Understanding Evolution [moved from P&LS]

[John Hyperspace]

Physics happens in the present and physics happens in the past.

We can observe physical mechanics operating in the present and evaluate by way of observation; not only can we not observe the Theory of Evolution (including common descent) in the present, we don't even know by what mechanics the hypothetical process allegedly engages. And, for the record, you think this is "the same form of scientific evaluation", true?

Close enough to the same meaning, yes.

So you think "known by observation" is the same as "known without observation": do you know the difference between a theory and a fact? Close enough in meaning to be the same?

No offense, but the intellectual dishonesty on display here is, well, it's something to behold. But I suppose that's par for the course. Another data of experience to affirm the running amok of bias and incompetent reasoning pervading the minds of men.

 

[Gene2memE]

not only can we not observe the Theory of Evolution (including common descent) in the present

Yes, we can.

we don't even know by what mechanics the hypothetical process allegedly engages.

No, we've pretty much got the mechanisms laid out.

Nice little lay-level outline: Mechanisms of Evolutionary Change | Nectunt

No offense, but the intellectual dishonesty on display here is, well, it's something to behold.

Yes, I agree fully, but probably not in the way you'd want.

 

[John Hyperspace]

Yes, we can.

Right, I'm out. Have fun people.

 

[HitchSlap]

First, your statement "the fact of evolution" shows again that you do not understand the difference between the "fact" and the "theory":

Bwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...


Poe.

 

[sfs]

We can observe physical mechanics operating in the present and evaluate by way of observation;

We observe the mechanisms of evolution happening in the present as well. In both cases we extrapolate what we observe in the present to explain things in the past, verifying our extrapolations by comparing prediction to observation.

not only can we not observe the Theory of Evolution (including common descent) in the present, we don't even know by what mechanics the hypothetical process allegedly engages.

We can't observe the Theory of Supernovae either, but in both cases we do indeed have mechanisms to explain the observations.

And, for the record, you think this is "the same form of scientific evaluation",
true?

Exactly the same form? No. But they're both scientific evaluation, and not fundamentally different.

So you think "known by observation" is the same as "known without observation":

No, I don't. Nothing I've said suggests that I think that.

do you know the difference between a theory and a fact? Close enough in meaning to be the same?

Yes. Are you aware that facts -- any facts beyond raw sense impression -- are themselves theoretical constructs?

No offense, but the intellectual dishonesty on display here is, well, it's something to behold. But I suppose that's par for the course. Another data of experience to affirm the running amok of bias and incompetent reasoning pervading the minds of men.

Heck, no, I never take offense when some dude on the internet accuses me of intellectual dishonesty and incompetent reasoning. Why on earth would I find that offensive?

 

[Strathos]

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.

This is what I keep saying. One of the biggest problems is that certain groups have latched onto the ToE as somehow being anti-religious and anti-God in nature, and keep making the false claim that it's incompatible with Christianity, when it isn't, not more than any other science.

Several hundred years ago, there were certain people who rejected the idea that people could live on other continents on the far side of the world, because they considered it to be in contradiction with scripture. Nowadays, I don't know anyone who thinks that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Weren't you the one that brought up physics? When a person makes a false claim and is corrected it is rather hypocritical to try to change the subject.

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.

Actually we can do that. And in more than one way. Just because you may not know how a concept is tested is not a valid reason to say that it cannot be done. The theory of evolution has been tested hundreds of thousands of times. Sometimes these tests have led to slight corrections, but it has never been refuted.

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".

Yet you are still making an error when you say that it has not been rigorously evaluated. You would be hard pressed to find a concept that has been more thoroughly tested and confirmed. In fact the same science that allows Maury Povich to say "You are the father!" is the exact same science that tells us that we share a common ancestor with chimpanzees.

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.

Actually we do know, you are right that you do not know.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Oh my! That is an amazing amount of denial on your side. Your overly simplified version of evolution is just wrong. Perhaps you should try to learn a little before you make your lack of education in the sciences to obvious.

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.

Actually it is and demonstrates the fact that you do not understand the concept of evidence. Very few creationists understand this concept and most are afraid to even discuss it. If you are going to make such gross errors you will only end up making the creationist side look even worse.

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

It has been done. It is not an overgeneralization.

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.

I have investigated many of the claims myself. You are trying to use ignorance of the topic as a shield. You can not accept it, but you should in no way oppose it since you lack the ability, by your own statement, to judge whether or not it is correct.

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

You mean a theory that you rely upon far more than you realize.

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.

You do not know how to use the "appeal to authority" fallacy correctly. My appeals to authority are correct. When one appeals to an authority one must make sure that the person is an authority on that topic. For example, I will follow my doctors advice on blood pressure since she is a proper authority on that topic. I would not use her as an authority on how to fix my car. And you have to rely on faith because you won't bother to learn enough to judge properly. I don't have to rely on faith. Faith, as you implied, is the worst reason to believe in anything.

 

[KWCrazy]

We observe the mechanisms of evolution happening in the present as well. In both cases we extrapolate what we observe in the present to explain things in the past, verifying our extrapolations by comparing prediction to observation.

The problem is that we don't. We observe adaptation, which is a conservative process whereby deleterious information is extinguished and beneficial information is accented. As repeated subtraction cannot lead to addition, adaptation cannot and does not lead to evolution. When we attempted to observe evolution by forcing mutations via radiation over thousands of generations of fruit flies what we saw was that really messed up fruit flies. Remove the radiation and they reverted back to form in subsequent generations. The bottom line is that fruit flies remained fruit flies and the larger animals with a much slower reproductive cycle clearly remained the same as well.

 

[KWCrazy]

One of the biggest problems is that certain groups have latched onto the ToE as somehow being anti-religious and anti-God in nature, and keep making the false claim that it's incompatible with Christianity, when it isn't, not more than any other science.

Let's make a clear distinction here. Evolution is not science. It is a theory of origins. As we cannot look into the past only make speculations based on what we find in the present, it is subjective at best. Is it consistent with Christianity? No. To believe in both is to understand neither. Evolution does not deal with the speciation of life after the flood. It is a theory which claims a common descent over millions of years and that man, like all other animals, shares not a common Creator but a common ancestor.

The flood is, in fact, denied by all evolution proponents because it doesn't fit with their "old earth" claims. The six-day creation is also denied. The special creation of man, the fall of man and all of man's early connection with his Creator is denied. it is impossible to embrace evolution without rejecting the foundational doctrine of Christianity. Moreover, since Christ quoted from Genesis 1, spoke of Adam and Eve and mentioned Noah by name, it's undeniably obvious that Jesus considered the Scriptures the breathed word of God. How does one attest to being a follower of Jesus and yet deny the very scriptures that Jesus embraced?

No theistic evolutionist I have ever read has ever been able to reconcile the plain teaching of the Scriptures with the claims of evolution. It isn't possible. Man cannot have two origins. Nor can anything else.

 

[Strathos]

Let's make a clear distinction here. Evolution is not science. It is a theory of origins. As we cannot look into the past only make speculations based on what we find in the present, it is subjective at best.

Better throw out forensic science then, too.

Is it consistent with Christianity? No. To believe in both is to understand neither. Evolution does not deal with the speciation of life after the flood. It is a theory which claims a common descent over millions of years and that man, like all other animals, shares not a common Creator but a common ancestor.

God created the laws of the universe that He knew would lead to humankind. Nothing inconsistent about that.

The flood is, in fact, denied by all evolution proponents because it doesn't fit with their "old earth" claims.

Actually it's denied because it's completely contradicted by the geological evidence (i.e. the evidence God put in His own creation). If you look at the original Hebrew the flood can be interpreted as a local event, and in fact that does line up with geological evidence (for example the Black Sea deluge).

The six-day creation is also denied.

Almost no Christians took that to mean 6 literal days until less than 200 years ago with the influence of the SDA movement.

The special creation of man, the fall of man and all of man's early connection with his Creator is denied.

Treating Genesis as literal history ignores the moral points it was meant to teach via allegory, at least according to my interpretation. It's not seeing the forest for the trees.

it is impossible to embrace evolution without rejecting the foundational doctrine of Christianity.

Billions of Christians disagree.

Moreover, since Christ quoted from Genesis 1, spoke of Adam and Eve and mentioned Noah by name, it's undeniably obvious that Jesus considered the Scriptures the breathed word of God. How does one attest to being a follower of Jesus and yet deny the very scriptures that Jesus embraced?

Jesus spoke in parables quite often. Are you Catholic? Because Catholics think that the communion wafer literally becomes the blood and body of Christ because he said it does, while Protestants believe it was symbolic. Same kind of issue.

No theistic evolutionist I have ever read has ever been able to reconcile the plain teaching of the Scriptures with the claims of evolution. It isn't possible. Man cannot have two origins. Nor can anything else.

You could say the same thing about heliocentrism or germ theory. And people have.

 

[miamited]

Hi strathos,

I hope that neither of you mind my interposing myself into your conversation. If so, then please ignore my comment here, but...

You wrote:

Almost no Christians took that to mean 6 literal days until less than 200 years ago with the influence of the SDA movement.

You know, I've heard that claim made repeatedly and yet, I can't seem to find any evidence that supports it. Yes, there were some who were aligned with the christian faith who wrote some things that may infer that they believed in an old creation, but most of what I've read is that the early christians, and certainly the majority of Jews believed in a young earth.

So, I'll ask you, as I've asked others who have also made a similar claim, on what evidence do you support your claim?

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[Loudmouth]

The reason I don't accept the Theory of Evolution is because I cannot actually verify any of it since it happened outside of common experience. To accept the theory means that I have to fully rely on the abilities of other men to evaluate evidence without bias, and to operate with fully competent reasoning.

Could you be a bit more specific as to the evidence that you claim can't be verified? For example, here are some pelvises to compare:

Scientists claim that the two pelvises in the middle are more like the pelvis on the far left than the pelvis on the far right.

What is stopping you from verifying their findings? Seems pretty obvious to me.

 

[Strathos]

Hi strathos,

I hope that neither of you mind my interposing myself into your conversation. If so, then please ignore my comment here, but...

You wrote:


You know, I've heard that claim made repeatedly and yet, I can't seem to find any evidence that supports it. Yes, there were some who were aligned with the christian faith who wrote some things that may infer that they believed in an old creation, but most of what I've read is that the early christians, and certainly the majority of Jews believed in a young earth.

So, I'll ask you, as I've asked others who have also made a similar claim, on what evidence do you support your claim?

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

Look up Ellen White, and her connection to the young earth creationist movement.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

This is what I keep saying. One of the biggest problems is that certain groups have latched onto the ToE as somehow being anti-religious and anti-God in nature, and keep making the false claim that it's incompatible with Christianity, when it isn't, not more than any other science.

Strathos, there are those of the scientific community who think 'enough has been explained' that the 'need' for God has been removed.

Sadly, Stephen Hawking - one of my heroes on more than one account - is one of them. However, he's not rabid about it. Some men and women of science are Christians, and believe more or less as I - and apparently you - understand things.

I rather think this particular squabble began some time ago; there have always been 'God deniers'. However, when paleontology got going well in the modern sense and Darwin published his findings, the anti-God crowd latched on to the discoveries and rather one-sidedly began touting their prior position of no God, no how.

This led many of the Christianish speakers, who were a little uncertain about their beliefs to underscore their 'true belief' by 'fighting those heathen scientists'.

Or it might have been the other way around. I'm not sure. But the fight was on and the promoters of the fight made sure to have everyone take sides. Not to mention, issued metaphoric clubs.

 

[sfs]

The problem is that we don't. We observe adaptation, which is a conservative process whereby deleterious information is extinguished and beneficial information is accented.

The problem is that you're wrong. Yes, we see natural selection spreading beneficial information. We also see mutation generating new beneficial information. We see that in the lab, in the wild, and we can infer its occurrence from the genetic traces left behind.

 

[Speedwell]

Strathos, there are those of the scientific community who think 'enough has been explained' that the 'need' for God has been removed.

Sadly, Stephen Hawking - one of my heroes on more than one account - is one of them. However, he's not rabid about it. Some men and women of science are Christians, and believe more or less as I - and apparently you - understand things.

I rather think this particular squabble began some time ago; there have always been 'God deniers'. However, when paleontology got going well in the modern sense and Darwin published his findings, the anti-God crowd latched on to the discoveries and rather one-sidedly began touting their prior position of no God, no how.

This led many of the Christianish speakers, who were a little uncertain about their beliefs to underscore their 'true belief' by 'fighting those heathen scientists'.

Or it might have been the other way around. I'm not sure. But the fight was on and the promoters of the fight made sure to have everyone take sides. Not to mention, issued metaphoric clubs.

In fact, the controversy did not begin over Darwin. Strict biblical literalism of the kind that YECs hold to was originally invented in the 19th century as a reaction to Higher Criticism rather than to the ToE.

 

[Heissonear]

This topic is intended to do two things:
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)

&

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



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


In addition to the latter question, what do you think the reliability is of the sources people choose? Are all sources equal? Are only sources that agree with your opinion reliable? What makes one source better than another source?

Your points do not address the lack of proof in evolution.

You side step the lack of how life ever came about. DNA is too complex for natural processes and materials to ever bring about. Simple to recognize

Yes, the foundation for any evolution of life is how life could ever come about - the premise Evolutionists resist to acknowledge.

Then there is the obvious millions od the transition species. Zero transition species have been found.

I took paleontology as an evolutionist and all that the textbooks present are tree of life speculations and presumptions.

Your thread has no foundation to stand on.

Nice try.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Your points do not address the lack of proof in evolution.

You side step the lack of how life ever came about. DNA is too complex for natural processes and materials to ever bring about. Simple to recognize

Yes, the foundation for any evolution of life is how life could ever come about - the premise Evolutionists resist to acknowledge.

Then there is the obvious millions od the transition species. Zero transition species have been found.

I took paleontology as an evolutionist and all that the textbooks present are tree of life speculations and presumptions.

Your thread has no foundation to stand on.

Nice try.

If you did take paleontology as you claim you did, you would realise that literally all of what you just wrote is a PRATT.