Evolution true or false?

[LewisWildermuth]

Is this the complete scientifical explination?

No, it is not, it is just a simple statement trying to correct a false notion you seem to have.

 

[Agape Theos]

I still don't understand... do people with little to no scientific training think that they are better in areas than people that have PhDs? Where does this type of arrogance come from?

The thing is, most people with PhD's disagree among themselves on how they think evolution may have happened. The most famous example would be Gould vs Dawkins. Obviously there are many others, but these two are the first to come to mind.

Secondly, most creationists use the very same evidence that evolutionists do. It is the interpretation that is different. The things I read and hold come quite often from, say... National Geographic, or maybe the journal Nature. But I cannot see how the evidence could possibly result in a conclusion of speciation by evolution. Evolution, as far as speciation goes, breaks some incredibly fundamental laws of nature and physics that are themselves much more supported empirically than evolution is. A few are thermodynamics, the fact that DNA does not add information to itself (not even by errors in copying), and the mathematical impossibilities. (Such as hemoglobin...the first arranging of protiens into the larger protein of hemoglobin has odds of 1 in 10 to the 850th power to the 10th power. Remember, 10 to the 50th power is the limit of possibility in statistical mathematics.)

In my opinion, it is quite arrogant for a PhD to think only he can make conclusions to scientific findings. Most of us in the rest of the world can think logically and come to conclusions for ourselves. We do not need to spend 80 hours a week in a lab to do this. But, we do need to read copiously in order to make good judgements.

And, to say that Intelligent Design makes no predictions is false. Intelligent Design predicts that there must be a creator. This will never be proven until the last day when He shows Himself, since a God that could be studied scientifically would not be God. I am ok with that.

He said Himself, it is impossible to please God without faith. Since this is true, then faith will always be an element of creation theory.

It comes down to Humanism vs Christianity. Evolution is the newest morph of humanism (ie human dominance through naturalistic processes.)

Both are faith-based religions.

 

[jesusfreak3786]

No, it is not, it is just a simple statement trying to correct a false notion you seem to have.

Are you are implying that you don't know the explination to the term? Or you just want to withhold that info. from me? If you want to prove my belief false thats fine I am very open minded, but please answer my question if you do know the answer.

 

[kedaman]

This is the "evolution is pure chance" fallacy.

According to my understanding, the strength of natural selection slows down evolution, while the amount chance plays in it increases evolution.

 

[Agape Theos]

This is the "evolution is pure chance" fallacy.

According to my understanding, the strength of natural selection slows down evolution, while the amount chance plays in it increases evolution.

Natural selection actually removes systems from the gene pool. It has not yet been observed to add anything to any creature or plant. So I agree with you here.

However, chance does not increase evolution. Chance actually reduces evolutoinary speciation into a complete impossibility, on the order of 1 in billions of billions. The mathematics cannot lie. Read the hemoglobin chance I put in my post above. This I got from Dr. Richard A Swenson, M.D. in his book More Than Meets The Eye.

(By the way, that last "to the 10th power" shouldn't be there. That is a typo.)

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Are you are implying that you don't know the explination to the term? Or you just want to withhold that info. from me? If you want to prove my belief false thats fine I am very open minded, but please answer my question if you do know the answer.

Do you wish me to break copyright laws and post an entire college level introduction to biology book here just because you do not wish [edited upon request of moderator]to research things before you open your mouth?



I gave you a simple answer. No, evolution and adaptation are not two separate things. Evolution is simply the ongoing process of adaptation. It would not matter if all the animals we see were zapped here yesterday, if they can adapt they can evolve.



The idea of common ancestry is separate from the base idea of evolution. Common ancestry is supported by evidence too, but it is not needed for evolution to work.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Natural selection actually removes systems from the gene pool. It has not yet been observed to add anything to any creature or plant. So I agree with you here.

False. Here is a simple example of something added...

Some whales are born with rear legs. This means that the genes used to create the legs are still there. The fact that all whales are not born with rear legs means that there has been an addition of a gene or set of genes that would normaly tell the embryo not to make rear legs.

However, chance does not increase evolution. Chance actually reduces evolutoinary speciation into a complete impossibility, on the order of 1 in billions of billions. The mathematics cannot lie. Read the hemoglobin chance I put in my post above. This I got from Dr. Richard A Swenson, M.D. in his book More Than Meets The Eye.

(By the way, that last "to the 10th power" shouldn't be there. That is a typo.)

Math can lie, all one has to do is start with a false assumption. Your hemoglobin argument starts with the false assumption that evolution would require the complex modern form of hemoglobin from the begining.

 

[jesusfreak3786]

Do you wish me to break copyright laws and post an entire college level introduction to biology book here just because you are too lazy to research things before you open your mouth?

Hey temper temper no need to get nasty now, we can all go down that route but thats not what debate is all about now is it? Oh yeah I don't have one of those books, and as far as the internet goes I'm not exacly an expert at searching the web. I'm suprized I make it to this site the majority of the time. Since when do you have to break a copywrite to fully explain a subjuct, Change a couple words to words that have the same meaning or say it in a diffrent way.

I gave you a simple answer. No, evolution and adaptation are not two separate things. Evolution is simply the ongoing process of adaptation. It would not matter if all the animals we see were zapped here yesterday, if they can adapt they can evolve.

Where did I get the idea of all this one celled organism mumbo jumbo?

The idea of common ancestry is separate from the base idea of evolution. Common ancestry is supported by evidence too, but it is not needed for evolution to work.

base idea, ok new question Where did evolution supposedly start and how many original forms of creatures existed at this time, one, small amount, medium amount ,or many? Truly wondering, I am not trying to be rude here. sorry if I come of that way.

 

[kedaman]

Natural selection actually removes systems from the gene pool. It has not yet been observed to add anything to any creature or plant. So I agree with you here.

However, chance does not increase evolution. Chance actually reduces evolutoinary speciation into a complete impossibility, on the order of 1 in billions of billions. The mathematics cannot lie. Read the hemoglobin chance I put in my post above. This I got from Dr. Richard A Swenson, M.D. in his book More Than Meets The Eye.

(By the way, that last "to the 10th power" shouldn't be there. That is a typo.)

Ok, but I'm sort of arguing from a philosophical perspective. If you take chance as an element to any theory, it cannot be falsified, because it can be explained away no matter how improbable it seems. There could be an infinite amount of universes, it would be more probable that one of them have human life, in fact infinitely many could have, and we are just in one of them. There is just no explanatory power in arguing that something is rooted in chance in any way. A scientific theory must make definitive predictions so it can be falsified, evolution is not one of them.

When you say evolutionary speciation, what else is there to drive speciation than random mutation?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Hey temper temper no need to get nasty now, we can all go down that route but thats not what debate is all about now is it? Oh yeah I don't have one of those books, and as far as the internet goes I'm not exacly an expert at searching the web. I'm suprized I make it to this site the majority of the time. Since when do you have to break a copywrite to fully explain a subjuct, Change a couple words to words that have the same meaning or say it in a diffrent way.

I am not getting paid for my time here and a complete history of science and thought would take years of my time to write up for you. However, it would only take you a small investment of your time to visit your local library and read some books in the science section or take a few classes at a local college to learn more about the subject.

Where did I get the idea of all this one celled organism mumbo jumbo?

base idea, ok new question Where did evolution supposedly start and how many original forms of creatures existed at this time, one, small amount, medium amount ,or many? Truly wondering, I am not trying to be rude here. sorry if I come of that way.

The modern idea of the way life has evolved on this planet is that about 3.5 billion years ago or so there appeared the first simple single celled life. How many there were is not known, we have only a little fossil evidence from this period. Over time from this initial group all life that we see appeared slowly.



The idea that life could change and that change was inheritable is traced back to a monk in Europe who experimented with animals and plants they grew at the monastery. This is Mendel, and you may have heard of his experiments with pea plants in elementary or jr. high science classes.



Later the idea of extinction was developed and reinforced by the uncovering of dinosaur fossils at about the same time.



These two ideas lead to the formation of an early evolutionary model, but there was no idea of the age of the earth at that time. Soon however, several people working across Europe started developing the idea of “deep” time. Erosion was the key to this. Hayden’s wall was built in England by the Romans over a thousand years before, one studied man noticed that it was unchanged by erosion, yet an extinct volcano made out of the same kind of rock nearby was worn almost flat by erosion. And this example seemed to be the same all over the world, structures that were made by man, some dating back to nearly the beginning of time as the Church stated (6000 years old) seemed untouched by erosion where the land around them looked massively old. This with the fossils lead to the idea that the earth was much older than 6000 years, but the idea of animals changing massively still didn’t exist. This was the birth of Geology as a science.



At the same time, people studying animals were classifying them according to the idea of “kinds” as found in the Bible. During this classification it was noticed that the different “kinds” seemed to blur together, not forming nice little separate groups as a overly literal reading of some passages in the Bible seemed to imply. This with the mounting fossil record seemed to show that animals could change much more that previously thought. Heredity was known about, but there was no way to explain these massive changes in science or the Bible at the time.



About 150 years later, the idea of massive change in animals was spreading due to the fossil record and the lack of modern animals in all but the top most layers. There was some talk about how this could happen, but no one had any good ideas that worked. It was about this time that Darwin stepped into the scene with the idea that adaptation combined with natural selection could change animals radically. This was the start of the modern ideas of Evolutionary Biology.



Today with all the fossils found over the last 100 years and through genetics we are able to better understand the changes and how and when they occurred.



This with advances in other science fields such as Geology, Astronomy and Physics has given us a much fuller and more beautiful picture of how God created the universe and us.



There is much I have left out of this for brevity and simplicity. Please go and read for yourself what science is about and the rich history of God’s Universe. Do not let those afraid of the big world frighten you into listening only to them. God has laid out the book of creation for us to read too, please do not ignore it.

 

[Nathan David]

The thing is, most people with PhD's disagree among themselves on how they think evolution may have happened. The most famous example would be Gould vs Dawkins. Obviously there are many others, but these two are the first to come to mind.

But neither disputes that evolution happened.

Evolution, as far as speciation goes, breaks some incredibly fundamental laws of nature and physics that are themselves much more supported empirically than evolution is.

No, it doesn't.

A few are thermodynamics

Evolution does not break any of the laws of thermodynamics.

the fact that DNA does not add information to itself (not even by errors in copying)

Mutations add information to DNA.

and the mathematical impossibilities. (Such as hemoglobin...the first arranging of protiens into the larger protein of hemoglobin has odds of 1 in 10 to the 850th power to the 10th power. Remember, 10 to the 50th power is the limit of possibility in statistical mathematics.)

Irrelevant. What are the odds your parents would meet and have children exactly when they did?

 

[Zen_Woof]

Greetings.

A question: What is the likelihood of intelligent design versus aliens from another race intermingling with primitive hominids? Aren't both equally probable?

With metta,
Zenda

 

[seebs]

So why do we have exactly the same joint structure?

Because we were built from the same model.

But is not the joint structure the model?

Well, why is it different? More importantly, why not just give us totally different joints, better suited to our respective locomotive styles?

 

[ForeRunner]

The most widely accepted (simple) definition of evolution is:

"The change in the gene frequency of a population over time"

There is your definition of evolution. If you want to learn more, this book is highly recommended:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...002-4036455-8984856?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Explaining all of evolutionary biology is far beyong the scope of an internet message board.

 

[Split Rock]

Hey temper temper no need to get nasty now, we can all go down that route but thats not what debate is all about now is it? Oh yeah I don't have one of those books, and as far as the internet goes I'm not exacly an expert at searching the web. I'm suprized I make it to this site the majority of the time. Since when do you have to break a copywrite to fully explain a subjuct, Change a couple words to words that have the same meaning or say it in a diffrent way.

Where did I get the idea of all this one celled organism mumbo jumbo?

base idea, ok new question Where did evolution supposedly start and how many original forms of creatures existed at this time, one, small amount, medium amount ,or many? Truly wondering, I am not trying to be rude here. sorry if I come of that way. [/color]

Welcome back.

First let me say I think it is good that you do not see evolution/creationism as a salvation issue... way too many creationists see it as one.

Evolutionary theory is really made up of many different theories. The most basic definition is that Gene frequencies in a population change over time. Nowadays, most creationists don't argue this because there is too much evidence in its favor.

Common Descent is another important theory, and while it is dependent on the above, the basic theory does not require common descent. Common Descent is implied from the evidence, but the evidence is massive (see for example my post #79). This includes speciation events being witnessed, both in nature and in the lab. Creationists like to demand eyewitness evidence for common descent of higher taxonomic levels ("show me a dog giving birth to a cat"), but as the saying goes, the prisons are filled with people who have been convicted based on circumstantial evidence alone.

The early ancestors were one-celled organisms. How many there were at the start is hard to determine, especially since the evidence points to large amounts of horizontal gene transfer between the ancestors of the three major domains of life (Archaea, Bacteria, Eukarya). Hope that helps.

 

[Split Rock]

The thing is, most people with PhD's disagree among themselves on how they think evolution may have happened. The most famous example would be Gould vs Dawkins. Obviously there are many others, but these two are the first to come to mind.

Neither one doubted common ancestry. By the way, how is it possible for evolutionary theory to be both Dogmatic (as in a religious belief) and also open to debate at the same time? Care to explain that to us?

Secondly, most creationists use the very same evidence that evolutionists do. It is the interpretation that is different. The things I read and hold come quite often from, say... National Geographic, or maybe the journal Nature. But I cannot see how the evidence could possibly result in a conclusion of speciation by evolution. Evolution, as far as speciation goes, breaks some incredibly fundamental laws of nature and physics that are themselves much more supported empirically than evolution is. A few are thermodynamics, the fact that DNA does not add information to itself (not even by errors in copying), and the mathematical impossibilities. (Such as hemoglobin...the first arranging of protiens into the larger protein of hemoglobin has odds of 1 in 10 to the 850th power to the 10th power. Remember, 10 to the 50th power is the limit of possibility in statistical mathematics.)

This is all wrong. Show me one mechanism of evolution that breaks with fundamental laws of nature and physics. Forget the biased statistical calculations too. By the way, even Behe claims that Hemoglobin EVOLVED from myoglobin.

In my opinion, it is quite arrogant for a PhD to think only he can make conclusions to scientific findings. Most of us in the rest of the world can think logically and come to conclusions for ourselves. We do not need to spend 80 hours a week in a lab to do this. But, we do need to read copiously in order to make good judgements.

Yes, it is silly for trained scientists to actually make conclusions concerning scientific findings. Kind of like saying you should only have brain surgeons performing brain surgery! What arrogance!!

And, to say that Intelligent Design makes no predictions is false. Intelligent Design predicts that there must be a creator. This will never be proven until the last day when He shows Himself, since a God that could be studied scientifically would not be God. I am ok with that.

A "prediction" that can only await the presence of God is not very useful scientifically.

He said Himself, it is impossible to please God without faith. Since this is true, then faith will always be an element of creation theory.

Well, yes that is quite true. In fact it will always be the BASIS of creation theory.

It comes down to Humanism vs Christianity. Evolution is the newest morph of humanism (ie human dominance through naturalistic processes.)

False Dichotomy (oh no! .. I am starting to sound like Colossians! (ahhh!)).

Both are faith-based religions.

Saying so will not give you the parity you desire.

 

[funyun]

Talk to me about a fish becoming a turtle, or a bird becoming a bear, or a dog becoming a cat or a horse, not variations within a species.

You just keep digging yourself deeper and giving more evidence for the fact that no serious opponent of evolution actually knows the theory, much less can form a coherent argument against it.

 

[Ondoher]

Sorry I am not trying to be rude but, This does not answer my question. I belive in creation, that every animal was made seperatly and that, although I don't deem it imposable in rare cases, I don't think all of the living creatures are speiceis that came from one single celled organism. That's why I want a better explination of the scientific definition of the term evolution.

Then you should have asked for that. Here are the two best definitions I know.

1. Any change in allele frequencies of a population over time.
2. Descent with modification due to differential reproductive success acting on random genetic variability.

However, I'm not sure how an accurate definition of evolution is ever going to convey the vast amounts of data that supports the theory.

 

[Ondoher]

Bravo, that was a perfect example of the kind of uninformed second guessing creationists do.

The thing is, most people with PhD's disagree among themselves on how they think evolution may have happened. The most famous example would be Gould vs Dawkins. Obviously there are many others, but these two are the first to come to mind.

There may be disputes about mechanisms and their relative importance, but there is no dispute over if it happened.

Secondly, most creationists use the very same evidence that evolutionists do. It is the interpretation that is different.

This is true. However, the methods creationists use to interpret that data are not those of science. Creationism fails to present a testable, predictive model.

The things I read and hold come quite often from, say... National Geographic, or maybe the journal Nature. But I cannot see how the evidence could possibly result in a conclusion of speciation by evolution. Evolution, as far as speciation goes, breaks some incredibly fundamental laws of nature and physics that are themselves much more supported empirically than evolution is. A few are thermodynamics, the fact that DNA does not add information to itself (not even by errors in copying), and the mathematical impossibilities. (Such as hemoglobin...the first arranging of protiens into the larger protein of hemoglobin has odds of 1 in 10 to the 850th power to the 10th power. Remember, 10 to the 50th power is the limit of possibility in statistical mathematics.)

Use a bit of critical thinking here. If there were such huge flaws in evolution, would it really be so well accepted in scientific circles? Are scientists that stupid? The fact is, you are wrong on all the above points.

Be specific, which evolutionary mechanisms break any laws of thermodynamics? If your interpretation of thermodynamics is true, how is it possible that an adult can grow from a fertilized egg?

Adding DNA through mutation is easy, it is called a duplication mutation. There are many excellent posts in this very forum that go into great detail about how novel genes can arise through such things as duplication and divergence. Read them.

Nobody has ever really suggested that any complex protein formed through chance, so your odds are irrelevent.

In my opinion, it is quite arrogant for a PhD to think only he can make conclusions to scientific findings. Most of us in the rest of the world can think logically and come to conclusions for ourselves. We do not need to spend 80 hours a week in a lab to do this. But, we do need to read copiously in order to make good judgements.

Believe it or not, you have to be knowledgable in a subject to make any real contribution. If you are not trained as a surgeon, you will not be able to perform an operation. If you are not trained as a programmer, you will not be able to produce software. Ignorance never leads to insight, only more ignorance.

Add to that the fact that the vast majority of those trained in relevant fields accept evolution. The hard cold truth is, the best cure for creationism is a good education.

And, to say that Intelligent Design makes no predictions is false. Intelligent Design predicts that there must be a creator. This will never be proven until the last day when He shows Himself, since a God that could be studied scientifically would not be God. I am ok with that.

That's not a testable prediction. There is no hypothetical observation that would be inconsistent with intelligent design. It is not science, it is philosophy. It adds nothing to our knowledge.

He said Himself, it is impossible to please God without faith. Since this is true, then faith will always be an element of creation theory.

Faith is fine, but it isn't science.

It comes down to Humanism vs Christianity. Evolution is the newest morph of humanism (ie human dominance through naturalistic processes.)

Both are faith-based religions.

No, evolution is science, http://www.christianforums.com/t930345-is-evolution-science.html. Creationism is religion.

 

[Ondoher]

This is the "evolution is pure chance" fallacy.

According to my understanding, the strength of natural selection slows down evolution, while the amount chance plays in it increases evolution.

No they both lead to change in allele frequencies. Natural selection, sexual selection and genetic drift reduce genetic variability; while mutation, recombination and gene flow increase it. This is, however, all evolution.