Why Believe Evolution Theories?

[CoreyD]

Because we see evolution taking place and producing things like new genetic sequences and species.

Is evolution hair turning gray; new cells; repairing cells; etc.?
The OP is not intended toward what is referred to as small scale evolution.
You know this quite well that there is no scientist on earth that disputes that, and I doubt there is any human who does.
So, we must not be on the same page.
Gene duplication, and gene transfer, and such like, are not what this OP is about.

So perhaps I should be specific at this point, since the theory of evolution seems itself to be evolving.
All species on Earth evolved from a single-celled organism that lived approximately 3.5 billion years ago, confirming the "universal common ancestor" theory proposed by Charles Darwin. (References 1 2 3) This theory suggests that all life on Earth shares a common genetic heritage, with the last universal common ancestor (LUCA) being the hypothesized common ancestral cell from which the three domains of life - Bacteria, Archaea, and Eukarya - originated.

Saying that evolution is simply descent with modification, is misleading, and in my opinion, being a bit disingenuous, since everyone with a functioning brain knows that every population of offspring will have modification.
Nobody.... that is zero persons, dispute that.
The theory is more than that.

What is disputed, is the idea the theory of evolution presents.
It's not being hidden, is it?
The idea that all life on Earth may have descended from an original single-celled organism with a DNA genome is still a subject of debate, especially regarding the origin of life itself. (References 1)

We see evolution taking place, depending on what you are talking about, and I am not here to discuss the evolution we see everyday, or every minute.
That is not the theory of evolution.
In case you would ask, what is the theory of evolution, please refer to the preceding.

Like who?

This is a bit awkward.
Why do you need a name of a reputable scientist that disputes the theory of evolution?
Is it in order to judge the individual?

If you are saying that scientists that dispute the theory of evolution are not reputable, say it, and we will take it from there.

I don't know any scientists who think they're infallible, so I'm not clear on the point of your question.

You said they know what they are doing, and so, if that is not to say that they can't be wrong, then what point were you making, in saying that?

I asked because you spoke as an authority on the science of evolutionary biology. Are you?

I know this one.
"I am above you because I actually practice the science."
That is not relevant to a discussion.
There is nothing I said that led you to the conclusion that I "spoke as an authority on the science of evolutionary biology".

You can always prove me wrong, by pointing out where you got that, but it still would not be relevant.
I have friends who are biologists, geneticists and other... if that means anything to you, and yes, I do understand the subject, enough to talk with the highly educated, that believe one must have a PhD to understand something they do not practice.

We don't need to see something happen before we can conclude that it did.

That is true.
We can believe it, as we believe in God and angels, and heaven. Would you agree?

I've done lab experiments where we saw and studied microorganisms evolving and I've been involved in field work that was focused on the evolution of a new species of plant.

Speciation? What is a "new species"?
MISCONCEPTION: Species are distinct natural entities, with a clear definition, that can be easily recognized by anyone.
CORRECTION: Many of us are familiar with the biological species concept, which defines a species as a group of individuals that actually or potentially interbreed in nature. That definition of a species might seem cut and dried — and for many organisms (e.g., mammals), it works well — but in many other cases, this definition is difficult to apply. For example, many bacteria reproduce mainly asexually. How can the biological species concept be applied to them? Many plants and some animals form hybrids in nature, even if they largely mate within their own groups. Should groups that occasionally hybridize in selected areas be considered the same species or separate species? The concept of a species is a fuzzy one because humans invented the concept to help get a grasp on the diversity of the natural world. It is difficult to apply because the term species reflects our attempts to give discrete names to different parts of the tree of life — which is not discrete at all, but a continuous web of life, connected from its roots to its leaves.
Reference Source

This also does not apply to what the OP is considering.
Changes in color or size over time, are seen in every living thing.
This is what some scientists refer to as microevolution, but this does not encompass, as a whole, the theory of evolution.

That's not an answer to the question I asked. Let's try again: why do you think so many scientists across the world have all generally agreed on evolution for so long?

I do not see the relevance of the question, since it seems an appeal to authority.
Other than that, I do not see the point of the question.

I think that since the majority's acceptance, do not mean the acceptance is right, the question is irrelevant.
Its like asking someone, "Why do you think the majority of the world accepts gay rights?"
How are either of those questions meaningful in any discussion?

What if the person answers. The Devil controls this world, according to 1 John 5:19... how would that help you?

Also, the appeal to authority fallacy is something like "the experts say it's true, therefore it is true". I didn't do that.

Right, so I am looking for the therefore.
Why do you ask the question?

I read the Genesis accounts similar to how a lot of Jewish people read them, not as a newspaper article but as more about conveying larger, deeper concepts like God's love for us, our sinful nature, and God's forgiveness.

That doesn't tell me how you understand the verses.
It's like someone asked, "how do you understand this passage?", and the person answers "different to you."
So the person says, "Yes, but how do you understand them." ...and the person replies... "in a different way than commonly understood."
Should I have asked you to explain how God created living creatures from the dust, and a rib?

 

[CoreyD]

I struggled a little with your wording in the analogy, but I do understand.
The overall gist of the analogy is, do we credit creation with making itself or do we credit the creator? Do we credit our bodies for evolving or do we credit God for our great design? We should credit God and give Him the glory for the order and design he has put into our bodies. They have not simply fallen together by chance. We are beautifully and wonderfully made.

...and here I was, thinking that my words are so simple, and easy to understand.

Sadly, this is what evolution does. People may believe in God, but if they believe in evolution, then they are dishonouring Him. Romans 1:18-23

Amen to that. Who needs Ray Comfort when we have the Bible to back us. (Sorry Ray LOL)

I thank God regularly for the Bible - his word of truth.
Without it, the philosophies of this world... and everything else this world has to offer, actually... would destroy our mind.

 

[Aaron112]

I thank God regularly for the Bible - his word of truth.
Without it, the philosophies of this world... and everything else this world has to offer, actually... would destroy our mind.

The Bible, Truth, God's Word, says most people's minds are of the flesh, flesh, and profit nothing.

 

[Apple Sky]

They seem to have forgotten God.

 

[Job 33:6]

Sorry. I did not class that as nasty. It was sarcastic. But not meant to be nasty. Sorry for that.

What I wrote could be read as though I said that there were no previous fossils. But that is not the point of the paragraph.
The point of the paragraph was that there is no previous record of other fossils changing from one animal into another. These fossils that are in the Cambrian layer simply appeared. So yes, there may have been some fossils before. But there is no evidence for evolution.
Here is what I said:
"If we look at the fossil record, we see that the major body plans or types of animals all appeared virtually instantaneously in what is called the Cambrian Explosion. The animals all came into existence instantly without any previous fossils or precursors."
So, they just instantly appeared with no evidence of evolution as claimed by biologists.

I hope it makes you think. If not, someone else may read it and change and start to give God the glory.

Thank you for the compliment. Cheers
We need to give God the glory and not the creation.

The majority of cambrian fossils actually do have fossil precursors.

Claudina of the precambrian for example, would is an early annelid bilaterian, transitional precursors to metazoan bilaterians today. They also are of the earliest shelled organisms we know of with evidence of predation, backing the evolutionary arms race explanation for why the ediacaran and Cambrian explosions occurred (along with climate related changes such as the rifting of rodinia and end of snowball earth).

Poriferan, Cnidaria, xenaceolomorpha, and Annelida are also known to pre exist the Cambrian explosion via the fossil record while several others are more recently discovered and contested to be so. The reason so many are contested is because once you get into the precambrian, you end up with animals that could very well be in two or more different phlya.

But ultimately, it's worth just understanding that the Cambrian explosion is unique in that it displays increased fossilization due to arms race induced evolution of attack and defence capabilities/hard parts (shells, teeth, jaws etc.). These hard parts, shells, teeth, jaws, and more, fossilize much more readily that the earlier soft bodies traits, and thus, the fossil record rapidly proliferates in the quantity of fossils discovered, as a product of there being more hard parts. This gives the fossil record appearance of an "explosion". But in reality, organisms commonly predate the Cambrian explosion, they just have softer bodies and are less likely to fossilize.

An interesting example of this is the fact that we have arthropod trackway fossils, like those of trilobites, dating back millions of years before their shelled bodies actually appear in the fossil record.

But the evolution and "appearance" of things that fossilize more readily should not be confused with the actual appearance of life in a broader sense, as though ex nihilo appearance is the explanation. And the Bible doesn't describe ex nihilo creation either.

I have a nice table here that lists animal phylum and the estimated time, based on the fossil record (not genetics), in which these animals came to be. And in fact, most, are understand to have originated before the cambrian. Which wasn't th case 50 years ago before these later Precambrian fossils have been discovered.

But ultimately, Genesis describes ancient Israelite cosmology and has nothing to do with the Cambrian explosion to begin with:

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm concerned now, so I have to say this.
You need to be careful with this. Here is why.

If you went to a factory, and observed actual machines "pouring" milk; dicing vegetables; mixing ingredients together; etc., and the end result are pans of cheese, cakes, or some other product, would you credit the factory with being the cake maker, or chocolate maker?
Or would you credit the manufacturer that built the factory, and the hard working men and women, who gathered the products to feed the machines?

If you did the former, you are discrediting the intelligent agents, and praising the design - giving that the glory which is due to the agent.
Do you see where this is going?

Romans 1:21-23 says of the worldly wise...
For having known God, they glorified Him not as God, or were thankful; but they became futile in their thinking and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and they changed the glory of the immortal God into a likeness of an image of mortal man and birds and quadrupeds and creeping things.

How sad, that people actually glorify, and make a deity creation, rather than the creator.
The Bible says the creation brings glory to God. Not the other way around.

Your immune system works, not because it is a product of evolution, but because the builder designed it that way.
Your vehicle works because the manufactures put each part in place, to perform the function it carries out.
Factories do exactly what the designer made it to do.
The biological factories do not make themselves do what they do.... Does that not make sense to you?

I thought I'd better mention this.
The world's thinking is declining rapidly away from God, and true wisdom.
Christians need to be careful about the path they are taking, especially when "higher" learning, and degrees takes us on a collision course with the maker of the universe.

Also, the "argument about houses needing builders", isn't Comfort's. It's a basic principle found in the Christian's sword - God's word (Hebrews 3:4)... that cuts away the world's wisdom, which is foolishness. 1 Corinthians 3:19

Paul encourages using rationality and, reasonableness, and a sound mind, so that we are not molded by this world that is under Satan's control.
Romans 12:1, 2

1 Therefore I exhort you, brothers, through the compassions of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy to God, well-pleasing, which is your reasonable service. 2 Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what is the good, pleasing, and perfect will of God.​

I'm saying this out of concern.
Be careful.


I was thinking of what you said here, and my mind went to Paul.
The account at Acts 17:16, 17 comes to mind.
Paul loved people, and seeing them take a course in opposition to God, moved him to think of a way to reach their heart.
He was not forceful, but rather, the Bible says, Paul reasoned with them.

His approach was not one where he said what he did, in a "forceful" way to persuade, but his intention was to say something that hopefully reached the heart, which would move the person to be persuaded, or convinced toward another way, other than the influences that had gripped them... Obviously, because they were surrounded by it.

In the same way, the Christian is obligated to try to reach the heart of all people, in the hope that they are moved to respond because of being persuaded.
This is why I so love @1Tonne's spirit. He has a burning zeal to reach people, and this is spurred by love for them.
This is the Christian spirit.

Jesus himself had this love, that moved him to try to reach people... even the Pharisee. Matthew 9:35-38
It is because of knowing that people are victims to the philosophies, and religious indoctrination that are contrary to truth, that we need to be particular about sharing the truth with all... even if they are not persuaded. Jude 1:23

Sharing your convictions can be helpful.

Right. But I'm already a Christian and have been so for a very long time. So, while I appreciate 1Tonne's zeal for the Lord, I have my own zeal for the Lord and even though I accept the Theory of Evolution, I expect other fellow Trinitarian Christians to avoid badgering me for my own perspective on Theology, History, and Philosophy.

Does what I'm saying above sound reasonable? I value Paul's preaching atop Mars Hill as much as anyone else. Of course, no one here asked me what I think of it; you just sort of assumed that the same illustration only supports 1Tonne's view and that I, somehow, know nothing about it.

That's a mistake on your part. So, try not to make that mistake again. I get tired of pleading with fellow Christians to cut me some slack, especially when I do so for them every waking moment of my life.

 

[Job 33:6]

Right. But I'm already a Christian and have been so for a very long time. So, while I appreciate 1Tonne's zeal for the Lord, I have my own zeal for the Lord and even though I accept the Theory of Evolution, I expect other fellow Trinitarian Christians to avoid badgering me for my own perspective on Theology, History, and Philosophy.

Does what I'm saying above sound reasonable? I value Paul's preaching atop Mars Hill as much as anyone else. Of course, no one here asked me what I think of it; you just sort of assumed that the same illustration only supports 1Tonne's view and that I, somehow, know nothing about it.

That's a mistake on your part. So, try not to make that mistake again. I get tired of pleading with fellow Christians to cut me some slack, especially when I do so for them every waking moment of my life.

Personally, I think we should charge YECs with heresy. Or if not heresy, at least false teachings and a rejection of scripture. They reject so much of God's Word, it's utterly disturbing. The damage they're causing to the church is unprecedented in its denial of both the scriptures, as well as science. And it's confusing and misleading countless away from the church in presenting the Christian community as mentally backwards and ignorant.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Personally, I think we should charge YECs with heresy. Or if not heresy, at least false teachings and a rejection of scripture. They reject so much of God's Word, it's utterly disturbing. The damage they're causing to the church is unprecedented in its denial of both the scriptures, as well as science. And it's confusing and misleading countless away from the church in presenting the Christian community as mentally backwards and ignorant.

Brother Job, forgive me if I say that I would take a different tact on all of that. Everyone is looking for 'heresy,' and I want to give everyone the most grace in their respective journeys that I can. And I'd want the same treatment in return, without a call upon myself by others to be seen as a heretic. This embattled mentality is exactly what the Enemy wants and any resolution on our part to castigate should come with the awareness that none of us are Apostles and we all have varying levels of discernment.

I'd rather focus on defending the faith against the encroachments of the Beasts than to conquer fellow Trinitarian Christians.

 

[CoreyD]

Right. But I'm already a Christian and have been so for a very long time. So, while I appreciate 1Tonne's zeal for the Lord, I have my own zeal for the Lord and even though I accept the Theory of Evolution, I expect other fellow Trinitarian Christians to avoid badgering me for my own perspective on Theology, History, and Philosophy.

@1Tonne was right. My wording isn't very well understood.
You misunderstood me, and the point I was making. Sorry. That's probably my fault. I need to find a way to get into people's minds, so that I can word my sentences ahead of their thoughts.
I'll work on that.

Does what I'm saying above sound reasonable?

If it applied, it might be.

I value Paul's preaching atop Mars Hill as much as anyone else. Of course, no one here asked me what I think of it; you just sort of assumed that the same illustration only supports 1Tonne's view and that I, somehow, know nothing about it.

You misunderstood my post, and so your assuming that I was assuming what you think I was assuming is misplaced.
That's okay though. We are human. It's our nature to make mistakes.

That's a mistake on your part. So, try not to make that mistake again. I get tired of pleading with fellow Christians to cut me some slack, especially when I do so for them every waking moment of my life.

I'm sorry you felt hemmed in.
I hope that feeling does not occur again, where I am concerned.
I hope you have a peaceful day. We are under so much pressure today, it can be stressful.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

@1Tonne was right. My wording isn't very well understood.
You misunderstood me, and the point I was making. Sorry. That's probably my fault. I need to find a way to get into people's minds, so that I can word my sentences ahead of their thoughts.
I'll work on that.


If it applied, it might be.


You misunderstood my post, and so your assuming that I was assuming what you think I was assuming is misplaced.
That's okay though. We are human. It's our nature to make mistakes.


I'm sorry you felt hemmed in.
I hope that feeling does not occur again, where I am concerned.
I hope you have a peaceful day. We are under so much pressure today, it can be stressful.

I appreciate that, Corey. And just know that, for what it's worth, even though I think a long term of Evolution took place, I'm still a Creationist. I'm just not a 'Scientific Creationist.' I believe God made all that He made, regardless of the fact that I can't fully understand how He did it.

And frankly, where Jesus is my prime focus in life, I'm not concerned much about 'how' the Lord made everything. I'm concerned most about spending eternity with Jesus, preferably with my family and with as many other people as possible.

 

[CoreyD]

Personally, I think we should charge YECs with heresy. Or if not heresy, at least false teachings and a rejection of scripture. They reject so much of God's Word, it's utterly disturbing. The damage they're causing to the church is unprecedented in its denial of both the scriptures, as well as science. And it's confusing and misleading countless away from the church in presenting the Christian community as mentally backwards and ignorant.

You seem to be against the group of YECs, but are you aware they are not all the same?
You obviously are not aware that I am not a YEC, because you keep referring to them when referring to me.
I am not a YEC, though.

So, what do you say now?
Anyway, on the subject at hand, did you say why you believe in the theory of evolution and what convinces you?
I saw your post about dust, and I do not understand why you were talking about dust in the way you were.
Perhaps you could explain that as well?

 

[CoreyD]

I appreciate that, Corey. And just know that, for what it's worth, even though I think a long term of Evolution took place, I'm still a Creationist. I'm just not a 'Scientific Creationist.' I believe God made all that He made, regardless of the fact that I can't fully understand how He did it.

And frankly, where Jesus is my prime focus in life, I'm not concerned much about 'how' the Lord made everything. I'm concerned most about spending eternity with Jesus, preferably with my family and with as many other people as possible.

I'll cut you some slack, and not say what I would like to say in response.
I will comply to your preference.

 

[Job 33:6]

You seem to be against the group of YECs, but are you aware they are not all the same?
You obviously are not aware that I am not a YEC, because you keep referring to them when referring to me.
I am not a YEC, though.

So, what do you say now?
Anyway, on the subject at hand, did you say why you believe in the theory of evolution and what convinces you?
I saw your post about dust, and I do not understand why you were talking about dust in the way you were.
Perhaps you could explain that as well?

If the earth is old, then the idea of ex nihilo creationism, becomes untenable. Because that's not what we see in the rock record.

For example, let's look at elephants of the fossil record:

The appearance is just what we would expect as a product of decent with modification. Otherwise you have God creating proto elephants, maybe God doesn't like them so he renders the first batch extinct. Then God comes back and creates a new batch. He doesn't like that next batch, renders them extinct. Then creates another new batch, and so on and so forth, as if they were descending with modification but in reality it was just God creating and deleting different species over and over and over again.

 

[Job 33:6]

Anyway, on the subject at hand, did you say why you believe in the theory of evolution and what convinces you?
I saw your post about dust, and I do not understand why you were talking about dust in the way you were.
Perhaps you could explain that as well?

I'd defer to examples like the one given above that descent with modification simply makes more since than like a punctual creationism (if that's even what anyone would call it).

And regarding the concept of dust in the Bible. As scripture notes, all people are made of dust. The description of Adam is typologically a description of all of us. We sin because he first sinned. We are dust as he first was of dust.

But that's not to say that Adam was created ex nihilo. Because the Bible doesn't speak in ex nihilo terms in the old testament. And that's simply not what Genesis describes. Eve being made out of a rib bone for example. Or talking snakes. These are not concepts of biology. Rather they're concepts of ancient near eastern theology. Talking snakes were how ancient isrealites depicted divine throne guardians. It's not about biology. Nor is the concept of mankind being made of dust.

You and I are both dust and we also are made of DNA and these things are not mutually exclusive in terms of biological origins and evolution.

 

[CoreyD]

If the earth is old, then the idea of ex nihilo creationism, becomes untenable. Because that's not what we see in the rock record.

For example, let's look at elephants of the fossil record:

View attachment 361768
The appearance is just what we would expect as a product of decent with modification. Otherwise you have God creating proto elephants, maybe God doesn't like them so he renders the first batch extinct. Then God comes back and creates a new batch. He doesn't like that next batch, renders them extinct. Then creates another new batch, and so on and so forth, as if they were descending with modification but in reality it was just God creating and deleting different species over and over and over again.

Why are you telling me this?
I do not believe in the idea of a 6,000 - 10,000 year old earth, and neither do I believe that God created every living species.

Babies are born with traits different to their ancestors, so why would it be different with any other living thing, including plants?
The DNA God put within the original kinds in the beginning, obviously produced the variety in kinds, that we see today.

That is quite different to an idea that one microscopic organism produced various kinds, as the hypothetical tree proports.

That idea contradicts the scriptures, does it not?
I'm asking you, what convinces you of this. Why do you believe you came from something like this?

 

[River Jordan]

I'm concerned now, so I have to say this.
You need to be careful with this. Here is why.

If you went to a factory, and observed actual machines "pouring" milk; dicing vegetables; mixing ingredients together; etc., and the end result are pans of cheese, cakes, or some other product, would you credit the factory with being the cake maker, or chocolate maker?
Or would you credit the manufacturer that built the factory, and the hard working men and women, who gathered the products to feed the machines?

If you did the former, you are discrediting the intelligent agents, and praising the design - giving that the glory which is due to the agent.
Do you see where this is going?

Romans 1:21-23 says of the worldly wise...
For having known God, they glorified Him not as God, or were thankful; but they became futile in their thinking and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and they changed the glory of the immortal God into a likeness of an image of mortal man and birds and quadrupeds and creeping things.

How sad, that people actually glorify, and make a deity creation, rather than the creator.
The Bible says the creation brings glory to God. Not the other way around.

Your immune system works, not because it is a product of evolution, but because the builder designed it that way.
Your vehicle works because the manufactures put each part in place, to perform the function it carries out.
Factories do exactly what the designer made it to do.
The biological factories do not make themselves do what they do.... Does that not make sense to you?

I thought I'd better mention this.
The world's thinking is declining rapidly away from God, and true wisdom.
Christians need to be careful about the path they are taking, especially when "higher" learning, and degrees takes us on a collision course with the maker of the universe.

Also, the "argument about houses needing builders", isn't Comfort's. It's a basic principle found in the Christian's sword - God's word (Hebrews 3:4)... that cuts away the world's wisdom, which is foolishness. 1 Corinthians 3:19

Paul encourages using rationality and, reasonableness, and a sound mind, so that we are not molded by this world that is under Satan's control.
Romans 12:1, 2

1 Therefore I exhort you, brothers, through the compassions of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy to God, well-pleasing, which is your reasonable service. 2 Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what is the good, pleasing, and perfect will of God.​

I'm saying this out of concern.
Be careful.

I don't know why you needed to post all that to a fellow Christian. Maybe you didn't realize this is a Christians only sub-forum?

I also don't know why you seem to think recognizing the reality of evolution means no God. Amos says God creates winds and mountains, but that doesn't mean everyone who recognizes the reality of temperature gradients, the Coriolis Effect, plate tectonics, and volcanoes doesn't believe in God or scripture, does it?

 

[River Jordan]

Sorry. I did not class that as nasty. It was sarcastic. But not meant to be nasty. Sorry for that.

[/QUOTE]
Thank you.

What I wrote could be read as though I said that there were no previous fossils. But that is not the point of the paragraph.
The point of the paragraph was that there is no previous record of other fossils changing from one animal into another. These fossils that are in the Cambrian layer simply appeared. So yes, there may have been some fossils before. But there is no evidence for evolution.
Here is what I said:
"If we look at the fossil record, we see that the major body plans or types of animals all appeared virtually instantaneously in what is called the Cambrian Explosion. The animals all came into existence instantly without any previous fossils or precursors."
So, they just instantly appeared with no evidence of evolution as claimed by biologists.

I'll ask one more time, how did you come to be such an expert in paleontology?

I hope it makes you think. If not, someone else may read it and change and start to give God the glory.

It makes me realize how your belief that evolution is a make or break salvation issue isn't scriptural and is just something you made up.

 

[River Jordan]

Is evolution hair turning gray; new cells; repairing cells; etc.?

If those aren't heritable traits, then no.

Have you ever studied the science of evolutionary biology?

The OP is not intended toward what is referred to as small scale evolution.
You know this quite well that there is no scientist on earth that disputes that, and I doubt there is any human who does.
So, we must not be on the same page.
Gene duplication, and gene transfer, and such like, are not what this OP is about.

That's evolution. There is no "large scale evolution" that's a different type of evolution (as in occurring by different mechanisms).

So perhaps I should be specific at this point, since the theory of evolution seems itself to be evolving.
All species on Earth evolved from a single-celled organism that lived approximately 3.5 billion years ago, confirming the "universal common ancestor" theory proposed by Charles Darwin. (References 1 2 3) This theory suggests that all life on Earth shares a common genetic heritage, with the last universal common ancestor (LUCA) being the hypothesized common ancestral cell from which the three domains of life - Bacteria, Archaea, and Eukarya - originated.

Right, that's universal common ancestry, which is an outcome of evolution.

Saying that evolution is simply descent with modification, is misleading, and in my opinion, being a bit disingenuous, since everyone with a functioning brain knows that every population of offspring will have modification.
Nobody.... that is zero persons, dispute that.
The theory is more than that.

It looks like you might be confusing the process of evolution with its outcomes, such as UCA.

What is disputed, is the idea the theory of evolution presents.
It's not being hidden, is it?
The idea that all life on Earth may have descended from an original single-celled organism with a DNA genome is still a subject of debate, especially regarding the origin of life itself. (References 1)

The debates within the field of evolutionary biology are over specific details about how it occurs (such as the relative importance of different mechanisms), specific taxonomic relationships, and (much more limited) the nature of the first life forms (like whether they were colonies of single-celled organisms that regularly exchanged genetics, or something else).

We see evolution taking place, depending on what you are talking about, and I am not here to discuss the evolution we see everyday, or every minute.
That is not the theory of evolution.
In case you would ask, what is the theory of evolution, please refer to the preceding.

It actually is. Part of the theory of evolution is about how evolution happens, such as its mechanisms.

This is a bit awkward.
Why do you need a name of a reputable scientist that disputes the theory of evolution?
Is it in order to judge the individual?

It's a question. If you don't want to answer, just say so.

You said they know what they are doing, and so, if that is not to say that they can't be wrong, then what point were you making, in saying that?

We have members of this forum who, in this thread, are speaking as authorities in all sorts of scientific fields. Why should anyone go with what anonymous people say in an internet forum over the long-standing conclusions of professional scientists?

I know this one.
"I am above you because I actually practice the science."
That is not relevant to a discussion.
There is nothing I said that led you to the conclusion that I "spoke as an authority on the science of evolutionary biology".

So you're not an expert or authority in the science of evolutionary biology. So why should anyone believe you over actual experts?

You can always prove me wrong, by pointing out where you got that, but it still would not be relevant.

Why would you being wrong not be relevant to your attempt to debate the subject?

I have friends who are biologists, geneticists and other... if that means anything to you, and yes, I do understand the subject, enough to talk with the highly educated, that believe one must have a PhD to understand something they do not practice.

I have friends who are professional athletes. That doesn't do anything for my athletic ability. If your friends want to join and post here, that'd be great!

That is true.
We can believe it, as we believe in God and angels, and heaven. Would you agree?

Yes.

Speciation? What is a "new species"?

A new population that can't interbreed with its parent species, but can fully breed on its own. If that's not a new species, then what is?

MISCONCEPTION: Species are distinct natural entities, with a clear definition, that can be easily recognized by anyone.
CORRECTION:

Many of us are familiar with the biological species concept, which defines a species as a group of individuals that actually or potentially interbreed in nature. That definition of a species might seem cut and dried — and for many organisms (e.g., mammals), it works well — but in many other cases, this definition is difficult to apply. For example, many bacteria reproduce mainly asexually. How can the biological species concept be applied to them? Many plants and some animals form hybrids in nature, even if they largely mate within their own groups. Should groups that occasionally hybridize in selected areas be considered the same species or separate species? The concept of a species is a fuzzy one because humans invented the concept to help get a grasp on the diversity of the natural world. It is difficult to apply because the term species reflects our attempts to give discrete names to different parts of the tree of life — which is not discrete at all, but a continuous web of life, connected from its roots to its leaves.
Reference Source

Right, "species" can be difficult at times to identify because populations are constantly evolving. If all species were created by God and never evolved new ones, it'd be super easy to identify them.

I do not see the relevance of the question, since it seems an appeal to authority.
Other than that, I do not see the point of the question.

I think that since the majority's acceptance, do not mean the acceptance is right, the question is irrelevant.
Its like asking someone, "Why do you think the majority of the world accepts gay rights?"
How are either of those questions meaningful in any discussion?

What if the person answers. The Devil controls this world, according to 1 John 5:19... how would that help you?

It looks to me like you either don't understand the question (despite me explaining it to you) or you don't want to answer. So I'll just conclude that you don't know why scientists across the world have agreed on the reality of evolution for so long.

That doesn't tell me how you understand the verses.
It's like someone asked, "how do you understand this passage?", and the person answers "different to you."
So the person says, "Yes, but how do you understand them." ...and the person replies... "in a different way than commonly understood."
Should I have asked you to explain how God created living creatures from the dust, and a rib?

Like I said, I don't read the Genesis accounts like they're newspaper stories or scientific abstracts. They clearly have lyrical, poetic, and rhythmic elements, which tells me they're meant to convey deeper truths. I also try and remember that they are first and foremost Jewish documents, written by Jews, for Jews, and therefore must be understood in that context. So understanding how Jews interpret them has also played a role in my interpretation.

 

[Job 33:6]

Why are you telling me this?
I do not believe in the idea of a 6,000 - 10,000 year old earth, and neither do I believe that God created every living species.

What is the theory of evolution but descent with modification? Simply agreeing that say, the below elephants are related via descent with modification, is essentially agreeing with the theory of evolution.

Babies are born with traits different to their ancestors, so why would it be different with any other living thing, including plants?
The DNA God put within the original kinds in the beginning, obviously produced the variety in kinds, that we see today.

Nobody even knows what this means. Nobody knows nor even agrees on what kinds were even around in a YEC mindset.

And yes, I'll reiterate relation to YEC views, because the concept of "kinds" doesn't even make sense in an OEC view.

To even believe in "kinds" would by default contradict an old earth because things like genus or families of animals for example, are found all throughout the fossil record, not just at the beginning or anything of that nature. It also wouldn't make sense in terms of a global flood producing the rock record either. The idea of the fossil record or the rock record being a product of a global flood also runs in contradiction with old Earth creationism.

That idea contradicts the scriptures, does it not?

As noted above, scripture doesn't clarify on biological origins. No more is Adam being made of dust a statement about his biological origins, or anyone else made of dust (which we all ate according to Scripture).

I'm asking you, what convinces you of this. Why do you believe you came from something like this?

I just gave an example above and you seemed to evade my evidence by seemingly agreeing with me.

And if you agree that evolution is true to some extent, then the burden really then falls on you to explain why it is that there are magical barriers in biology for "kinds" that prevent this descent with modification at some indeterminate point, which no one seems to know what that is.

And remember, Genesis describes concepts through the lense of the ancient Israelites, such as ancient isrealite cosmology:

It doesn't have anything to do with biological origins, geological origins or any of the above.

 

[River Jordan]

Personally, I think we should charge YECs with heresy. Or if not heresy, at least false teachings and a rejection of scripture. They reject so much of God's Word, it's utterly disturbing. The damage they're causing to the church is unprecedented in its denial of both the scriptures, as well as science. And it's confusing and misleading countless away from the church in presenting the Christian community as mentally backwards and ignorant.

I disagree. People should be free to interpret scripture however they see fit. Whether or not their interpretation is good is between them and God, not between them, me, and God.

It's usually the fundamentalist types who have little to no tolerance for different interpretations, anoint themselves the apostate the police, and go around accusing and condemning everyone who dares disagree with them.

I think it'd be a mistake for people like you to do something like that.