evolution is. It seems more and more that it's hard to discuss it with ppl since they have no idea what we're even talking about.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

Good bump. This thread should continue to evolve.

 

[Gottservant]

For the record, I understand the theory of evolution as the wikipedia gives it... just. In parts it reads like a zen koan that you are not really supposed to understand. For example, even though the evolutionistic equation cannot happen without a derivative agent, the agent is never assumed to have agency - my use of language should indicate how much of a problem it is to divorce agency from agent.

However, just because I understand the theory as it is explained, doesn't mean that I see it that way. Just because a car has doors, doesn't mean that you will see them as open doors. I think evolution implies a whole lot of things that if evolutionists thought about it, they themselves would not really accept.

 

[Nooj]

I think evolution implies a whole lot of things that if evolutionists thought about it, they themselves would not really accept.

Ah, so you've turned the thread around. Now evolutionists are the ones that are not familiar with their own theory.

 

[Psudopod]

...even though the evolutionistic equation cannot happen without a derivative agent...

What is the "evolutionistic equation? Could you write it out fot me?

 

[notto]

For the record, I understand the theory of evolution as the wikipedia gives it... just. In parts it reads like a zen koan that you are not really supposed to understand. For example, even though the evolutionistic equation cannot happen without a derivative agent, the agent is never assumed to have agency - my use of language should indicate how much of a problem it is to divorce agency from agent.

However, just because I understand the theory as it is explained, doesn't mean that I see it that way. Just because a car has doors, doesn't mean that you will see them as open doors. I think evolution implies a whole lot of things that if evolutionists thought about it, they themselves would not really accept.

Unless you understand that populations evolve and not individuals, then you don't understand evolution.

You are building a beautiful strawman army.

You are a great creationist.

 

[Gottservant]

Unless you understand that populations evolve and not individuals, then you don't understand evolution.

You are building a beautiful strawman army.

You are a great creationist.

I understand what you are saying I do not accept it.

Believing dogma is not a prerequisite of understanding it.

 

[gluadys]

I understand what you are saying I do not accept it.

Believing dogma is not a prerequisite of understanding it.

So, can you describe what supposedly happens to make an individual evolve?

Can you describe what supposedly happens that causes a population to evolve?

 

[Gottservant]

So, can you describe what supposedly happens to make an individual evolve?

Your question is biased. A better question would be "can you describe what supposedly happens to help an individual contribute to evolution?" The answer to that is changes in alelle (sp?) frequencies, I think. A more scientific answer would certainly be satisfying, but I'm not up with the science on how men modify sperm creation over time (or what happens to womens' cells over time, for the matter).

 

[Gottservant]

Ah, so you've turned the thread around. Now evolutionists are the ones that are not familiar with their own theory.

That really is not fair. I am a Creationist and the theory I stand by is devoutly manifest regarding its fruit: mankind has fallen, Christ has redeemed us and the Church heralds that redemption. Evolution on the other hand has not declared whether its fruit is good or bad. Evolution says "there is no telos", "there is no agency" and "there is no predictable outcome"; in other words, there is no way to tell whether things are evolving well or not, for good or for bad.



As far as the Christian faith is concerned, this refusal to declare the fruit of evolution good or bad is against the will of God. Christ Himself declared in Matthew 12:33

Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or else make the tree corrupt and its fruit corrupt; for the tree is known by its fruit.​

That is why people who believe it go to Hell, they don't declare that evolution is good or bad; it is also why people who believe "evolution" do not really know what their own theory implies. God says, Isaiah 41:23-24:

Reveal the near things after this, so that we may know that you are gods. Yes, do good, or do evil, so that we may be amazed and see together.

Behold, you are of nothing, and your work of nothing. He who chooses you is an abomination.

If evolutionists actually said "Evolution is good" or "evolution is bad", they might actually avoid the accusation of "abomination" but they do not. Instead they decide to sit on the fence. So, really, it is not that the thread has been turned around, it has simply been brought into line with the way God already sees things.

 

[Psudopod]

How can evolution be good or bad? Is gravity good or bad? Is the ideal gas equation good or bad?

Evolution says "there is no telos", "there is no agency"

Where does evolution say these things?

 

[notto]

The answer to that is changes in alelle (sp?) frequencies, I think.

Which is a reference to a population, not an individual.

Populations evolve, not individuals.

 

[notto]

I understand what you are saying I do not accept it.

Believing dogma is not a prerequisite of understanding it.

Then you are simply talking about a strawman. Whatever it is you are talking about, it is not evolution.

Populations evolve, not individuals. This is not something to believe or accept. It is by definition. If you don't accept the definition of evolution, then you are not discussing evolution. You are discussing something else.

 

[gluadys]

Your question is biased. A better question would be "can you describe what supposedly happens to help an individual contribute to evolution?"

Yes, that would be a good question. An individual can contribute to the evolution of its species. But it does not itself evolve.

The answer to that is changes in alelle (sp?) frequencies, I think.

I take it then, that you do not know what an allele is. The frequency of an allele can change in a population, not in an individual.

For example, there are several genes that influence eye colour. An important one determines whether the basic eye colour is blue or brown, with others determining various shades. Except in very rare cases, individuals generally have either blue or brown eyes. Which they have is determined by the combination of genes they get from their father and their mother. For each gene they get one from each parent. The ones that produce different colours are called alleles. Same gene (produces pigment)-different recipes (one for blue eyes, one for brown eyes).

No one can increase or decrease the frequency of their own alleles. They will always have two and only two--one from mum and one from dad.

But the frequency of a certain allele in a population can change. Swedes have more alleles for blue eyes, Mexicans have more alleles for brown eyes. Bring a group of Swedes and Mexicans together and in short order you will have a population with more blue-eye colour alleles than a typical Mexican population and more brown-eye colour alleles than a typical Swedish population.

That's a change in the frequency of alleles, and that is what evolution is.

A more scientific answer would certainly be satisfying, but I'm not up with the science on how men modify sperm creation over time (or what happens to womens' cells over time, for the matter).

I think the word you are looking for is mutation, and no one has to take any action to make that happen. It is a natural consequence of cell reproduction. Mutations are the original source of variant alleles.

 

[Sojourner<><]

For the YECs here, please explain your understanding of the theory of evolution. Please don't attempt the lame avoidance of the question by saying "well since it isn't true it's whatever scientists can imagine" or something like that. Please explain it in your own words, so that I know you actually understand what it is, no cut and paste. I've been hearing things lately like "evolution doesn't cause genetic drift", or "hybrids disprove evolution", or even, "if evolution were true, then chaos would ensue." All of these kinds of statements show a very poor understanding of what the theory of evolution actually is, and how it works. I think if we have different views about what it is, then we'll debate forever, so maybe we could come to a consesus of what the theory actually entails, and then continue on debating from there.

I'm a YEC'ist and here's my natural understanding of the TOE. BTW, if you see any inconsistencies, please correct me as I loathe being misinformed.

Ok so there are supposedly several elements that guide evolution:

The first is reproduction. In order for a species to survive, it must successfully reproduce at a rate that is greater than or equal to its death rate.

2nd is inheritable genetic information.

3rd is random mutation within that genetic information through reproduction.

4th genetic information tends to be spread within the population.

5th Environmental pressures determine which mutations prove to be negative, neutral or beneficial towards the goal of reproduction. Individuals that possess negative mutations will reproduce at a rate that is less than those who possess the positive mutations. Over time, this should cause change in the overall population.

6th Over vast amounts of time (and this is where I get off the train) a population will repeat this cycle any number of times as is necessary to accumulate massive amounts of information within their genetic codes. The thing about this is that it must be done in small steps that can be overcome by chance processes or not at all, thus the need for "missing links". There's no room for leaps in evolution.

 

[Willtor]

I'm a YEC'ist and here's my natural understanding of the TOE. BTW, if you see any inconsistencies, please correct me as I loathe being misinformed.

Ok so there are supposedly several elements that guide evolution:

The first is reproduction. In order for a species to survive, it must successfully reproduce at a rate that is greater than or equal to its death rate.

2nd is inheritable genetic information.

3rd is random mutation within that genetic information through reproduction.

4th genetic information tends to be spread within the population.

5th Environmental pressures determine which mutations prove to be negative, neutral or beneficial towards the goal of reproduction. Individuals that possess negative mutations will reproduce at a rate that is less than those who possess the positive mutations. Over time, this should cause change in the overall population.

This is a pretty good representation, I'd say.

6th Over vast amounts of time (and this is where I get off the train) a population will repeat this cycle any number of times as is necessary to accumulate massive amounts of information within their genetic codes. The thing about this is that it must be done in small steps that can be overcome by chance processes or not at all, thus the need for "missing links". There's no room for leaps in evolution.

This is not quite as solid. The discussion of information is not part of evolution, at present. It's true that the mutations accumulate over generations (possibly lots of time, but not necessarily) and that there are no leaps but it would be better to think in terms of alleles (the different versions of a gene) that are the results of mutations rather than the mutations, themselves. Alleles are more at the core of evolution. We just happen to know that they are produced due to mutations because of genetics.

In Darwin's time, for example, nobody talked about mutations because they didn't know about them. In fact, one of the weaknesses of the theory was that it was thought that when a child manifested something unusual that deviated from anything the parents had, as the child married back into the population, over successive generations, the deviation would average itself out into the population and basically disappear. It wasn't until genes were discovered that a mechanism was proposed for the appearance of alleles.