Evolution

[audiologic]

Please don't put them on equal footing. Evolution is a scientific theory: a collection of facts, that are established . Creationism starts with a conclusion and picks whatever evidence might support it and rejects any and all evidence that contradicts it, for no other reason than it contradicts it. Evolution is a foundational block of science while creationism makes absolutely no falsifiable predictions.



We have millions of fossils that demonstrate evolution and we do witness evolution, mostly for small organisms like bacteria and fungi because of their short life cycles. Scientists also use inductive reasoning; a physical witness how lives millions of years is not required.

I do agree with you - I wasn't trying to say that the "6 day" theory is equally FEASIBLE as the evolutionary theory.

Still, even in the world of science, evolution is deemed a "theory". This could be due to the strong religious opposition to it. Note that I support evolution 100%, and I honestly take it as fact, though there are varying ideas on how, what, where, etc.

 

[dlamberth]

Evolution occurred through random genetic mutations. Correct?

There are a lot of dynamics involved. Weather, Isolation, Geology, Lakes, Deserts, Mountains, Fana, Protection, Sexual attraction, etc, etc.

To just focused on random genetic mutations misses the bigger picture of the dynamic inter-connection that everything has with everything else around it.

.

 

[audiologic]

There are a lot of dynamics involved. Weather, Isolation, Geology, Lakes, Deserts, Mountains, Fana, Protection, Sexual attraction, etc, etc.

To just focused on random genetic mutations misses the bigger picture of the dynamic inter-connection that everything has with everything else around it.

.

Exactly, I was just utilizing their argument.

 

[Dani K]

I do not feel that evolution and belief in having a maker conflict.

 

[dlamberth]

I do not feel that evolution and belief in having a maker conflict.

Me either.

.

 

[Rationalt]

I am yet to read your post .If, by any chance, there is any confusion I would like to clarify that genetic mutations are irrefutable because they can be reproduced in a lab setting.

Uh, in case you didn't notice, I haven't referenced scripture once, and I've essentially been cast aside from the true "Christians" for holding "heretical" interests, so I would appreciate it if you wouldn't lump me in with those blinded by dogma.

Evolution occurred through random genetic mutations. Correct? These random genetic mutations occurred over time, and are something that COULD have been observed by humans had they been around and had the proper tools. Correct?

Now, suppose a group of individuals have composed an elaborate form of written communication. To any uneducated individual, it seems like a mangled bunch of nonsensical markings. But the truth is, there's INTENT behind it. So when it gets written down, and someone finds it, they say it's "random". It's not random. It's only chaotic to those who don't possess the key.

Or...

A person throws a glass jar of multi-colored sand on the floor. It forms a pattern. Assuming it doesn't get disturbed, days later two people come by and see it. One says "Someone must have done this! It's a work of art!" and the other says "No one did it, it must have fallen off the shelf."

Keep in mind that I don't think science, beauty, evolution, or anything else "proves" or "disproves" God. I'm not trying to establish proof that God exists and evolution was His tool; I'm saying that it's impossible to prove it otherwise. I don't spend my time trying to prove God exists to anyone...as far as the scientific method goes, it's not feasible. Nor is it feasible to rule it out.

"Random" is relative. Do we know everything? No.

You just have to look closer, sometimes. There IS order and uniformity to nature, even though there is also chaos. And who knows if we'll ever be able to determine where the patterns lie; we are captives to our biological vessels, and our senses are limited.

 

[Bravo Year]

Still, even in the world of science, evolution is deemed a "theory". This could be due to the strong religious opposition to it.

In science, if an idea is an undergrad, and a hypothesis is a graduate student, then a "theory" is a PhD. Essentially, a hypothesis goes through many contests of falsifiability and scrutiny. A "theory" is a hypothesis that not only withstands those challenges, but goes undefeated. It becomes a "strong theory" when it can withstand the introduction of hitherto unknown evidences as time goes on, and it becomes an "accepted theory" when it can accurately predict what is to come regarding its subject. Evolution has been an "accepted theory" for about 100 years now.

Gravity, for example, is also just a "theory."

 

[audiologic]

In science, if an idea is an undergrad, and a hypothesis is a graduate student, then a "theory" is a PhD. Essentially, a hypothesis goes through many contests of falsifiability and scrutiny. A "theory" is a hypothesis that not only withstands those challenges, but goes undefeated. It becomes a "strong theory" when it can withstand the introduction of hitherto unknown evidences as time goes on, and it becomes an "accepted theory" when it can accurately predict what is to come regarding its subject. Evolution has been an "accepted theory" for about 100 years now.

Gravity, for example, is also just a "theory."

Even though something is virtually fact, due to certain circumstances, it must be dubbed a "theory". That doesn't mean it isn't true, or isn't useful.

This actually makes another one of my points: regardless of whether something is accepted by certain groups (Evolution generally discarded by the church, and God generally pushed aside by atheism) it's a matter of utility. We have the theory of gravity, the theory of relativity, the theory of evolution. Those are all very useful tools for explaining the nature of things and alleviating speculative tension; they also, in some cases, help us with scientific and cultural developments.

That being said, the same for God - though unfortunately, dogma has given spirituality a bad name. Regardless of whether or not He/She/It is "really there" or not doesn't matter to me; what matters is the fact that I'm drawing from the experience, it gives me hope, it has aesthetic value, etc. When I feel "connected to God" while I write a song (instrumental, mind you) it matters less whether something external is happening, or it's all in my head - either way, I'm drawing upon a creative force that brings peace and contentment. And if I die, rot, and that's it, then it won't matter because at least I LIVED happily.

Where religion goes wrong is where it claims "We are right; this is why." I have my own beliefs. If atheism works for someone, fine, but as soon as you step onto a believer's turf with the intent of "proving God doesn't exist", you're no different from the charismatic preacher on the street corner who's telling everyone THEY'RE wrong.

Ironically, the scientists who claim to hate judgement often end up doing the same thing.

 

[Bravo Year]

If atheism works for someone, fine, but as soon as you step onto a believer's turf with the intent of "proving God doesn't exist", you're no different from the charismatic preacher on the street corner who's telling them they're wrong.

Okay... You seem to be shifting subjects - who's doing that?

 

[football5680]

There are two major problems with the theory of evolution.

The first is that for something to evolve you would need a living organism to begin with. Life does not start for no reason because if it did then every planet should have life. Some scientists may say we need certain conditions for life to begin and earth just happened to have them, but you can look at extremophiles which live in conditions scientists said were impossible years ago. They live off things that are poisonous to every other living being on earth and they live in temperatures that nothing else can.

The second major problem is that for living beings to evolve you would need drastic mutations and when things mutate they lose their ability to reproduce most often. Everything has a maximum level of how different they can be from the original being before they have mutated too far and become sterile. Microevolution does happen but the being produced is still within the parameters allowed by the DNA.

 

[awitch]

There are two major problems with the theory of evolution.

The first is that for something to evolve you would need a living organism to begin with.

Evolution does not address origins; there are other theories for that.

The second major problem is that for living beings to evolve you would need drastic mutations and when things mutate they lose their ability to reproduce most often. Everything has a maximum level of how different they can be from the original being before they have mutated too far and become sterile. Microevolution does happen but the being produced is still within the parameters allowed by the DNA.

You have a source for that because I'm pretty sure it's nonsense.
Again, there is no such thing as micro evolution and macro evolution, and you're completely ignoring natural selection, genetic drift, and genetic variation as mechanisms.

 

[dlamberth]

The first is that for something to evolve you would need a living organism to begin with. Life does not start for no reason because if it did then every planet should have life.

How that first spark of life started is not what evolution is. It's what happens after life started is when we get into the evolutionary process.

The second major problem is that for living beings to evolve you would need drastic mutations and when things mutate they lose their ability to reproduce most often.

Evolutionary changes happen so incredibly slow that the very small changes that do happen are not drastic at all. But over eons of time and through very slow evolutionary changes, at some point you are correct, a new species has been created that will not reproduce with the original from which it evolved from.


.

 

[morningstar2651]

Both evolution and creationism are theories.

Creationism isn't a theory in the scientific sense of the word theory. There is no debate whether or not gravity exists - but there is still a theory of gravitation. In science, theory doesn't mean the same thing as it does when we use it in conversation, and trying to say that creationism is "also a theory" dishonestly implies scientific support for creationism...not to mention that creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive beliefs. Evolution says nothing about the origin of life - it only reveals the origin of species.

What is a Scientific Theory? | Definition of Theory | LiveScience

When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

 

[morningstar2651]

The first is that for something to evolve you would need a living organism to begin with. Life does not start for no reason because if it did then every planet should have life. Some scientists may say we need certain conditions for life to begin and earth just happened to have them, but you can look at extremophiles which live in conditions scientists said were impossible years ago. They live off things that are poisonous to every other living being on earth and they live in temperatures that nothing else can.

This isn't evolution. It's abiogenesis.

The second major problem is that for living beings to evolve you would need drastic mutations and when things mutate they lose their ability to reproduce most often. Everything has a maximum level of how different they can be from the original being before they have mutated too far and become sterile. Microevolution does happen but the being produced is still within the parameters allowed by the DNA.

Not really. The mutations are actually minor and over a long period of time. Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise.

Speciation in nature occurs when two similar reproducing beings evolve to become too dissimilar to share genetic information effectively or correctly. In the case of living organisms, they are incapable of mating to produce offspring.

 

[morningstar2651]

How that first spark of life started is not what evolution is. It's what happens after life started is when we get into the evolutionary process.

Evolutionary changes happen so incredibly slow that the very small changes that do happen are not drastic at all. But over eons of time and through very slow evolutionary changes, at some point you are correct, a new species has been created that will not reproduce with the original from which it evolved from.


.

Any computer scientist who has worked with evolutionary algorithms has seen how evolution works on a much shorter timescale by rapidly iterating through generation after generation.

 

[Crandaddy]

How many of you religious people accept evolution? If not, why not? If so, why, to what extent, and how does it fit into your religion?

I don't think naturalistic evolution can produce rational minds, as I don't think that genuinely rational, logical thought can be reduced to non-rational, mechanistic processes. But otherwise, I don't have any problems with evolution at all. In fact, I consider myself a theistic evolutionist.

 

[Bravo Year]

Do you think evolution could produce a functioning brain?

 

[morningstar2651]

Do you think evolution could produce a functioning brain?

Yes.

Evolution of the brain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
HowStuffWorks "Is the human brain still evolving?"
From Primitive Parts, A Highly Evolved Human Brain : NPR
Evolution of Brain Structures for Vocal Learning | Jarvis Lab
Sea lamprey brain shows evolution of neurotransmitter co-localization in vertebrates | Developmental Biology Interactive
Without Miracles: Brain Evolution and Development: The Selection of Neurons and Synapses

 

[dlamberth]

Do you think evolution could produce a functioning brain?

Absolutely YES!!!!!. There is that much creative power with in life itself that it could produce the human brain.

.

 

[Bravo Year]

Sorry, I was asking that particular question to Crandaddy, who said he didn't believe evolution produced rational minds.