Understanding Evolution [moved from P&LS]

[expos4ever]

It would only "speak volumes" to an uncritical thinker who doesn't know the difference between hearsay and evaluation of proposed hypotheses and subsequent theory.

The "critical thinker" would rapidly conclude that the notion that the moon landings were faked is, frankly, laughably implausible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is baseless rhetoric. Finding an outcropping of fossils will not yield any data but inanimate objects. Finding inanimate objects does nothing. Am I to presume you've done nothing in the way of verification of that theory you accept?

You could not be more wrong. In fact you rely on the work of paleontologists every day. And you might as well say that a murder cannot be solved by using DNA since that is an inanimate object. Since your rhetorical question only shows a lack of knowledge on the subject I will let it be.

My reasoning for not becoming involved with testing of the Theory of Evolution is: I do not care whether it is true or not, and its veracity has no meaning to me. Therefore there is no reason for me to engage in meaningless pursuits yielding empty theory.

It may have no personal meaning. But I doubt it. If that is the case why are you even debating it? If you don't care to learn how scientists know that it is correct your are in no position to be opposing it.

You are confusing the Theory of Evolution with the fact. The original post is clearly speaking of the theory. I presume you understand the difference? The fact of evolution is summarily: things change. This is axiomatic and not in any way, shape or form a scientific theory. Facts are datum.

No, I am not. Theories explain facts. Evolution has been observed in many different ways and the theory of evolution explains that fact. And evolution is much more than your empty summary.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Physics is a description of facts. You don't understand the difference between theory and fact. Why have you suddenly abandoned the Theory of Evolution in this discussion?

As is biology. And please no false accusations. I did not abandon the theory of evolution. I used a simple analogy. Creationists as a rule do not seem to understand analogies.

Hearsay is witness apart from observation. What do you think it is?

Close enough. Then by that standard the Moon landing is not hearsay.

 

[John Hyperspace]

The "critical thinker" would rapidly conclude that the notion that the moon landings were faked is, frankly, laughably implausible.

I note you have nothing to say concerning the veracity of the Theory of Evolution but are now relying on insult of a completely different topic. Further avoidance of topic will be taken as concession of defeat.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

1) Figure out what people do and don't understand about the Theory of Evolution (what they accept as true vs what they don't accept)

I under the basic concept of 'survival of the fittest' and the basic concept of 'change of alleles over time'. I'm sort of familiar with genes and chromosomes. Some the genes and chromosomes I used to know has been changed since high school.

I accept it generally. I do not accept the rather shaky conclusion this combined idea (and yes, I know what theory means) logically rules out the 'need' for God. God created the Universe and that includes all the laws, rules, principles and addenda which governs the operation and function of the Universe. If 'evolution' exists in any form, God established it.

2) Figure out what information people commonly use as source material for their views on evolution.

Hmmm. I'm not really into biology. I have read the textbooks available in high school. (The dinosaurs were very sick by that time.) I tend to read the occasional releases of discoveries in the various news sources on line. I try to find the source documents rather than the stuff glopped together by a 'journalist' who doesn't know how to capitalize and concentrates on whatever sensational headline can be ginned up to sell space.

I am much more a fan and student - dilettante? - of astronomy and cosmology. I have read and still read much of the books and informational material I can find about such.

Some of my Christian colleagues tend to confuse biological evolution which deals with the 'Origin of Species' (pun intended, I suppose) with the astronomy and geology indicating the age of the Universe - and the Sun, and the Earth.

So, for people who do not accept evolution (or who posit some additional supernatural element to it, like adding a creator/designer that "guides" or "directs" evolution), what is it about the Theory of Evolution you do not accept and why?

In my case, it's not so much I don't accept the theory, I don't accept the conclusions of some interested parties.

The idea of 'proving' God doesn't exist because He doesn't appear in a test tube or equation is both facile and puerile.

Also, in my misspent youth I recall reading something - not from a Christian or otherwise 'religious' source - which called into question the time involved in 'random' genetic changes. I must confess I do not recall what it was or how to locate it.

In addition to this, what resources do you (or have you) explored with respect to the science? (books, journals, classes, degrees, blogs, news sites, etc).

Already answered, I trust.

At this point I will also lay claim to a rather comprehensive knowledge of the Bible, what it says and what it does NOT say. I probably get as much flak from the "Young Earth Creationist" (YEC) faction as I do from the 'science proves there's no god' (no-god) faction.

In addition to the latter question, what do you think the reliability is of the sources people choose?

"...sources people choose..."? Which people?

Are all sources equal?

Sources vary. There are rather wild-eyed sorts on the extreme edges of both sides. I've read any number of 'items' from the YEC groups citing wild claims, un-corroborated by paleontology or the Bible. I've also read about the same number of 'items' from the no-god groups using Unidentified Flying Objects and alien civilizations to substantiate their claims.

Are only sources that agree with your opinion reliable?

That is the problem, isn't it?

What makes one source better than another source?

Obviously, the one that agrees with me is the well researched, intellectual and reliable source. [He breathes on his nails, then buffs them.]

Christians do - not surprisingly - rely on the Bible. Being a Christian, I rely on the Bible. (I think that's a syllogism.) However, I disagree with some of the understandings of 'details' some of my Christian brothers hold.

For the rest, it depends on the subject. I have read - more than once - a book on relativity written by A. Einstein. I consider that pretty reliable for the subject.

Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time is reliable on that subject. The Grand Design by the same author and Leonard Mlodinow strikes me as pretty reliable as to reporting of history and very unreliable in conclusions. Both are on the shelf in my personal library.

(I have five shelves, about eleven foot long in my library. They are all jammed with books and more books in a small bookcase and yet more piled on tables, bedside tables and end tables in the living room. Don't bother asking for all the titles. I have at least sixty books on firearms and firearms history, more than that on theology, doctrine and Bible study and a bunch on astronomy/cosmology.)

No. I'm not a common sort in modern Christianity. But I'm not alone nor rare, either. Of course, I'm the shy, retiring wall flower type, too.

 

[John Hyperspace]

You could not be more wrong. In fact you rely on the work of paleontologists every day. And you might as well say that a murder cannot be solved by using DNA since that is an inanimate object.

If we stopped at simply finding DNA then it would be useless in an investigation. DNA must be analyzed in order to be of use. You proposed nothing but finding fossils, which would be no different than finding DNA. Neither would yield any meaningful information in regards to evaluation of a proposed hypothesis unless then analyzed according to procedural analysis.

If that is the case why are you even debating it?

It's cold outside, and I'm bored.

If you don't care to learn how scientists know that it is correct your are in no position to be opposing it.

I'm not opposing it; I am not accepting it. The original question was, do I accept it? If not, why not? I have answered the questions.

No, I am not. Theories explain facts. Evolution has been observed in many different ways and the theory of evolution explains that fact. And evolution is much more than your empty summary.

The Theory of Evolution does not in any way explain the fact of evolution. If you think it does, then explain.

 

[John Hyperspace]

Close enough. Then by that standard the Moon landing is not hearsay.

Coming from him it is hearsay. And hearsay of the red herring type, at that; an attempt to divert attention from the topic at hand.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If we stopped at simply finding DNA then it would be useless in an investigation. DNA must be analyzed in order to be of use. You proposed nothing but finding fossils, which would be no different than finding DNA. Neither would yield any meaningful information in regards to evaluation of a proposed hypothesis unless then analyzed according to procedural analysis.

That is correct, DNA is only one tool of a murder investigation. In the same way there are many different scientific tools that demonstrate the fact that we are the product of evolution. I gave you fossils as one simple method that you could use to test the theory. There are many others, but you would need some scientific training to be able to do them. Biologists consider DNA the strongest evidence for evolution right now. But I am not going to be able to instruct you on how to do that in a forum.

It's cold outside, and I'm bored.

How cold? Just some personal bias. I grew up in Minnesota when it used to get down to -20 without windchill every winter.

I'm not opposing it; I am not accepting it. The original question was, do I accept it? If not, why not? I have answered the questions.

Fine, don't accept it. But then you are in no position to oppose it when it is taught in public schools either.

The Theory of Evolution does not in any way explain the fact of evolution. If you think it does, then explain.

Now you are demanding an internet education that I am not ready to give. I could find links for your to investigate, but I am not ready to give a proper answer in just a few short posts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Coming from him it is hearsay. And hearsay of the red herring type, at that; an attempt to divert attention from the topic at hand.

Only if he refused to support it. And the question was there to judge a person's character. It was not a red herring. If a person is willing to deny something that obvious and that recent then there is no hope to get that person to accept even simple science.

 

[John Hyperspace]

That is correct, DNA is only one tool of a murder investigation. In the same way there are many different scientific tools that demonstrate the fact that we are the product of evolution. I gave you fossils as one simple method that you could use to test the theory. There are many others, but you would need some scientific training to be able to do them. Biologists consider DNA the strongest evidence for evolution right now. But I am not going to be able to instruct you on how to do that in a forum.

First, your statement "the fact of evolution" shows again that you do not understand the difference between the "fact" and the "theory": there are no tools necessary to "demonstrate the fact" of evolution as the "fact" is summarily "things change" which is axiomatic and self-evident; it is not a product of science, but, observation. This is no different than saying "objects tend to move toward the ground when released" as the "fact" of gravity, then attempting to "demonstrate" Newtonian mechanics by dropping a ball.

Again, "finding fossils" is not evidence of the Theory of Evolution; it is an observation in the present of inanimate objects which does nothing to provide evidence of hypothesis in an of itself.

"Biologists consider" is an overgeneralization, and impossible to verify without conducting a mass-scale poll of my own accord.

You're right that I (and anyone) would need scientific training in order to even begin to evaluate one facet of the Theory, let alone the entire theory. Hence, I do not accept a theory which I am not capable of verifying, and am only able to accept based on a default acceptance of uniform unbias and competent reasoning of other men. You may be willing to place your faith in the proposition that other men are uniformly unbiased and competent reasoners; my self-experience doesn't allow me such a simplistic luxury.

How cold? Just some personal bias. I grew up in Minnesota when it used to get down to -20 without windchill every winter.

Cold enough for me to be inside engaging in the sound and fury of a meaningless theory.

Now you are demanding an internet education that I am not ready to give. I could find links for your to investigate, but I am not ready to give a proper answer in just a few short posts.

I would not accept your links, as they fall under "appeal to authority" which can only be accepted in the faith of unbias and competency of others; a trait I find through self-experience to severely lacking in men across all spectrum of intellectual endeavor.

 

[John Hyperspace]

Only if he refused to support it. And the question was there to judge a person's character. It was not a red herring. If a person is willing to deny something that obvious and that recent then there is no hope to get that person to accept even simple science.

I did not say I denied anything; but that I do not accept the proposition, as it being hearsay. I neither believe nor disbelieve the proposition; it is irrelevant to the topic.

 

[sfs]

Physics is a description of facts.

No, physics is a set of theoretical models that explain facts. As is evolutionary biology.

 

[miamited]

HI SZ,

You responded:

Like it or not denying evolution is on the same order as denying gravity.

Well, I respectfully disagree. I can see gravity working every day. I can drop a ball from my hand and it falls to the earth. We call that gravity.
Although I may not have a clear understanding of what actually 'makes' the ball fall to the earth and not float off to my left or right or over my head, I do know that the principle can be shown in thousands of ways each and every day.

I cannot so witness evolution. I can surmise from various evidences of similarity of structure that something may have evolved from something else, but I can't actually see the principle at work physically before my eyes.

Of course, I can also look at the many similarities of structure and also surmise that when God created all the living creatures, He did so in maybe the same way that GM has made cars in the past. GM used to have quite a line up of various models under various brands. However, many of those various models start with the exact same platform of foundation that many other models start with. Then they change the nameplate, add a few different bells and whistles and it becomes another model.

Many creatures that God created are like many others and so I should expect to see some similar physical structure.

So, you can certainly believe that denying evolution is akin to denying gravity, but you're not selling that 'magic elixir' here. It certainly sounds good rolling off the tongue and to those whom God calls fools, I'm sure it makes perfectly logical sense.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[Subduction Zone]

HI SZ,

You responded:


Well, I respectfully disagree. I can see gravity working every day. I can drop a ball from my hand and it falls to the earth. We call that gravity.

And anyone that cares to can observe evolution in different ways.

Although I may not have a clear understanding of what actually 'makes' the ball fall to the earth and not float off to my left or right or over my head, I do know that the principle can be shown in thousands of ways each and every day.

And once again the same applies to evolution. Creationists quite often make the error of calling the evolution that is readily observable "micro evolution". That is the same sort of error as calling a falling ball "micro gravity". In fact the formula for gravity that most learn in high school d = (1/2)gt^2 + vt + h is not even what one would cal "Newtonian" gravity. That is the formula that Galileo developed. Newton's formula is F = MmG/r^2. And since I do not fully understand it at all I will not post Einstein's more accurate version.

I cannot so witness evolution. I can surmise from various evidences of similarity of structure that something may have evolved from something else, but I can't actually see the principle at work physically before my eyes.

You could if you tried. And yes, you can easily see the principle at work in front of your eyes. How did you answer the question on whether or not you understood the theory? It is clear that you do not.

Of course, I can also look at the many similarities of structure and also surmise that when God created all the living creatures, He did so in maybe the same way that GM has made cars in the past. GM used to have quite a line up of various models under various brands. However, many of those various models start with the exact same platform of foundation that many other models start with. Then they change the nameplate, add a few different bells and whistles and it becomes another model.

And that idea could be tested and would be found to be wrong. Evolution forms a nested hierarchy that is not found in your example. Besides you end up stating that God is rather incompetent by doing so.

Many creatures that God created are like many others and so I should expect to see some similar physical structure.

Why? And the likenesses and differences go far beyond mere physical structure.

So, you can certainly believe that denying evolution is akin to denying gravity, but you're not selling that 'magic elixir' here. It certainly sounds good rolling off the tongue and to those whom God calls fools, I'm sure it makes perfectly logical sense.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

God never called me a fool. You have to misinterpret a verse to claim that. Second the Bible is clearly not "God's word" that is an extremely blasphemous claim, since the Bible is loaded with errors, self contradictions, failed prophesies, bad morals, the list goes on. The Bible is a work of man. It may have been inspired, but it is far from perfect. Worshiping the Bible is creating a false idol of it. I do believe that breaks a Commandment.

 

[John Hyperspace]

No, physics is a set of theoretical models that explain facts. As is evolutionary biology.

How about we just stick to the topic at hand; the Theory of Evolution. We can test physics models in a laboratory under repetition and such processes designed to filter out bias and incompetency; tests that can be reproduced and such.

We can't do that with the Theory of Evolution. There's no way for us to repeat the process and evaluate. So, you see the difference here? The two aren't the same in evaluation procedure. I accept electric engineering because it's a present observation which can be thoroughly tested. But I don't accept the Theory of Electrical Universe dynamics because that isn't based on laboratory evaluation but is more of a, thought experiment, as it were.

Note again, I'm on no way saying "The Theory of Evolution is completely wrong" I'm saying "I don't know; and don't accept anything that cannot be rigorously evaluated, since doing so would be nothing more than a leap of faith in men to be uniformly unbiased and competent in reasoning".

In the end, I don't know, and neither do you or anyone else. The only difference is, you may pretend that you know, and may appeal to authority alone: I don't and won't. Most of this stuff comes down to peer-pressure, of which I am immune.

 

[sfs]

We can test physics models in a laboratory under repetition and such processes designed to filter out bias and incompetency; tests that can be reproduced and such.

Some physics models we can test in the lab and some we can't. In either case, we test physics models by comparing their predictions to repeatable observations. In the case of evolution, by contrast, we test the theoretical model by comparing predictions to repeatable observations. I don't see the difference.

In the end, I don't know, and neither do you or anyone else. The only difference is, you may pretend that you know, and may appeal to authority alone: I don't and won't. Most of this stuff comes down to peer-pressure,

To the extent that I can know anything, I can know whether common descent is true or not by the same kinds of reasoning that I use to determine the truth of other things in life.

 

[miamited]

Hi SD,

Well, I'll let God be the judge of my understanding of His words. I'm not about to let someone who avows that there is no God, to determine whether I have or haven't correctly discerned of God.

Good try though, but it speaks volumes to me as to what you will accept as evidence for the truth. You are also free, if you're willing, to read Genesis chapter 1 and Revelation chapter 21 to begin a life altering journey to know your Creator.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[KWCrazy]

I understand what the theory of evolution says. I also understand its proponents and I have a pretty good understanding of people who come to religious websites attempting to convince others that their Bibles are false and that environmentally pressured mutations, not God, caused the advancement of life from bacteria to Bob Marley. I've seen the entire gamut from well meaning people wishing to engage in friendly debate to lying false teachers who use deliberate manipulation of Biblical text to undermine the faith of others. I've seen the hostile atheists who hate and demean anything religious to the generally confused who are told one thing on Sunday and another on Monday.

It is true that plants and animals adapt to their surroundings, and this results in differences. It's true that either can be bred to attain certain desirable traits, such as a puppy dog who won't tear your throat out. It's true that there is a commonality in many species. This is because they can trace their roots to the survivors of a great flood some 4,500 years or so ago. I know this to be the case because I have an unimpeachable source; the word of God.

If you want to know my source material you have to read the Scriptures; not just Genesis, but as others have mentioned from Genesis to the Revelation. The first chapter of Genesis tells the facts of our creation. Subsequently, we learn the question of why. The Scriptures tell the story of man; from his creation to his final judgment at the great throne of God. We learn that there is a consequence to sin; that the consequence is death but the gift of God is eternal life. By this we know that man was created special by God; that he did not evolve from anything else; that he is not merely an evolved chimp but was made in the image of God. All truth comes from God and that which denies God denies truth.

 

[John Hyperspace]

Some physics models we can test in the lab and some we can't. In either case, we test physics models by comparing their predictions to repeatable observations. In the case of evolution, by contrast, we test the theoretical model by comparing predictions to repeatable observations. I don't see the difference.

The difference is that physics happens in the present and can be tested in the present under common experience. The Theory of Evolution is a hypothetical model of a process that occurred in the past, over spans of time impossible to observe under common experience. The former is presently and mechanistically verifiable, the latter doesn't even know what mechanisms were under operation.

The difference is, here and now, versus, then and gone.

To the extent that I can know anything, I can know whether common descent is true or not by the same kinds of reasoning that I use to determine the truth of other things in life.

When you say "I can know whether common descent is true" are you meaning the same by "know" as "I can know that a magnet attracts iron"? I just want to be clear on what you mean by "know" before I respond to this statement.

 

[sfs]

The difference is that physics happens in the present and can be tested in the present under common experience.

Physics happens in the present and physics happens in the past. Observing a supernova that happened 150,000 years ago is just as much a part of physics as banging protons together at CERN.

When you say "I can know whether common descent is true" are you meaning the same by "know" as "I can know that a magnet attracts iron"? I just want to be clear on what you mean by "know" before I respond to this statement.

Close enough to the same meaning, yes.