Doctrines of Evolution

[Tree of Life]

What are the doctrines of evolution (generally speaking) and why should I accept them?

 

[AV1611VET]

What are the doctrines of evolution (generally speaking) and why should I accept them?

By any chance, do you mean the Icons of Evolution?

 

[pgp_protector]

Evolution is change in heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations

 

[HitchSlap]

What are the doctrines of evolution (generally speaking)

I can't explain it any better than this.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SCjhI86grU

and why should I accept them?

Because it's fact, and I assume reality means something to you?

 

[Tree of Life]

I can't explain it any better than this.

Because it's fact, and I assume reality means something to you?

Thanks for the video. It was well done. Let me make sure I'm understanding the doctrines correctly. We've got:

1. Descent with modification
2. Common ancestry
3. Natural Selection

Survival of the fittest seems to be implied in natural selection.

"It's a fact" doesn't really answer the question. I'm asking "why should I believe that the doctrines of evolution are factual?" Simply asserting that they are is unhelpful. Now for some evaluation...

1. Descent with modification seems obvious enough. I'm willing to accept this one.

2. Natural selection also seems obvious enough. I'm willing to accept a version of it that takes into account God's providence. Alvin Plantinga has well argued that "random" does not necessarily imply that God had nothing to do with it. "Random" in the sense it's being used here simply means: "having no concern for the wellbeing of the creature."

3. Common ancestry. I'm not seeing why I should accept this one. He just said a bunch of big impressive words to back this one up, but I didn't find any of those words convincing. Could you explain why I should accept this doctrine?

 

[Tree of Life]

Evolution is change in heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations

If this is all that is meant by "evolution" then I have no problem accepting it.

 

[HitchSlap]

Thanks for the video. It was well done. Let me make sure I'm understanding the doctrines correctly. We've got:

1. Descent with modification
2. Common ancestry
3. Natural Selection

Survival of the fittest seems to be implied in natural selection.

"It's a fact" doesn't really answer the question. I'm asking "why should I believe that the doctrines of evolution are factual?" Simply asserting that they are is unhelpful. Now for some evaluation...

1. Descent with modification seems obvious enough. I'm willing to accept this one.

2. Natural selection also seems obvious enough. I'm willing to accept a version of it that takes into account God's providence. Alvin Plantinga has well argued that "random" does not necessarily imply that God had nothing to do with it. "Random" in the sense it's being used here simply means: "having no concern for the wellbeing of the creature."

3. Common descent. I'm not seeing why I should accept this one. He just said a bunch of big impressive words to back this one up, but I didn't find any of those words convincing. Could you explain why I should accept this doctrine?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75ezqKnpTh8

 

[Tree of Life]

youtube vid

I'm sorry was that supposed to be answering one of my questions? I'm not seeing how that video gives a reason to accept common ancestry. Maybe you could point out what I'm missing.

 

[Davian]

 

[juvenissun]

Evolution is change in heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations

Is the above definition limited by the actual observations?

If the change can not be observed, how do we know it happened?

So, due to the limitation of time, it is not a good definition. It is no better than if I say: Let's assume God exists.

 

[juvenissun]

If this is all that is meant by "evolution" then I have no problem accepting it.

Please don't. It is a trap.

 

[Tree of Life]

Please don't. It is a trap.

The definition offered was: "Evolution is change in heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations."

There's nothing within this definition that contradicts Scripture. And it's easy to observe from looking at creation that little changes are introduced in each new generation that continue to get passed on.

This, of course, does not amount to what people normally mean when they talk about evolution - all of its doctrines including common ancestry. His definition needn't include common ancestry.

 

[HitchSlap]

The definition offered was: "Evolution is change in heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations."

There's nothing within this definition that contradicts Scripture. And it's easy to observe from looking at creation that little changes are introduced in each new generation that continue to get passed on.

This, of course, does not amount to what people normally mean when they talk about evolution - all of its doctrines including common ancestry. His definition needn't include common ancestry.

Yep, we're all related.

 

[Tree of Life]

Yep, we're all related.

I accept this in the sense that all human beings are related. Why should I accept common ancestry of all life? (Please don't post another video!)

 

[HitchSlap]

I accept this in the sense that all human beings are related. Why should I accept common ancestry of all life? (Please don't post another video!)

Nested hierarchy (e.g. chimps are our closest cousin, which is why we share approx. 98% DNA).

If you don't accept common ancestry within nested hierarchies, then no skin off my schnozz. Believe what you need to. The work of evolutionary biologists all over the globe will continue, blithely unaware of your religious dogma.

 

[Tree of Life]

Nested hierarchy (e.g. chimps are our closest cousin, which is why we share approx. 98% DNA).

If you don't accept common ancestry within nested hierarchies, then no skin off my schnozz. Believe what you need to. The work of evolutionary biologists all over the globe will continue, blithely unaware of your religious dogma.

This isn't a conversation about my religious dogma. I'm just wondering if there's a good reason to believe in common ancestry.

It seems like you're offering: "Chimps and humans share 98% of their DNA".

Is that about it?

 

[SteveB28]

The definition offered was: "Evolution is change in heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations."

There's nothing within this definition that contradicts Scripture. And it's easy to observe from looking at creation that little changes are introduced in each new generation that continue to get passed on.

This, of course, does not amount to what people normally mean when they talk about evolution - all of its doctrines including common ancestry. His definition needn't include common ancestry.

What prevents a succession of those "little changes" accumulating over time, to the point where that accumulation results in a species that is separate from the original?

 

[Tree of Life]

What prevents a succession of those "little changes" accumulating over time, to the point where that accumulation results in a species that is separate from the original?

It's certainly logically possible. But that's also a long way from concluding something like that actually happened and that something like common ancestry is true.

 

[SteveB28]

It's certainly logically possible. But that's also a long way from concluding something like that actually happened and that something like common ancestry is true.

Except for the treasure trove of evidence which exists to support that logical possibility. To the extent that it transcends from mere possibility to very high probability.

 

[Tree of Life]

Except for the treasure trove of evidence which exists to support that logical possibility. To the extent that it transcends from mere possibility to very high probability.

Could you give some examples of some of this evidence?