Evolution's evil twin

[TwinCrier]

You really should read about what evolution really is and not what YECs sources tell you it is. The links I've provided should help.

You should really not expect that your particular take on evolution is the only one. Most of what you post disagrees with darwinism as well as theistic evolution. There is more than your interpretation of evolution and what it is, just as there is more than your interpretation of the bible.

 

[gluadys]

You're correct, having 'inferior' humans as part of the pool does nothing to prevent our 'evolution' as long as they do not interbreed with those of the species who are in the process of evolving. It would be wrong to assume that the evolutionary process has just stopped with the 21st century.

But individuals do not evolve, so it doesn't matter if "inferior" individuals breed with others or not. There is no such thing as some individuals in a species evolving while others do not. No individuals evolve at all. Only the population as a whole evolves.

Evolution is a difference in the distribution of gene variants (alleles) from one generation to another. Individuals live and die with the same genes they are born with. Their genetic pattern does not change. So there are no evolving individuals. Only evolving species.

 

[TwinCrier]

Emphatically, NO. It isn't.

It is changing to adapt better to the current environment, nothing more. Since the environment itself changes, no evolutionary change is definitively better.

That is one of the lessons of the pepper moths. One year it's better to be white. Another year, it's better to be black, and then another it's better to be white again.

On an absolute scale neither colour is better than the other. It all depends on the circumstances.

I totally agree with the first couple sentences. You may want to update your sources of information as the peppered moth scenerio is outdated and proves nothing of evolution. Or maybe that was the point you were trying to make.

 

[notto]

Evolve to what is a good question. Since we view our fish-like and ape-like ancestors as not being on the same level of intelligence as we homosapiens, I'm sure whatever species we do evolve into on a billion years from now, we likewise wonder why we continued to breed with humans on inferior intellect for so long. Natural selection will eventiually lead to a split in humankind where to less intelligent breed with each other while the smartr of the species seek each other out. If the only goal is survival, then even cigarettes are playing their roll, helping to eliminate the weaker ones of the species and reducing their ability to reproduce. You're correct, having 'inferior' humans as part of the pool does nothing to prevent our 'evolution' as long as they do not interbreed with those of the species who are in the process of evolving. It would be wrong to assume that the evolutionary process has just stopped with the 21st century.

You still aren't getting it.

1) Few people die from smoking related illness BEFORE they breed so cigarrettes are not playing a role in evolution.

2) Populations evolve, not individuals so your comment on 'do not interbreed with those of the species who are in the process of evolving' is meaningless. EVERYBODY in a population is part of the evolution of a population because they ALL provide the variety needed for the environment to select on. Evolution is only affected by things that prevent breeding an the survival until breeding happens (such as the ability to locate and use food sources). Sexual selection does play a role, but as our society shows, the issues you discuss have little affect.

3) Isolation will play more of a role in human evolution (as it does in animal evolution) than anything you discuss.

The rest has to do with social issues, not one of which has anything to do with affecting individuals ability to breed or physically survive, so, nothing to do with evolution - again.

 

[gluadys]

I totally agree with the first couple sentences. You may want to update your sources of information as the peppered moth scenerio is outdated and proves nothing of evolution. Or maybe that was the point you were trying to make.

I am updated. In spite of all the foofarah made about these experiments, the fact remains they were and are a good example of adaptation through natural selection.

 

[Gold Dragon]

You should really not expect that your particular take on evolution is the only one.

I never said it was the only one. However, none of the accepted takes on evolution are about the "improving" of a species. If you are going to attack evolution, try to be informed about what you are attacking.

I also included links to other sources to show that it isn't just me that views evolution this way.

Most of what you post disagrees with darwinism as well as theistic evolution.

Not at all. Maybe YEC sites are teaching that darwinism and theistic evolution believe that evolution is about "improving" species, but those YEC sites, as usual, are incorrect.

There is more than your interpretation of evolution and what it is, just as there is more than your interpretation of the bible

I never denied this fact that there is more than simply my interpretation of evolution and the bible. Although since I have never explained my view of both to you, why is it that you know this too.

 

[herev]

1) Few people die from smoking related illness BEFORE they breed

lol, I have to ask, does anyone die BEFORE they breed

 

[Gold Dragon]

lol, I have to ask, does anyone die BEFORE they breed

I guess it ruins the joke, but sperm or egg donors can.

 

[notto]

lol, I have to ask, does anyone die BEFORE they breed

Ok, Ok, It sounded good in my head.

1) Smoking related illness doesn't affect the populations traits because they doesn't significantly affect the survivability of an individual before they reach breeding age.

 

[Vance]

You should really not expect that your particular take on evolution is the only one. Most of what you post disagrees with darwinism as well as theistic evolution. There is more than your interpretation of evolution and what it is, just as there is more than your interpretation of the bible.

This is a typical YEC response. They set up a strawman version of evolution, one which is really atheism, or which is simply not the mainstream view, or whatever, and then argue against that evolution, since it is easier to dispute than the real thing. When someone points out what evolution really says, the response is that WE don't know what evolution is, since what we are describing doesn't fit their strawman version.

 

[TwinCrier]

"We must love them both, those whose opinions we share and those whose opinions we reject. For both have labored in the search for truth and both have helped us in the finding of it." -- St. Thomas Aquinashttp://www.narrow-way.net

 

[TwinCrier]

This is a typical YEC response. They set up a strawman version of evolution, one which is really atheism, or which is simply not the mainstream view, or whatever, and then argue against that evolution, since it is easier to dispute than the real thing. When someone points out what evolution really says, the response is that WE don't know what evolution is, since what we are describing doesn't fit their strawman version.

This is the typical TE response. Just accuse YECs of not knowing what we're talking about. All that stuff we read in school about evolution isn't REALLY what evolution is about. Only those who BELIEVE evolution really understand it.

 

[Vance]

This is the typical TE response. Just accuse YECs of not knowing what we're talking about. All that stuff we read in school about evolution isn't REALLY what evolution is about. Only those who BELIEVE evolution really understand it.

I don't know what you learned in school, but we have asked you many times over to read up on how scientists describe biological evolution. It is NOT what you seem to think it is. We don't make this stuff up, you know.

 

[Micaiah]

Okay, I'll start off with a simple description of evolution.

Firstly evolution asserts that there are small changes that occur in populations of animals, and these changes become part of the gene pool through natural selection. A small change gives a survival advantage, and the change then becomes part of the population. No argument with this from YEC's. We'd go further and say that this variability in populations is further evidence of the omniscience of God. He made it possible for animals to adapt to their environment, which is what you would expect from God.

Where we part camp with the TE's is in the general theory postulated by Darwin that this process of small change and natural selection resulted in all the animals we see today. They claim it started with basic incredients of life, and presto the first living thingy came into existence. This was very simple. Somehow it managed to reproduce itself and then, after many millions of years the small changes and natural selection resulted in all the lifeforms we see today. This is the fairy tale part of the theory. You really got to wonder why anyone would ascribe this process to the all powerful and omniscient Creator who pronounced His creation good at each stage of the process.

Back to the question in hand. It seems logical to me if humans got to top of the food chain through this process, then why not accelerate it and build a super race through careful genetic screening. From an evolutionary perspective, what is wrong with wiping out inferior lifeforms that threaten our happy existence. If God used this life and death struggle and called it good, why is it wrong when applied to human populations today?

It was under this pretext that Darwin and others considered those called 'primitive' to be sub human. Australian aboriginals were shot dead because they were considered sub human.

 

[Micaiah]

I am updated. In spite of all the foofarah made about these experiments, they were and are a good example of adaptation through natural selection.

the fact remains

That would be likfe the 'fact' of evolution I take it. As I recall YEC responses the last time we discussed this topic left you lost for words. If you have something more to add to supoort your case feel free to drag the thread out of the archives.

 

[Vance]

No, Micaiah, you still have it wrong. The theory of evolution says nothing at all about how life started. That is a different subject altogether, and yes, right now, it is all speculation. But it has nothing to do with evolution itself.

Once again, we see a strawman version of evolution set up and then knocked down.

But what about evolution itself? Your first paragraph has it basically right, and you agree with the mechanics. All you seem to disagree about is whether it could be the cause of a sufficient development to explain all of our current species and those that came before (considering that the vast majority of species that have ever lived on this earth have been extinct for a very long time).

We have the evidence of the fossil record and the dating of those fossils that fit the model of evolutionary development amazingly well. We have the new genetic information which shows the connections between the various living species that matches up with what biological evolution would expect. The bottom line is that there is no good reason NOT to accept the theory of evolution as the best explanation for the development of the species on this planet other than a literal reading of Genesis. That is why 99.84% of scientists (which obviously includes the vast majority of Christian scientists) DO accept it. It is a very, very rare case where someone thinks it is not the best explanation without having thelogical reasons for doing so.

 

[tryptophan]

Could you elaborate on how and/or why it is unethical. Is it something you read in the bible? And why is it not ethical when done to animals?

To me, it feels like another form of racism. It's like a person is saying that somebody who is not perfect in every way is less desirable.

 

[Micaiah]

No, Micaiah, you still have it wrong. The theory of evolution says nothing at all about how life started. That is a different subject altogether, and yes, right now, it is all speculation. But it has nothing to do with evolution itself.

Once again, we see a strawman version of evolution set up and then knocked down.

But what about evolution itself? Your first paragraph has it basically right, and you agree with the mechanics. All you seem to disagree about is whether it could be the cause of a sufficient development to explain all of our current species and those that came before (considering that the vast majority of species that have ever lived on this earth have been extinct for a very long time).

We have the evidence of the fossil record and the dating of those fossils that fit the model of evolutionary development amazingly well. We have the new genetic information which shows the connections between the various living species that matches up with what biological evolution would expect. The bottom line is that there is no good reason NOT to accept the theory of evolution as the best explanation for the development of the species on this planet other than a literal reading of Genesis. That is why 99.84% of scientists (which obviously includes the vast majority of Christian scientists) DO accept it. It is a very, very rare case where someone thinks it is not the best explanation without having thelogical reasons for doing so.

If you say evolution is biogenesis, then yes, evolution starts after life began.

Darwin didn't know how the small changes occured. He didn't have the insights into genetics we have today. The NDT was the result of discoveries made in genetics where is was postulated that the changes resulted from point mutation resulting from copying errors. The problem is that there is only one possible case which we agree represents an increase in genetic information. But this is a process that is supposed to be responsible for evolution. The process of natural selection consistently results in a loss of genetic information rather than a gain in genetic information.

If your examples of DNA similarities are anything like the 99.?% similarity between Chimp and human DNA, lets just say I don't find them convincing.

You claim the fossil record confirms evolution. Again I am not convinced.

It is false logic to claim the number of people that support a belief are proof of the validity of a belief. What we do know as a fact is that people are a lot like sheep. They like to follow the crowd. Unfortunately, Christians are no exception, especially when there is a strong material incentive to follow the crowd. The question is whether Christian scientists who believe in evolution do so because of the sheep mentality, or because they genuinely believe the evidence confirms the belief.

That is something they need to answer. What I have noted is that many of the arguments raised in this forum by TE's are easily rebutted by reading lierature on the YEC websites, which indicates to me not a lack of evidence and rationale for accepting the truth plainly taught in Genesis, but a lack of interest in investigating this evidence. That to me is an indicator of the sheep mentality.

 

[tryptophan]

I'm sorry, Micaiah. I just don't trust the YEC sites. Too much of what I've seen is downright wrong (such as the invocation of the "2nd Law of Thermodynamics").

 

[Maccie]

Well, at least tryptophan and Micaiaih know something about what they are talking about, even if they don't believe it! The ignorance shown by some on these sites amazes me. Or do they just believe what they are told to believe by their Pastors or whoever?

I really don't see how anyone can make up their mind on any subject, unless they try to understand what the opposition is saying. And that applies to politics, religion and life generally.