How an Evangelical Creationist Accepted Evolution

[driewerf]

To the average person evolution and creation are equally mysterious, and belief in either requires faith. Personally speaking creation lies more comfortably in my mind. I don't get the warm fuzzies when thinking about evolution.

"Ve get so soon oldt und so late schmardt, better ve chust go fishing." (Old German proverb.)

1) Evolution isn't mysterious. It can be explained very easily.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

2) The ToE is a scientific theory. It doesn't requires faith. Just some time to study it. You are right about creationism though. That can only be accepted on faith.

3) A scientific theory is not accepted by some vague notion as "comfort in the mind", neither on the warm fuzzies it gives. It is acepted based on what the evidence says.

In a nutshell, OlWiseGuy, you have given the best post possible about why creationism and science are complete opposite.

I perused the link. What it calls 'simple' masks a very complex theory. It seems to want to draw you in with simple examples that really have little to do with the real theory.

1) Of course the link a gave was to a summary of what the ToE is. The purpose was to demonstrate that it can be explained easily. Easy implies indeed some simplification. Do you want a full college course on paleontology?

2) You obviously ignored the other points.

 

[SkyWriting]

Creationists quite often try to argue against evolution by focusing only on random mutation. Or by focusing only on natural selection. This is a very wrong way to look at evolution and will always get you the wrong answer. You need to consider the action of both forces, not just one.

You make a good point about how it's useless to try and guess backwards.

He reconciles them by realizing that they are answering different questions.

He was already not forcing them together so his position hasn't changed.

 

[SkyWriting]

Yes there are, but that does not alter the fact that Europeans, as a whole, carry a mutant gene which enables them to digest lactose.

It's just called a natural variation. Twin sisters are not mutants of each other.

 

[lesliedellow]

I figured you wouldn't. It means the small incremental changes supposedly caused by the so-called beneficial mutation would be out of the resolution of natural selection.

Still senseless.

 

[lesliedellow]

It's just called a natural variation. Twin sisters are not mutants of each other.

If they are identical twins, then a single fertilised ovum split in two, and they have identical DNA.

If they are not identical, then they will contain copies of their parent's DNA, which will have mutated in different ways.

 

[The Cadet]

Nope...the process you claim was derived by a process containing random chance....where most changes would not even be close to beneficial......tweaking a code...increasing information....can't possible happen by accident.

Please formulate your argument as a syllogism.

 

[-57]

That's just more word salad.

-CryptoLutheran

How big must the change be? One of the red words in "How big must the change be?" is a different rshade of ed chosen from the font color slection pallet. If I didn't mention it you would have not even noticed. That slight color change could represent a beneficial mutation causing a slight incremental change...that like you just did, natural selection would also overlook.

The change must be bigger than the evolutionary noise and within the resolution of natural selection.

 

[lesliedellow]

How big must the change be? One of the red words in "How big must the change be?" is a different rshade of ed chosen from the font color slection pallet. If I didn't mention it you would have not even noticed. That slight color change could represent a beneficial mutation causing a slight incremental change...that like you just did, natural selection would also overlook.

The change must be bigger than the evolutionary noise and within the resolution of natural selection.

It is pretty obvious that you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[-57]

Please formulate your argument as a syllogism.

Tweaking a computer code requires intelligence. Increasing information in a code requires intelligence...especially to the point of increased noticed multiple acts of sophistication. Deductive reasoning easily establishes the requirement for intelligence.

The code, information contained in DNA is far more sophisticated than a computer code. The process that developed the code used to construct and manipulate the multiple acts of sophistication must require a level of intelligence.

 

[-57]

It is pretty obvious that you don't know what you are talking about.

Looks like you're de-eolving and have become somewhat colorblind. But, for you to deny the change has to NOT be big enough..is truly amazing.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The change must be bigger than the evolutionary noise and within the resolution of natural selection.

That's not how natural selection works. It doesn't look for "big changes", because "it" doesn't look for anything. Natural selection is the term used by science to describe the complex reality that, within populations of organisms, some mutations result in favorable traits that end up being passed on to succeeding generations.

It's easier to explain this using more obvious examples--like the loss of fur pigmentation in polar bears--but the same process are involved in far smaller and subtler mutations. It's the same process, regardless of whether the "change" is "big" or not.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[lesliedellow]

Looks like you're de-eolving and have become somewhat colorblind. But, for you to deny the change has to NOT be big enough..is truly amazing.

Like I said, you don't know what you are talking about. "Evolutionary noise" is just a meaningless phrase which you have made up.

 

[-57]

That's not how natural selection works. It doesn't look for "big changes", because "it" doesn't look for anything. Natural selection is the term used by science to describe the complex reality that, within populations of organisms, some mutations result in favorable traits that end up being passed on to succeeding generations.

It's easier to explain this using more obvious examples--like the loss of fur pigmentation in polar bears--but the same process are involved in far smaller and subtler mutations. It's the same process, regardless of whether the "change" is "big" or not.

-CryptoLutheran

The "favorable traits" must be a change big enough to be selected. My red word post clearly showed that. Your loss of fur pigmentation in polar bears....clearly should show that the loss of color change must be huge to give a bear an advantage to survive over another bear. A slight pigmentation change means nothing...it is within the noise and out of the resolution of natural selection.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You make a good point about how it's useless to try and guess backwards.

And you have an amazing inability to misunderstand. No one is guessing in the world of evolution. Well. creationists are, but that goes without saying.

 

[lesliedellow]

The "favorable traits" must be a change big enough to be selected. My red word post clearly showed that. Your loss of fur pigmentation in polar bears....clearly should show that the loss of color change must be huge to give a bear an advantage to survive over another bear. A slight pigmentation change means nothing...it is within the noise and out of the resolution of natural selection.

Please explain how the acuity of human vision has got anything whatsoever to do with evolution or natural selection.

 

[-57]

Like I said, you don't know what you are talking about. "Evolutionary noise" is just a meaningless phrase which you have made up.

How big must the change be?

 

[Subduction Zone]

How big must the change be?

Very small.

 

[-57]

Please explain how the acuity of human vision has got anything whatsoever to do with evolution or natural selection.

Considering how you missed the color change quiz...perhaps if you had red bug crawling around in green grass...crawling right next to a green bug...which one would you more than likely step on if you're paying attention?

 

[lesliedellow]

How big must the change be?

Any change which will enhance an organism's reproductive success in its environment will be selected for.

 

[-57]

Any change which will enhance an organism's reproductive success in its environment will be selected for.

If it's big enough.