[PERMANENTLY CLOSED] How can you not believe in Evolution?!

[random_guy]

Alica, don't withold faith in God over that reason. Believing in 6 day creation, to my understanding, is NOT a salvation issue. I myself believe in literal creation, but I don't think Christ will turn his back on you if you don't! Let him reveal himself to you.

This is exactly right. Whether or not you believe in 6 day creation or Creationism or Evolution, it is not a savlation issue. Don't let a silly debate about science and religion influence your decision of becoming/staying a Christian.

 

[Chalnoth]

However, if Evolution is a true (at least, the part where humans come from a tiny bacteria) why aren't bacteria evolving into more complex beings within our bodies? Why aren't people in Industrialized countries evolving into more complex beings, since we are the ones surviving and thrivng? Why don't people obtain immunities to allergies, the common cold, flu?

1. The time scale for single-celled organisms to develop into multicellular organisms is of the order of hundreds of millions of years, and a primitive multicellular organism would likely be killed off very quickly by today's much better-adapted multicellular organisms. So not only are we unlikely to observe such a mutation, but it is more unlikely that it would survive.

2. People in third-world countries are more likely to be undergoing rapid evolution today, because they are multiplying more rapidly, and larger portions of their populations are dying before giving childbirth. In industrialized nations, the survival rates are so high that there is essentially zero natural selection going on. All that said, however, the rates of evolution are very slow. It takes dozens to hundreds of generations for most noticeable changes to occur. And yet, we still do have some examples of evolution in humans (for brevity, I won't discuss them here).

3. Allergies are rarely fatal, and thus aren't much affected by natural selection today (one might see allergies as an effect of natural degradation of the genome due to the lack of selection that humans have experienced for some time now). People do develop immunities to the common cold and the flu, but these viruses themselves mutate very quickly. We are quite well-adapted to resisting these viruses, and thus once we are exposed to one once, we usually cannot get infected again (thus the benefit of vaccines). But once a new strain mutates, people who were infected with a previous strain may not have any resistance to the new strain.

My brother said this once: In genetic mutations and even minor cases of natural selection, the number of genes in the affected creature doesn't increase. Mutations and evolution only change what's already present or degrade what is present;

This isn't true. There are a few types of mutations that add genes to the genome.

First, it is possible for a gene to be copied wholesale from somewhere else in the genome. If this mutation is passed on, each copy of the gene will undergo a separate path of evolution (since the mutations in one part of the genome are unrelated to mutations in another).

Second, entire chromosomes can be copied. This is, for example, the cause of Down's syndrome. These mutations are unlikely to be beneficial, but not always.

Third, retroviruses copy themselves by first inserting themselves into the DNA of a host cell. In rare cases, a mutation during insertion occurs, and the virus is not duplicated. If the cell is not killed by this mutation, it will retain the DNA from the virus. In the very rare cases where this infection is in a sex cell, the mutation is passed on to future generations (this is a good way to test for common descent: due to the rarity and distinctiveness of this mutation, one can trace common descent over millions of years).

if it were otherwise, why aren't people with cancer evolving into stronger beings instead of just dieing?

This should be no surprise. Most mutations either have no effect, or are not beneficial. Even if one did develop a mutation within the body that could, in principle, be beneficial, most cells in the body don't divide very often, and thus the mutation wouldn't spread throughout the body. The only exception is a mutation that an be passed on to a child: in the sperm or egg. Mutations can only realisticaly be benficial if it exists in a significant portion of the cells in the organism, if not all.

 

[random_guy]

aw.. son of a *****...

Remember, this was well before evolution was on the scene, so there wasn't a conspiracy by evolutionists to cause this to occur. As for your comment about how science is better now, that's correct. Science is better which makes a global flood even less likely. Now you'll find less than 1% of earth scientists accept a Young Earth (which I assume about the same would accept a Global Flood).

Also, on top of that, ideas that get falsified in science stay falsified. That's why you won't see us bring back geocentric theories due to advances in physics or spontenous generation due to advances in biology.

 

[Chalnoth]

So when scientists date a rock using different types of dating methods, they are usually always accurate and consistant with each other?

Well, not always. Sometimes one of the assumptions turns out to be wrong, but fortunately we have this excellent test of our assumptions. This is why it's very important to make use of multiple dating methods when dating fossils.

 

[RichardT]

2. People in third-world countries are more likely to be undergoing rapid evolution today, because they are multiplying more rapidly, and larger portions of their populations are dying before giving childbirth. In industrialized nations, the survival rates are so high that there is essentially zero natural selection going on. All that said, however, the rates of evolution are very slow. It takes dozens to hundreds of generations for most noticeable changes to occur. And yet, we still do have some examples of evolution in humans (for brevity, I won't discuss them here).

Interesting, this just goes to show that evolution works best in a "Social Darwinian" environment, or better known as anarchy.

Well, if the evidence supports it, why not...

 

[JohnR7]

Ever heard of antibiotics? Ever wonder why viruses and bacterial diseases are so difficult to treat? They evolve.

Humans evolve to, does that mean you can not treat them?

 

[Jase]

Humans evolve to, does that mean you can not treat them?

I'm not sure what kind of sense this makes. Could you please translate for me from Johnish to English?

 

[RichardT]

Social Darwinism for teh win

 

[Chalnoth]

Interesting, this just goes to show that evolution works best in a "Social Darwinian" environment, or better known as anarchy.

Well, if the evidence supports it, why not...

Biological evolution. But our societies are now undergoing social evolution. One can, for example, apply the exact same evolutionary principles that one uses in biology to the way cultures and societies have developed, at many levels.

 

[TheBear]

Maybe back then YEC wasn't as advanced as it is now.. And radioactive decay probably wasn't explained back then, they didn't have as many answers as we do now..

Our modern knowledge of the natural world, replaces the unexplained natural world of past civilizations and peoples. Thousands of years ago, unexplained natural occurences and phenomena, were 'explained' by way of myth.

 

[random_guy]

Interesting, this just goes to show that evolution works best in a "Social Darwinian" environment, or better known as anarchy.

Well, if the evidence supports it, why not...

Are you sure about this? What about ants? I wouldn't call ant society anarchy, and it seems very stable. Sharks don't evolve as rapidly as other species because the environment is relatively stable. Are you telling me that according to your ideas on evolution, sharks are bad because they undergo little selective pressure, even though they are the top animals on the food chain? Is evolution not working best in sharks even though they've been around for millions of years? For any example you bring supporting social darwinism, it's just as easy to find contradicting points in nature.

Reason why things such as "social darwinism" occur is because people think science is prescriptive. It's not, it's descriptive.

 

[TheInstant]

Interesting, this just goes to show that evolution works best in a "Social Darwinian" environment, or better known as anarchy.

No, what you quoted shows that evolution works more rapidly in the stated conditions, not that it works "best". I don't even know what "best" would mean in this context.

 

[Chalnoth]

Reason why things such as "social darwinism" occur is because people think science is prescriptive. It's not, it's descriptive.

Science is both. Science must be descriptive in that if a theory doesn't describe reality, it must be rejected. Science must be prescriptive, because if a theory doesn't predict the results of experiments that have yet to be performed or explained, there's no point in bothering with the theory in the first place.

 

[random_guy]

Science is both. Science must be descriptive in that if a theory doesn't describe reality, it must be rejected. Science must be prescriptive, because if a theory doesn't predict the results of experiments that have yet to be performed or explained, there's no point in bothering with the theory in the first place.

Shoot, I used the wrong word then. I was trying to explain that just because gravity says masses attract each other, we shouldn't use this as justification that we shouldn't fly, just like how the founder effect may lead to rapid speciation doesn't mean we should wipe out a bunch of humans to cause rapid evolution.

 

[XTE]

i'm waiting untill one of my posts get on FSTDT, lol..

Yeah, you'd really have to try hard to get on there but you are doing an excellent job so far. I think you'll make it in record time.

Your post make so little sense that I'm inclined to think that getting on FSTDT is your ONLY GOAL. You have to making this stuff up.

hehehehe, Keep up the good work and I'm sure you'll be rewarded.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Science must be prescriptive,


that is not how the word prescriptive is commonly used.
it is used to label an ought, a must be, often a moral term.
in this usage science is descriptive, telling us what the world is not prescriptive telling us what the world ought to me.


the naturalist fallacy is to confuse and conflate the two meanings. trying to create a ought from what is.

glance at the wiki definition of prescriptive
(note the discussion there is about language)
see how normative, should be, and the like are used.

i think that the problem stems from two similiar words

because if a theory doesn't predict the results of experiments that have yet to be performed or explained,

this implies PREDICTIVENESS not prescriptiveness.
predictive has to do with the cause-->effect relationship
saying this ought to follow this other thing.
should as in the logical consequences not should as in a moral ought.

 

[TheInstant]

Are you sure? I don't know, it seems to me that Darwin's Theory of Evolution was based on observations of genetically different birds (not just birds, but that's what I understand about it), trying to explain why some birds had some traits and how they'd come to acquire those traits, which is actually the part of the theory that I see as a real possibility. I mean, bacteria attacking a human body obtain a genetic immunity to the antibiotics we use is believable.

In what was does that contradict the statement: "Every single species has unique traits, and every single species has shared traits. ToE in no way suggests that it should be otherwise."

However, if Evolution is a true (at least, the part where humans come from a tiny bacteria)

Which part is that?

why aren't bacteria evolving into more complex beings within our bodies?

Why should they? Bacteria are doing just fine.

Why aren't people in Industrialized countries evolving into more complex beings, since we are the ones surviving and thrivng?

You just answered your own question.

Why don't people obtain immunities to allergies, the common cold, flu?

Are these things providing large-scale barriers to humans' chances of reproducing?

My brother said this once: In genetic mutations and even minor cases of natural selection, the number of genes in the affected creature doesn't increase. Mutations and evolution only change what's already present or degrade what is present;

Your brother is wrong.

EDIT: Actually, I should say that your brother is correct, mutations only change what is already present. It's just that this doesn't have the implication that you think it does.

if it were otherwise, why aren't people with cancer evolving into stronger beings instead of just dieing?

Because individuals do not evolve.

 

[MartinM]

Actually, I should say that your brother is correct

No, he isn't. The brother said that mutations don't change gene number, which is false. Duplications do, for instance.

 

[Chalnoth]

Shoot, I used the wrong word then. I was trying to explain that just because gravity says masses attract each other, we shouldn't use this as justification that we shouldn't fly, just like how the founder effect may lead to rapid speciation doesn't mean we should wipe out a bunch of humans to cause rapid evolution.

Nah, I misread you, as rmwilliamsll pointed out. Sorry about that.

 

[Kahalachan]

honestly, i do want to be a christian but there are a lot of obstacles in my mind keeping me from having complete faith. First of all i don't understand how people can not believe in evolution and that god just plopped adam and eve down on the earth and that was the beginning of people. First of all Evolution is proven and i know it is hard for people to grasp that concept mostly because people do not have a full understanding of it. Many of my friends just say they can't possibly believe that we came directly from monkeys.. Well we didn't! we didn't come from monkeys! We came from the same branch that monkeys came from. I just believe that Evolution is something that people do not fully comprehend. Honestly the only partake in creating living organisms i think god did was planting down a piece of bacterium (bacterium is where everything came from). I'm just wondering does anyone agree with me here??

(sorry god)

Evolution doesn't dismiss CHristianity. There's plenty of Christians that accept evolution.