Why do people believe in evolution?

[GOD Shines Forth!]

Nothing for a believer to "get around." Neither of those two verses poses the least difficulty for having evolution be part of the process.

Scripture knows nothing of a bastardized "intelligent design" or "evolution". Things are created, they do not "evolve". From Gen. to Rev. this truth is declared plainly. You have to find reasoning outside of Scripture to believe otherwise.

 

[Speedwell]

Scripture knows nothing of a bastardized "intelligent design" or "evolution". Things are created, they do not "evolve". From Gen. to Rev. this truth is declared plainly. You have to find reasoning outside of Scripture to believe otherwise.

How do you substantiate that evolution is not a form of creation?

 

[pitabread]

Scripture knows nothing of a bastardized "intelligent design" or "evolution". Things are created, they do not "evolve".

I'll echo Speedwell's question: How is an evolutionary process not a form of creation?

 

[driewerf]

Mine too. It is boldly stated throughout Scripture. In the NT we're told that "everything that was made was made through Him (Jesus)". Also that "He sustains all things through his powerful word." How does any believer get around that?

My furniture has been made by Ikea.

 

[Royal-Fool]

More people believe in evolution as time goes by. Is it because they have studied it and understand it, or is it because so many others believe it so they might as well too?

Who says evolution isn't part of God's work? If He created everything, then is it not plausible that He created evolution? After all, it would save Him some time.

 

[dlamberth]

I'll echo Speedwell's question: How is an evolutionary process not a form of creation?

Exactly!!

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Who says evolution isn't part of God's work? If He created everything, then is it not plausible that He created evolution? After all, it would save Him some time.

Evolution would take more time wouldn't it?

 

[QvQ]

Evolution, if it were true, would be 'natural' but still within the overall framework of the supernatural.

Thank You, everyone on this thread!
I won a major lawsuit today. It has been going on for a long time. All the friends and family wanted to talk about, all I could think about...for the last week.
So, I came in here and found a lively, interesting discussion with many intelligent folks who have different views but still a friendly discussion.
It has been a wonderful place to escape from the pressure and think/learn more about a fascinating subject.
I have been hiding out here with my friends and I thank you all!

 

[Shemjaza]

Patterns in

Thank You, everyone on this thread!
I won a major lawsuit today. It has been going on for a long time. All the friends and family wanted to talk about, all I could think about...for the last week.
So, I came in here and found a lively, interesting discussion with many intelligent folks who have different views but still a friendly discussion.
It has been a wonderful place to escape from the pressure and think/learn more about a fascinating subject.
I have been hiding out here with my friends and I thank you all!

Congratulations.

I recommend sticking around and trying to get to the bottom of how people think. You really can learn a lot from people with a different viewpoint and ways of learning things.

 

[QvQ]

Congratulations.

I recommend sticking around and trying to get to the bottom of how people think. You really can learn a lot from people with a different viewpoint and ways of learning things.

Two important points that have emerged on this thread is 1) Quantum Mechanics/Newton Determinism 2) then the fact, based on Physics, that everything is in motion, therefore everything is changing.
What are those laws of those changes and how does the law operate?
One conclusion I reached, almost inadvertently, is that there might be organic patterns in random so that even though everything changes, it still remains the same.
"Evolution" may be an illusion
Just a thought...

 

[Shemjaza]

Two important points that have emerged on this thread is 1) Quantum Mechanics/Newton Determinism 2) then the fact, based on Physics, that everything is in motion, therefore everything is changing.
What are those laws of those changes and how does the law operate?
One conclusion I reached, almost inadvertently, is that there might be organic patterns in random so that even though everything changes, it still remains the same.
"Evolution" may be an illusion
Just a thought...

Not really,

For example:
If you add two numbers and the first is a totally random and unknowable value between 0.9994 and 1.0007 and the second number has a totally random and unknowable value between 0.992 and 1.055

We honestly don't know exactly what the new number from adding these numbers is going to be... but on any reasonable scale we know it's about 2.

Quantum effects end up working like that... on the deep individual level it's unknowable and chaotic... but on a wide scale statistically it's pretty predictable.

That's why you can fly to the moon with only Newtons physics... but if you try to plot a path to Mars or keep GPS satellites exactly in sync you need help from Einstein.

EDIT:
And I meant to say, the mechanisms of evolution are chemical and biological population based. So way beyond the scale of quantum uncertainty and more based in statistics.

 

[QvQ]

Not really,

For example:
If you add two numbers and the first is a totally random and unknowable value between 0.9994 and 1.0007 and the second number has a totally random and unknowable value between 0.992 and 1.055

We honestly don't know exactly what the new number from adding these numbers is going to be... but on any reasonable scale we know it's about 2.

Quantum effects end up working like that... on the deep individual level it's unknowable and chaotic... but on a wide scale statistically it's pretty predictable.

That's why you can fly to the moon with only Newtons physics... but if you try to plot a path to Mars or keep GPS satellites exactly in sync you need help from Einstein.

EDIT:
And I meant to say, the mechanisms of evolution are chemical and biological population based. So way beyond the scale of quantum uncertainty and more based in statistics.

Exactly! I have always thought it is more like a kaleidoscope than a clock. I call it patterns in random. Organized chaos depending on the level at which the shifting pieces were viewed.
Mechanism of Evolution, again chaos but patterns
Here is a pattern...
The marigold is a small pretty orange/red flower.
Hybrid marigolds, a full bouquet, usually larger flowers with many different colors, petal shapes, growth habits, and petal numbers. Selective Breeding, a certain environment, natural or artificial and a rainbow of lovelies.
Evolution? Or merely the illusion...
When those F1 Hybrids go to seed and the seeds are tossed out in the field, the marigold reverts to type..small pretty orange/red flower.
Revert to Type..
Just a thought...

 

[Shemjaza]

Exactly! I have always thought it is more like a kaleidoscope than a clock. I call it patterns in random. Organized chaos depending on the level at which the shifting pieces were viewed.
Mechanism of Evolution, again chaos but patterns
Here is a pattern...
The marigold is a small pretty orange/red flower.
Hybrid marigolds, a full bouquet, usually larger flowers with many different colors, petal shapes, growth habits, and petal numbers. Selective Breeding, a certain environment, natural or artificial and a rainbow of lovelies.
Evolution? Or merely the illusion...
When those F1 Hybrids go to seed and the seeds are tossed out in the field, the marigold reverts to type..small pretty orange/red flower.
Revert to Type..
Just a thought...

Hybrids are another issue entirely. Often hybrids are either infertile or just not adapted to the environment.

There's an interesting phenomena where two related species can frequently hybridise, and the offspring are actually more successful then their parent species, but since they are infertile they never overtake the environment, but you end up with a constant population of hybrids in the area.


It's important to look at the scale that evolution operates at. The dozens of generations that are used by humans for selective breeding of domestic species just don't have either the population or time scale that allows for natural speciation.

For example, humans have been breeding dogs from the wolf like ancestors for between 10 and 30 thousand years and they are still arguably the same species... but the bear/dog split took millions of years for the two groups to become the distinct groups we see today.

 

[QvQ]

The time scale...Yes, world enough and time..anything can happen and apparently did.
The parallel universes and furry beast with long tales who grew up to be bears after a few million years are beyond my scope.
Right now I am studying mitochondrial dna. I hope DNA has answers to some questions about biological organization of organisms but it is a slog, wading through dna reports.

 

[Shemjaza]

The time scale...Yes, world enough and time..anything can happen and apparently did.
The parallel universes and furry beast with long tales who grew up to be bears after a few million years are beyond my scope.
Right now I am studying mitochondrial dna. I hope DNA has answers to some questions about biological organization of organisms but it is a slog, wading through dna reports.

Stuff like parallel universes is beyond my understanding and consideration, but millions of years and small furry long tailed "bears" are demonstrated by evidence both ancient and current.

Mitochondrial DNA is very useful for demonstrating the very long history of life. It doesn't get churned up like normal DNA by recombination each generation, it's just passed from mother to child... so that means each change can only come from the limited survivable mutations we get each generation.

If you look at the variation of mtDNA even just among humans you can see that there needs to be a looot of generations to create that diversity.

 

[QvQ]

The Devil is in the Details
It only takes a few generations or only 1 to create the diversity in plants and animals. And many of that diversity is reversible. As the American feral horses demonstrate. Those horses were domestic breeds in DNA, combination of many breeds and phenotype. Those horses have now reverted to type. The "type" is determined by mitochondrial DNA.
1) Natural Selection...There are genetic eye diseases that cause blindness after age 40. A person with that genetic defect could have passed that gene to 16 children with one wife and several hundred with multiple wives.
2) Neanderthals, there isn't any mitochondrial lineage in humans.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Devil is in the Details
It only takes a few generations or only 1 to create the diversity in plants and animals. And many of that diversity is reversible. As the American feral horses demonstrate. Those horses were domestic breeds in phenotype and have now reverted to type. The "type" is determined by mitochondrial DNA.
1) Natural Selection...There are genetic eye diseases that cause blindness after age 40. A person with that genetic defect could have passed that gene to 16 children with one wife and several hundred with multiple wives.
2) Neanderthals, there isn't any mitochondrial lineage in humans.

Not true. Scientists can measure how fast new traits enter the genome. And mitochondrial DNA does not show "type", it only demonstrates the matrilineal line of descent. There are so many errors in this post.

 

[Shemjaza]

The Devil is in the Details
It only takes a few generations or only 1 to create the diversity in plants and animals. And many of that diversity is reversible. As the American feral horses demonstrate. Those horses were domestic breeds in DNA, combination of many breeds and phenotype. Those horses have now reverted to type. The "type" is determined by mitochondrial DNA.
1) Natural Selection...There are genetic eye diseases that cause blindness after age 40. A person with that genetic defect could have passed that gene to 16 children with one wife and several hundred with multiple wives.
2) Neanderthals, there isn't any mitochondrial lineage in humans.

That isn't how mitochondrial DNA works. It doesn't define type merely maternal lineage.

If a San woman from Kalahari had a daughter with a Norse man from Iceland and that daughter had a daughter with another Icelander and so on for five generations of mother and daughter you would end up with children who were probably very pale and fair haired, but a mtDNA test would show them as 100% likely African.

I think you are misunderstanding the details you have. The American feral horses have traits found in a population known to be ancestral to them and other horse populations in different frequencies to other current populations. This doesn't demonstrate your false description of genetics... it's a perfectly normal example of divergence among separated populations.

A genetic disorder that causes blindness after 40 is absolutely going to be a genetic negative... but perhaps a smaller one in pre-historic times. A population where a significant part of your older generation becomes a serious burden rather then an experienced support structure will have disadvantages compared to a population without that trait.

I don't know what your point about Neanderthal DNA is except that we don't share a direct maternal lineage with know Neanderthal specimens... much of the world does share some percentage of regular DNA with Neanderthals.

 

[QvQ]

1) The San woman is interesting. I will research that, what the genetics would be over generations.
2) The horses are a combination of all different divergent breeds. However after 500 years of feral, the horses are phenotypes strongly indicative of their respective mitochondrial DNA. Revert to Type
3) The fact remains that a disease seriously disadvantageous to survival of the species cannot be naturally selected out of the species.
4) Neandertal MtDNA...If a Human Male mated with a Female Neandertal, then the resulting offspring would have Neandertal MtDNA.
5) Humans share some DNA with Neandertals...and Mice..(not me though, I don't like cheese)
And I was just getting started on the "inconvenient truths" of evolution...
I research subjects carefully. I don't assume, based on some biology class I took years ago as some poster do. In fact, not so old biology books state that Neandertals and Peking man are co-equal multipoint origin, mostly discredited idea although the Chinese political/university machine is trying to resurrect that by making the Peking Man older and therefore Ancestor to Neandertal. Ancestor is superior in China.

 

[Shemjaza]

1) IF the San woman had a daughter...however, the Fact, Not IF genetic testing shows that Jamaicans who are Black test up to 75% English DNA. Again the mitochondrial DNA.

I think you are confusing different things.

What explicitly does your source say about mtDNA and 75% English DNA?

Black Jamaicans absolutely will have a mix of African, Native American and European DNA because that's their ancestry... but mtDNA doesn't mix, it just gets passed on, so it's matter of their female lines being expressed, which I imagine would be mostly African and Native American, but there would certainly be other examples.

2) The horses are a combination of all different divergent breeds. However after 500 years of feral, the horses are phenotypes strongly indicative of their respective mitochondrial DNA. Revert to Type

Except that mtDNA doesn't create revert to type, that's not how it works. It doesn't revert, and it doesn't even define type.

3) The fact remains that a disease seriously disadvantageous to survival of the species cannot be naturally selected out of the species.

Why not?

Each generation people with the negative traits will be statistically less likely to pass it on.

It's not about whether Frank Jones who lost his sight at 41 does or does not have children, it's about whether all the families related to Frank over the generations have more issues and overall less children because of the excessive blind family members.

4) Neandertal MtDNA...If a Human Male mated with a Female Neandertal, then the resulting offspring would have Neandertal MtDNA.

Yes... what's your point? According to your statement, which I have no particular reason to dispute, there is no evidence of an unbroken female line back to pure Neanderthals.

5) Humans share some DNA with Neandertals...and Mice..(not me though, I don't like cheese)

All humans share DNA with mice because we are all related to them in the same way.

Some humans have more Neanderthal DNA then others because we have more recent interbreeding then the development of humanity.

The technology that demonstrates this is the exact technology that demonstrates paternity.

And I was just getting started on the "inconvenient truths" of evolution...

You really aren't.

I research subjects carefully. I don't assume, based on some biology class I took years ago as some poster do. In fact, not so old biology books state that Neandertals and Peking man are co-equal multipoint origin, mostly discredited idea although the Chinese political/university machine is trying to resurrect that by making the Peking Man older and therefore Ancestor to Neandertal. Ancestor is superior in China.

Your comments seem to have some fundamental misunderstandings about how genetics work.

Older doesn't imply ancestral.

Peking man is a variety of Homo erectus a species unambiguously older then Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis... but they weren't necessarily ancestral to those species, more an second uncle to Sapiens and Neanderthal's cousins.

In fact in the ancient past there were at least five varieties of human living at the same time:
Homo sapiens
Homo neanderthalensis
Denisova hominins
Homo erectus
Homo floresiensis