Reasonable Evolution. Trix are for rabbits!

[RufusAtticus]

I found this in the youth forum, Silly Evolution, and I am replying to questions raised there.

Originally posted by paulewog
I just wanted somewhere to type out all this stuff that makes, to me, the "science" of evolution really silly.

Well there is an Evolution Forum. I wonder why paulewog didn't want to post it here? Is he afraid of something?

Science deals with the touchable, observable. The supposed evolution is too slow to be observed, and obviously the origin of the world wasn't observed by anyone but God. That makes it outside the realm of science.

Strawman; evolution is not about the origin of the world

Evolution has been observed and tested. Experiments have shown the importance of mutation, selection, drift, and migration, among other things on affecting the heritable variation in a population. We might not have been around to observe past evolutionary events, but we can observe the evidence they left behind. Do people complain that forensic science, astronomy, or high particle physics isn't science because they are unable to observe events directly? What then about evolution make them object?

The langauge of science is math.... you *can't* describe evolution mathematically, can you?

Yes you can. The modern synthesis of evolution, which combined Mendel’s genetics and Darwin’s mechanism, is based heavily on mathematical modeling of gene frequencies in populations. One of the fathers of modern evolutionary biology, R. A. Fisher, is also the father of modern statistics. Why is he the father of modern statistics? He was an agriculture scientist and needed mathematical and statistical techniques to analyze the crop and livestock data he was given.

I’ll be happy to work anyone through some of the mathematics of evolution. That is what I’m getting my doctorate in.

Evolution relies on 'chance.' There is no chance in science. For that matter, what IS chance?

There is no "chance" in science? I guess paulewog has never heard of quantum mechanics. Uncertainty anyone?

Besides evolution isn't about chance. Mutations are random, but selection acts as a filter on this random noise to produce something that is not random anymore.

The process of evolution is simply the imperfect replication of the ability to successfully replicate.

Originally posted by Angelo
lol yeah, and whats up with that being taught in school? That in itself is a form of religion and should be kept out of every school.

Evolution is scientific. It is no more a religion than meteorology, microbiology, or astronomy. Evolution is being taught in school because, as the pious Christian and pioneer evolutionary geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky observed,
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."

Another thing wrong with evolution is they call it a theory, yet they preac it as if it were the truth.

Evolution is both a fact and a theory. The fact of evolution is that the properties of populations of organisms, or frequencies of such properties, change over time. The theory of evolution explains this observation by identifying mechanisms that are responsible for it. Such mechanisms include mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, and isolation.

Originally posted by paulewog
Dating methods are messed up too, so.... hehe

I invite paulewog to read the following link to educate himself on dating methods.
Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective

Originally posted by 30a2
Well, evolution and adptation are two different things

Adaptation is evolution, although not all evolution is adaptation.

Originally posted by zyzychyn
I mean, come ON. They say theories are as good as facts in this case, but they're not. Everything evolution says is evidence for it can be interpreted to support creation.

Really now? Pseudogenes, bad design, congruence of phylogenic and morphological trees, biogeography, the fossil record, are just some of the pieces of evidence that cannot be explained by creation hypotheses.

They don't mention all the little problems with the theory.

The core of evolutionary theory hasn’t changed in almost 60 years. It’s been added to, and there is still much that we are trying to figure out. However, there is no evidence that contradicts current evolutionary theories. Creationists claim this all the time but none of their examples have ever held up.

Originally posted by wblastyn
Evolution is real, you can see it in nature. . . .

Oh and I don't think humans share a common ancestor with apes, I believe we are created in the image of God.

IOW, I believe in Microevolution:

Microevolution refers to varieties within a given type. Change happens within a group, but the descendant is clearly of the same type as the ancestor. This might better be called variation, or adaptation, but the changes are "horizontal" in effect, not "vertical." Such changes might be accomplished by "natural selection," in which a trait within the present variety is selected as the best for a given set of conditions, or accomplished by "artificial selection," such as when dog breeders produce a new breed of dog.

If you believe this, then according to your understanding of microevolution, humans and the other apes share a common ancestor. A human is just a variation of the primate type.

Originally posted by zyzychyn
Yes, I know microevolution is real, I'd never dispute that. The evolution taught in schools is macroevolution, though, and I don't belive that at all...

There is no mechanistic difference between microevolution and macroevolution, both are evolution. The only difference is on our scale of looking at things. The distinctions between microevolution and macroevolution are simply an artifact of our limited perceptions. The same natural forces responsible for microevolution (variation with in a biological species) are responsible for macroevolution (variation between biological species). This has been repeatedly confirmed by modern genetics.

 

[LadyShea]

Excellent post Rufus...how soon until we can call you "Doctor"?

 

[RufusAtticus]

I'll probably have my PhD in three years.

 

[Chris H]

Amazing how all of the people actually study the stuff belive in it, isn't it?

Chris

 

[Chris H]

And Rufus if I'm ever in Georgia I'd love to buy you lunch sometime.

Your demolition of "silly Evolution" was wonderful BTW.

Chris

 

[RufusAtticus]

Thanx, Chris H.

I can't post in the youth forum. Would someone like to post a link to this thread there? I really want these High Schoolers to learn something.

 

[seebs]

Most of us aren't allowed; I've been told not to post there 'cuz I'm not a teen. So, the teens/youth forum has a bit of the "blind leading the blind" problem.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Hewitt is a mod of both E/C and the Youth fourm. I have asked him to post the link.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Well, the links are up. Thanx, Hewitt and Falcon. I hope members of the youth forum find their way over here.

Don't be shy; ask your questions and respond to my comments.

If you don't understand something I have said or a term I have used, feel free to ask.

 

[wblastyn]

If you believe this, then according to your understanding of microevolution, humans and the other apes share a common ancestor. A human is just a variation of the primate type.

Ok then maybe I don't believe in microevolution, but I do believe evolution occurs, just that it isn't responsible for the origin of man.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Hi wblastyn,

Why isn't evolution responsible for the origin of man, in your view?

 

[Billy the Kid]

I have a question on Evolution (well sorta).
Did Dinosaurs come before man or were they both living at the same time?

 

[Lacmeh]

I am not up to the latest developments concerning evolution, but as far as I know, dinosaurs were far earlier than mankind and generally speaking the mammals we know of today. In their environment dinosaurs had the edge. Perhpas there was a time, when they lived together, but it couldn´t have been long.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Dinosaurs originated in the Triassic Period 225 million years ago. The Dinosauria

Modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) are only 120,000 years old.

Humans and dinosaurs do live together, except that modern dinosaurs have feathers and wings.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Okay. It looks like I have some more stuff to comment on.

Originally posted by paulewog
Ok. If evolution is right, then Genesis has problems, because Genesis can not be interpreted any other way than a literal 24 hour creation. That is, not without using a horrible way of interpreting it. The language points to a literal interpretation, the idioms used point to a literal interpretation.

The Church used to think that the language of the Bible clearly pointed to a earth centered universe. The same thing with disease being caused demonic possession and sin. In fact, not too long ago, creationists even denied that creatures change or that extinctions could occur. People have even been using a “literal” interpretation of the bible to predict the end of the world for centuries. I wonder what makes paulewog so sure that his interpretation is the True Interpretation (TM).

This brings up another question, if I can show you, paulewog, how evolution does indeed exist does that automatically make your faith worthless?

Seriously though, it is. It's messed up. And it simply doesn't fit in Scripture.. if you can force Genesis to conform to evolution, then you can do pretty much anything with the whole Bible.

Well Genesis doesn’t fit Genesis because of two separate and distinct creation stories (Genesis 1 versus Genesis 2). Most Christians who accept evolution don’t force Genesis to conform to evolution. They just recognize genesis for what it is, ancient Hebrew creation stories. The significance of Genesis is not that God spent a week making the Earth, but that God bothered to do it at all.

A LOT of things can be proven "Biblically," including the health-wealth-and-prosperity stuff. It all comes from not studying right... putting your own opinions in instead of taking God's opinions out

I’m guessing that paulewog has some special ability to know what God’s opinions are that the rest of humanity lacks. The fact is that everyone puts their own opinions in when reading scripture. If there was one obvious true way to read scripture, then there wouldn’t be so many different denominations and disagreements among Christians.

No, that's not true. Medication is not based on evolution. Of course, a lot of this 'new' medicine today is really wacky anyways, but that's another topic.

Actually, most medications now are based on evolution. The field of biotechnology would not work without evolution. It would be impossible to clone and manipulate genes without understanding the processes of evolution.

I'll say it again, evolution is not in the Bible. You do not get evolution FROM the Bible.

I'm surprised so many people believe it...

Penguins aren’t in the Bible, yet we some how still manage to believe in them. Some of us have even seen them!

Originally posted by Trinai
It's called common design.

Why would Humans, which were made in God’s image, share any similarities with dirty animals that were not?

Originally posted by paulewog
It seems to me that many, many research people are creationists. In fact, many scientists are, even some well-known ones.

Do you know of any present (well-known) biologists who believe that special creation is an adequate explanation for the diversity of life?

More specifically, do you know of any population biologists (the people who are most familiar with the theories and evidence of evolution), who believe that special creation is an adequate explanation for the diversity of life?

So, just because we test a medicine on rats.... that means I evolved from rats? Errr, I thought it was monkeys

Humans share common ancestors with both monkeys and rats.

I do have a question though. Evolution is chance, right?

No, as it has already been addressed.

With God, there is no chance.... how does that work?

Quantum Mechanics

(speaking of the which, how is it that scientific people say evolution is scientific when it relies completely on chance - "chance" is not a scientific thing...)

Sounds like a man who hasn’t suffered through freshmen statistics.

Originally posted by Archangel
But I do think evolution is silly, I mean, think about it...All it is stating is that we (people) came from little squirmy unicellular organisms smaller than anything than the human eyes can see...Kinda dumb...

Tell that to the sperm and ovum that fused to produce you. It takes 9 months to go from single cell to a human infant. Does Archangel think gestation is “kinda dumb?”

Originally posted by paulewog
Actually, Mr. Caff, that makes it even more silly to me. Especially since that big number, four billion, just kept getting bigger and bigger and bigger, and evolutionists had to keep changing their theory.

I wonder if paulewog can identify these changes? Darwin’s natural selection hasn’t changed since he first proposed it. Neither have any of the other mechanisms of evolution. The modern synthesis only merged the competing mechanisms into one understanding of evolutionary change. The theory of evolution change very little in the first 80 years and hasn’t changed at all in the last 60 years. Like all good theories, it’s been added to and refined but nothing has changed.

As to the supernatural being that is unknowable, where do you get that? We do believe He is knowable. Not everything about Him, of course, because He is above us. But unknowable? Hardly. In fact, I (and maaany many many others here) believe that you need a personal relationship with Him.

But yet Christian’s can’t agree on how to structure that personable relationship. The supernatural is unknowable since it is not testable and not predictable. “God did it” is not an explanation since it can explain anything.

Originally posted by Trinai
Who says it had four billion years? Oh, that's right, various radioactive decay rates with which we are starting to find problems.

Originally posted by paulewog
major problems, actually....

how much decay was there to begin with?

Originally posted by Trinai
...
....
The real question is whether or not radioactive decay rates can be affected by outside phenomena, and if so, whether or not this has occured.

Please, Trinai and paulewog, read the following article to educate yourselves on radiometric dating.

Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective

 

[Annabel Lee]

Rufus, that was great.
Everytime I read one of your posts I learn something.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Thanx Annabel.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Bump.

 

[RufusAtticus]

More stuff to reply to. I really hope these high-schoolers are keeping track of this thread. But maybe the blind want to be led by the blind.

Originally posted by paulewog
Hm. I don't like it when people say "read this" instead of posting their own answers.... for one simple reason: that makes me read a bunch more stuff

It’s called using sources. There is no sense in reinventing the wheel every time.

But really, we probably won't get anywhere.... evolutionists won't agree that their dating is inaccurate (even though it's not even PRECISE ), and I will never agree that it is accurate, because the accuracy seems to change extensively over the years.

Well creationists haven’t shown that dating methods are inaccurate. They huff and puff about anomalous readings, but don’t care to realize that science knows about the anomalies and that dating methods predict where these anomalies would occur. That is because, like all scientific measurements, radiometric dating rests on a few assumptions. If a sample violates any of these assumptions then it can’t be accurately dated. However, most samples do not violate these assumptions so it is not a problem.

The reason why the ages keep getting larger is that our methods keep getting better. Most dating techniques establish a lower bound to the age. If we accurately date the origin of a rock to 3.5 billion years ago, then the earth has to be at least 3.5 billion years ago.

Although our calculations have changed in the past, one thing hasn’t. The earth is not young.

Originally posted by paulewog
Also, evolutionists can't agree how the world started. Soup, big bang, or what.

Of course evolutionists can’t agree on this, since “evolutionist” doesn’t have anything to do with the origins of the world or universe.

And, lastly... how is it considered science? Is "chance" scientific?

Do I have to answer this again?

Originally posted by paulewog
Actually it does destroy God - destroys the need for Him.

So God only exists because we need Him? Did He disappear because we discovered that the world was round and not at the center of the universe? Did He disappear when we discovered that lightening was the result of static electricity? Did He disappear when we discovered that weather was caused by natural forces? Why then should finding out that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and that the universe is much older, make Him disappear?

As far as I know, I thought science was all about repeatable things. Statistics is predictable, evolution is not. Evolution is pure chance, it's not at all mathematical (as statistics is).

I already addressed this in my first post, which I’m sure paulewog read. Hint: R.A. Fisher.

Originally posted by Carlitos
Joe, how do explain superfously complex biological mechanisms like the clotting cascade or DNA replication, translation, and all that other junk? Do evolutionists have some kind of explanation for how stuff like this came about?

The quick explanation is “mutation filtered by natural selection.” More detailed explanations for these can be found here/

Another thing, a popular argument out there against creationism is that their supporters do not follow regular scientific procedures, etc, that are not real scientists and whatnot. This was a pretty common thing in the link you posted.

The absence of critical peer-review is pretty much a death knell to anyone claiming that creationists are scientific.

Well, for one thing, the argument of creationism is a whole lot more than a denial of rational thinking. There are many real scientists out there who use real science and find just as many holes in the evolution story than evolutionists find in the creation story.

I challenge Carlitos to find me a single hole in the theory of evolution.

 

[seebs]

I have to say, Rufus seems to have a better handle on at least one Christian belief than paulewog; God doesn't exist "because we need Him". Furthermore, our relationship for God has very little to do with how our distant ancestors got to be shaped the way they were, and a lot to do with how we exist, today.

I think it's a sad, sad, day for Christianity when people add qualifiers on their faith such as "Only if evolution is false do I believe". I think God is worth a bit more than that.