Why do people call it the "Theory of Evolution"?

[DJ_Ghost]

Creationism, in my view, is an extension of human pride, an attempt at telling God how he created instead of looking at the creation itself and letting the creation tell man how it happened.

That is a very good way of putting it,summs up my feelings on the subject very well.

Ghost

 

[Tashena]

Please don't take this personally Loudmouth... but how does one fall out of faith? If you fell out of it, you never had it to begin with. The thing that you may have confussed is that God NEVER moves away from us.. we are the ones who move away from him. I would like to hear more about this if and when you have the time.

Tashena

 

[A4C]

Creationism, in my view, is an extension of human pride, an attempt at telling God how he created instead of looking at the creation itself and letting the creation tell man how it happened.

On the contrary I think it is very much pride that trys to tell God how things came into being rather than listen to how God tells how it happened. As God is the ultimate judge of our pride I would rather get it right with Him rather than get it right with man.

 

[A4C]

OK then I suppose it remains the "Hypothosis of Evolution" until somebody answers the question of asexual to sexual reproduction

 

[DJ_Ghost]

On the contrary I think it is very much pride that trys to tell God how things came into being rather than listen to how God tells how it happened. As God is the ultimate judge of our pride I would rather get it right with Him rather than get it right with man.

Last time I checked the Bible was written by men, but the world was (I believe) created by God. I am more inclined to believe the Bible, which was written by men, may contain the odd error (to err is human..) than to believe God lied in his creation.

Ghost

 

[mikeynov]

OK then I suppose it remains the "Hypothosis of Evolution" until somebody answers the question of asexual to sexual reproduction

Your argument is, and I quote:

"Because of the reproduction aspect, it is automatically invalidated as a theory and should only be considered hypothosis as suggested."

Most people, when they attempt to debate something, usually offer some sort of reasoning. You, on the other hand, simply state your argument as a positive assertion and then declare yourself the victor.

In this case, you haven't demonstrated that not being able to necessarily explain EXACTLY how sexual reproduction arose invalidates evolution as a theory.

I mean, do you think a 'theory' is something which accounts for everything in the universe, specifically, without any unknowns?

 

[Loudmouth]

Please don't take this personally Loudmouth... but how does one fall out of faith? If you fell out of it, you never had it to begin with. The thing that you may have confussed is that God NEVER moves away from us.. we are the ones who move away from him. I would like to hear more about this if and when you have the time.

Tashena

At one time I had faith in people above me, namely parents and people within the church. Looking back, acceptance from other people was the only reason I even went to church and so I stopped going. I guess the more accurate phrase is "fell out of THE faith", or "moved out of the religion". You would be correct in saying that I never had complete faith that God existed, only a hope that my parents and others were right. Then, as happens to everyone, I started thinking for myself. I soon came to cherish my own outlook and opinions over that of others around me and started living my own life. From my own discussions with other people, this is a very common story for kids who were raised in church but stopped going when they became adults. I harbor no ill will towards christians, christianity, or those of faith. I do have philospohical issues with creationists, but creationism is not christianity. I have a good understanding of christian theology, have read the New Testament front to back on numerous occasions, have studied the Bible, and have still found it wanting. I suppose I have a hard heart, thick skull, or I'm just plain stubborn and independent but I am happy.

 

[Loudmouth]

On the contrary I think it is very much pride that trys to tell God how things came into being rather than listen to how God tells how it happened. As God is the ultimate judge of our pride I would rather get it right with Him rather than get it right with man.

Many christians here have listened, and many accept both Genesis and evolution. How am I supposed to tell who is right and who is wrong? The most obvious way, it seems to me, is to compare the creation story to the creation itself. Everytime creationists compare their ideas to the creation it fails. Your scrambling in the fossil sorting threads is evidence of just that.

 

[Dale Martin]

This is the first time I have encountered a demand to ignore the evidence of no new species( a rat that can't breed with other rats is still a rat) change the definition of Macro evolution to fit your ideas. Simply claiming that all Christians want to control you only makes you look paranoid. Lets start over and try to discuss this issue with facts and only proven facts. Please. . .

 

[Loudmouth]

This is the first time I have encountered a demand to ignore the evidence of no new species( a rat that can't breed with other rats is still a rat) change the definition of Macro evolution to fit your ideas.

So if I called the new species ratarifficas, would that mean that macroevolution took place? The only division in nature is the the species division. Every other category is a human contrivance. A new species, a new group that only interbreeds with others of the same group, is macroevolution. The only thing you are capable of doing is to play the name game. Here, let me show you how foolish your little game is (the "it's still a rat" game).

A dalmation begats a dalmation; it's still a dalmation.
A dalmation begats a St. Bernard; still a dog
A dalmation begats a tabby; still a carnivorian (dogs and cats are in the Carnivora Family).
A dalmation begats a rat; still a mammal
A dalmation begats a lizard; still a land vertebrate
A dalmation begats a fish; still a vertebrate
A dalmation begats a roundworm; still a metazoan

Need I keep going? I can play the "it's still a ____" until the excersice becomes useless. I can make everything into microevolution by using the very criteria that you use, that the two species can be described by the same label.

Simply claiming that all Christians want to control you only makes you look paranoid. Lets start over and try to discuss this issue with facts and only proven facts. Please. . .

Yes, let's start with the facts. The fact is that a new species was produced. Fact: mutations that happen in the old species will not be spread to the new species. Fact: different mutations mean different characteristics. Fact: large numbers of different mutations mean large differences in morphology. Fact: the only division of life within nature is at the species level. Fact: all other division are man made.

 

[†(ÎXØ¥Ê)†]

Yo dudes,
It's not necessary to have a complete understanding of science to know that there is something more.. all you need is common sense.. I mean seriously all of you are my human brothers and sisters, and if possible, it would be awsome to enjoy eternal life just kickin it.... So please I got nothin but love, although it may have sounded otherwise in mah last rantin, I apologize.. Why are we so different from everything else? Just look at all the different animals like Giraffes and cheetahs and whales, just all those different and unique beasts.. they are slowly changing you say, i dont know much about that stuff, but thats cool, tiny molecular advantages over long periods of time.. Probably just they way God wanted.. Yeah the Bible was written by men, Just like when you write a paper, is it you or the pen that does the writting?? in the same way God used man as his writting utencil to write the Bible.. The Human Body is waaay to complex to have started from whatever you believe we started from.. All those different organs, functioning together, just the human eye is soo complex its mind blowing... Just like a car, a car has 100's of different things in it to make it run, similar to an eye, the windsheild has wipers to clean it and a defroster to help keep it clear, not to mention all the drive shaft and motor components, just like cars, we have a manufacturer, a crater, a maker.. Why are wee soo far beyond all other animals.. Animals have been around just as long as we have, how come we're the only one functioning at this level? with all we've accomplished.. I mean animals will always be animals, and we will always be humans, despite how many tiny changes occur.. So tell me please, If you have no belief in a God, and you believe in evolution completely, what is it that motivates you to chase that belief?

 

[A4C]

Your argument is, and I quote:

"Because of the reproduction aspect, it is automatically invalidated as a theory and should only be considered hypothosis as suggested."

Most people, when they attempt to debate something, usually offer some sort of reasoning. You, on the other hand, simply state your argument as a positive assertion and then declare yourself the victor.

In this case, you haven't demonstrated that not being able to necessarily explain EXACTLY how sexual reproduction arose invalidates evolution as a theory.

I mean, do you think a 'theory' is something which accounts for everything in the universe, specifically, without any unknowns?

There is only one answer - The first man and the first woman had respective organs in place exactly how we have today and were able to procreate in the same manner. Unless you can explain that this occurred in some other way than divine creation of God, I dont think I am lacking any explanation. Your reluctance to explain from an evolution point of view tells me that you have no answer . This only re inforces the contention that evolution should not be called a theory because it lacks a basic consideration: " How did reproduction evolve to what we see today?"

 

[Loudmouth]

Why are we so different from everything else?

That is just the point. Humans are not that different from chimps, orangs, and gorillas. What differences there are can be seen developing in the fossil record.

The Human Body is waaay to complex to have started from whatever you believe we started from..

Why?

All those different organs, functioning together, just the human eye is soo complex its mind blowing...

Just because it is mind blowing doesn't mean it didn't happen. Reality is not limited to what humans can imagine.

just like cars, we have a manufacturer, a crater, a maker..

Uh, cars require a manufacturer because they can't reproduce on their own. Humans can reproduce on their own and therefore do not require a manufacturer.

Why are wee soo far beyond all other animals..

We are way behind. The cheetah can run faster, the bird can fly, and the dolphin can outswim us. The only thing we are better at is using tools.

Animals have been around just as long as we have, how come we're the only one functioning at this level?

Luck. Nothing is precluding other organisms from acquiring human like intelligence in the future. In fact, humans could even "smarten up" chimps through genetic manipulation sometime in the future. Wouldn't that be interesting.

with all we've accomplished.. I mean animals will always be animals, and we will always be humans, despite how many tiny changes occur..

We are animals. I just happen to believe that this isn't a bad thing.

So tell me please, If you have no belief in a God, and you believe in evolution completely, what is it that motivates you to chase that belief?

Nothing motivates me but being truthful. Why do you believe that 2+2=4? Why do you believe that that gravity is an attractive force, or that bacteria can cause disease. If evolution is shown to be wrong I will drop it like a hot potato. I have do not have any belief invested into evolution. The only reason I am on these boards is for the education of the misinformed and to keep valid science in public classrooms. It is the same fervor that drove other great scientists, such as Galileo (read my sig).

 

[A4C]

Nothing motivates me but being truthful. Why do you believe that 2+2=4? Why do you believe that that gravity is an attractive force, or that bacteria can cause disease. If evolution is shown to be wrong I will drop it like a hot potato. I have do not have any belief invested into evolution. The only reason I am on these boards is for the education of the misinformed and to keep valid science in public classrooms. It is the same fervor that drove other great scientists, such as Galileo (read my sig).

Could you be truthful and educate us about what the hypothesis of evolution has to say about asexual to sexual

 

[†(ÎXØ¥Ê)†]

" 26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."



27 So God created man in his own image,

in the image of God he created him;

male and female he created them.



28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." 29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground-everything that has the breath of life in it-I give every green plant for food." And it was so. "

That is from Genisis, you say we are above by luck? could be possible.. but it is truly the divine authority given to us by god..
Yes, cars cannot reproduce.. I was just comparing how complex humans and automobiles are and how they both have a creator.

ok what IS keeping animals from developing human intelligence? Maybe humans could "smarten up" a chimp, but thats our unprecedented intelligence tampering with the animals that are waaaayy below us.. thats not evolution, thats just us manipulating their genetic development.. okay no belief in evolution, just a scientific standpoint.. its all good, but do you believe or have any gut feeling inside you that there is a God?

 

[ego licet visum]

[/font][/color]

So if I called the new species ratarifficas, would that mean that macroevolution took place? The only division in nature is the the species division. Every other category is a human contrivance. A new species, a new group that only interbreeds with others of the same group, is macroevolution. The only thing you are capable of doing is to play the name game. Here, let me show you how foolish your little game is (the "it's still a rat" game).

A dalmation begats a dalmation; it's still a dalmation.
A dalmation begats a St. Bernard; still a dog
A dalmation begats a tabby; still a carnivorian (dogs and cats are in the Carnivora Family).
A dalmation begats a rat; still a mammal
A dalmation begats a lizard; still a land vertebrate
A dalmation begats a fish; still a vertebrate
A dalmation begats a roundworm; still a metazoan

Need I keep going? I can play the "it's still a ____" until the excersice becomes useless. I can make everything into microevolution by using the very criteria that you use, that the two species can be described by the same label.



Yes, let's start with the facts. The fact is that a new species was produced. Fact: mutations that happen in the old species will not be spread to the new species. Fact: different mutations mean different characteristics. Fact: large numbers of different mutations mean large differences in morphology. Fact: the only division of life within nature is at the species level. Fact: all other division are man made.

I think Dale Martin is on our side .

 

[Loudmouth]

I think Dale Martin is on our side .

If I misdirected my arrows, I humbly apologize.

 

[A4C]

Nothing motivates me but being truthful

Could you be truthful about answering my posts If you don't have an answer I understand. Then I would expect you to stop calling it the theory of evolution and call it instead an hypothosis which it truthfully is

 

[Loudmouth]

Could you be truthful and educate us about what the hypothesis of evolution has to say about asexual to sexual

I have to skedaddle in a few, so I'll make it brief.

Sexual reproduction has the added benefit of greater genetic variety in offspring. Asexual reproduction is not capable of spreading beneficial mutations through a population as quickly as sexual reproduction, especially for species with longer generational periods.

So we need a way to mix genetic material. The first systems were quite simple. Two cells are released into the environmental mileu where they join together to form a whole organism. At this point, there is no need for egg or sperm, just the mixture of two genomes. At this point, it is advantageous to specialize the sex cells. So, we have the development of the egg and sperm. The sperm is very active and moves through the environment in search of the egg. The egg holds all of the nutrients needed for blastogenesis (the first rounds of cell division after fertilization). Each organism has both male and female organs (testes and ovaries). This is seen in many simpler organisms such as sea squirts. As evolution went along it became advantageous to have just one set of sexual organs at a time. At this point, instead of being two sexes at once organisms were now either male or female. In fact, in some species, each individual can be female one breeding season and female the next, or have completely separate sexes like most land vertebrates (reptiles, amphibians, and mammals).

The evolution of separate sexes is a very simple, step by step process. Separate sexes are not the rule in nature. There are many organisms that produce both egg and sperm, either at the same time or sequencially. Separate sexes is not a hurdle for evolution.

If you want examples of any of the steps in this process I may be coming back later tomorrow. Others may be able to supply you with specific examples as well.

Is evolution a theory now?

 

[Loudmouth]

Could you be truthful about answering my posts If you don't have an answer I understand. Then I would expect you to stop calling it the theory of evolution and call it instead an hypothosis which it truthfully is

Evolution is a theory whether or not I can explain the transition of asexual reproduction to mammalian reproduction. A hypothesis is the question under scrutiny. Theory is supported and unfalsified hypothesis. Evolution is both supported and unfalsified, therefore it is a theory. You can call it hypothesis if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that it is the most accurate explanation for biodiversity within biology. It doesn't cover up the fact that a 6,000 year old earth, special creation, and a global flood are falsified by the evidence.