Why do you believe in the evolution theory?

PsychoSarah · Mar 31, 2015

whois said:
yes, it was aimed at a specific person.
more importantly it calls into question his assumptions about accumulating changes and his test that "proves" it.

Natural selection prevents the buildup of generally "bad" traits that is nigh impossible to immitate in a lab without drastically slowing down the experiment and in certain cases, ruining the data, it is that simple. In short, lab grown generations will almost always be weaker than ones which grow in the environment because selective pressures aren't as strong.

Thanks to natural selection, positive and beneficial traits build up in populations relative to their environments rather than the bad.

whois · Mar 31, 2015

See his papers Eugene Koonin, The Origin at 150: Is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight?" Trends in Genetics, 25(11), November 2009, pp. 473-475 and Eugene Koonin, Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics, Nucleic Acids Research, 37(4), 2009, pp. 1011-1034

He says in these papers:

In the post-genomic era, all the major tenets of the modern synthesis have been, if not outright overturned, replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of the key aspects of evolution.

The discovery of pervasive HGT and the overall dynamics
of the genetic universe destroys not only the tree of life as we
knew it but also another central tenet of the modern synthesis
inherited from Darwin, namely gradualism. In a
world dominated by HGT, gene duplication, gene loss and
such momentous events as endosymbiosis, the idea of evolution
being driven primarily by infinitesimal heritable
changes in the Darwinian tradition has become untenable.

Equally outdated is the (neo-) Darwinian notion of the
adaptive nature of evolution; clearly, genomes show very
little if any signs of optimal design, and random drift
constrained by purifying in all likelihood contributes
(much) more to genome evolution than Darwinian selection.

Evolution is not Darwinian - Biology-Online

lewiscalledhimmaster · Mar 31, 2015

Davian said:
My impression was, historically, we went with those that had the most powerful armies.

Well, it's certainly not a position that I feel comfortable with -- nor have I found it to be consistent with what I believe it means to be a follower of Jesus. (I already pointed that out)

JacksBratt · Mar 31, 2015

Davian said:
Indeed. All of mainstream science must be wrong, because it conflicts with your beliefs.

On the contrary. I work with physics, chemistry, geology, statistics, mathematics.... everyday.

And, not once has the TOE or Creation ever affected what happens in the lab.

Science is science. Evolution and creation are beliefs based on ancient data. They don't affect the present. The present is used to predict the past.

PsychoSarah · Mar 31, 2015

JacksBratt said:
On the contrary. I work with physics, chemistry, geology, statistics, mathematics.... everyday.

And, not once has the TOE or Creation ever affected what happens in the lab.

Science is science. Evolution and creation are beliefs based on ancient data. They don't affect the present. The present is used to predict the past.

We use evolution principles to make vaccines.

JacksBratt · Mar 31, 2015

Davian said:
My impression was, historically, we went with those that had the most powerful armies.

Really?

In what war has a strong army changed the belief of the ones with strong faith in that belief. Have there not, always, been the pockets of strong believers who go underground, continue their faith in prisons, face prosecution or persecution for continuing to be openly following their beliefs?

Are there not, in fact, large groups of certain religious followers carrying on in countries where their religious beliefs are against the law and, in some cases, punishable by death, even to this very day.

sfs · Mar 31, 2015

JacksBratt said:
On the contrary. I work with physics, chemistry, geology, statistics, mathematics.... everyday.

And, not once has the TOE or Creation ever affected what happens in the lab.

So you work with things that have nothing to do with biological evolution. I work in genetics, at a research institute dedicated to improving human health, and we spend millions on researching evolution, and use it in many practical ways in our work. I think our experience is a little more relevant than yours.

Science is science. Evolution and creation are beliefs based on ancient data. They don't affect the present. The present is used to predict the past.

Science is science, and evolution is part of science -- which has no difficulty handling ancient data. Do you really think that you can write evolution out of science, when every major university, every philosopher of science, Federal funding agencies, professional scientific organizations and scientific journals routinely treat it as part of science? Are you really that disconnected from the world of science?

What exactly do you do with physics and chemistry, anyway?

JacksBratt · Mar 31, 2015

Loudmouth said:
The Black Plague killed millions of heterosexuals, many of them who were virgins when they married and stayed true to their spouse. Obviously, God felt it necessary to punish these people as well. Go figure.

It seems that God punishes every group at one point or another, so you might as well join the group you feel best in.

i didn't know that the black plague was sent by God? Secondly, what was it a punishment for again?

DerelictJunction · Mar 31, 2015

JacksBratt said:
Yes, all of them are hoaxes.... cool story bro.

Paul, the Baptist. check out:

God’s Wrath Against Sinful Humanity

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

What is basically being said here is that those who know God but don't give Him credit for what He has done and what He is capable of are fools.

Note the bold "worshiped and served the created things rather than the creator"

This is speaking directly to those who believe in Him but not that He created the universe the way it is described in the bible.

The fallout from a nation that believes this way is given in the verses that follow. Check it out and see if the results of this error in our belief system as a nation is not manifesting itself in our world today....

So, acceptance of evolution caused homos3xu@lity?

I thought it was around long before Paul.

lifepsyop · Mar 31, 2015

PsychoSarah said:
Thanks to natural selection, positive and beneficial traits build up in populations relative to their environments rather than the bad.

This is a superstitious darwinian view of natural selection... that of some all powerful force scrutinizing every bit of nature and distinguishing beneficial or harmful variations no matter how slight.

In reality, natural selection doesn't really work well at all. It's clunky and inefficient, and only variations which confer major positive or negative fitness signals have an effect with regards to population fixation. Slightly harmful and beneficial variations will be swamped by phenotypic noise. A tiny ripple is not noticed in crashing waves of the sea.

This is why evolutionists routinely fall back on NS examples of simple cosmetic changes of pigmentation with regard to predation factors. And of course all of these types of changes are cyclical in nature... beak shapes and hair or skin color can fluctuate for billions of years and it's never going to lead to fundamentally new anatomical structures.

DerelictJunction · Mar 31, 2015

lifepsyop said:
This is a superstitious darwinian view of natural selection... that of some all powerful force scrutinizing every bit of nature and distinguishing beneficial or harmful variations no matter how slight.

Where in the theory is this mentioned? Darwin's works, perhaps? Some scientific paper somewhere?

In reality, natural selection doesn't really work well at all. It's clunky and inefficient, and only variations which confer major positive or negative fitness signals have an effect with regards to population fixation. Slightly harmful and beneficial variations will be swamped by phenotypic noise. A tiny ripple is not noticed in crashing waves of the sea.

You have examples of this happening?

lifepsyop · Mar 31, 2015

DerelictJunction said:
Where in the theory is this mentioned? Darwin's works, perhaps? Some scientific paper somewhere?

At exactly 1:37:30 (Richard Dawkins reading from Darwin's Origin of Species)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJBqLuoaOlM

DerelictJunction said:
You have examples of this happening?

This is the conventional view from population genetics. Even most "beneficial" mutations will be effectively neutral with regards to fitness.

Universal Common Descent, if it is true (which it isn't), would have had to proceed mainly via genetic drift, i.e. random, with natural selection serving only a minor role.

DerelictJunction · Mar 31, 2015

Please remove the "s" from the "https" in the URL for your video.

lifepsyop said:
At exactly 1:37:30 (Richard Dawkins reading from Darwin's Origin of Species)

That's what was said. Based on the context, I doubt he meant that Natural Selection was in any way sentient. It could be said of a sieve that it constantly scrutinizes the input in order to allow only those particles that met size constraints.
Do you believe that Darwin was trying to convey that natural selection was a sentient entity?

This is the conventional view from population genetics. Even most "beneficial" mutations will be effectively neutral with regards to fitness.

Universal Common Descent, if it is true (which it isn't), would have had to proceed mainly via genetic drift, i.e. random, with natural selection serving only a minor role.

Would those mutations be in the population or not?
If the environment changed so that one of those "swamped" mutations became a valuable asset to the organisms that had it, then the mutation would become more prevalent in the population (oh, look...natural selection). A "beneficial" mutation is only given that moniker after it has been shown to be beneficial through its increase in prevalence in the population.
You already know this but are pretending it isn't true.

Now, where are those examples of mutations that cannot be acted upon by natural selection?

sfs · Mar 31, 2015

lifepsyop said:
This is the conventional view from population genetics. Even most "beneficial" mutations will be effectively neutral with regards to fitness.

The conventional view in population genetics is that beneficial mutations are ones that have a strong enough selective effect not to be effectively neutral. Mutations are considered beneficial is their selective advantage is greater than roughly one over the effective population size.

sfs · Mar 31, 2015

lifepsyop said:
It's clunky and inefficient, and only variations which confer major positive or negative fitness signals have an effect with regards to population fixation.

The first half of your sentence is true; the second half is false. Selection will favor mutations that have a selective advantage as small as 0.01% (for something like human ancestors) to 0.0001% (for something like fruit flies).

Davian · Mar 31, 2015

lewiscalledhimmaster said:
Well, it's certainly not a position that I feel comfortable with -- nor have I found it to be consistent with what I believe it means to be a follower of Jesus. (I already pointed that out)

Then believe what you feel comfortable with.

Davian · Mar 31, 2015

JacksBratt said:
On the contrary. I work with physics, chemistry, geology, statistics, mathematics.... everyday.

And, not once has the TOE or Creation ever affected what happens in the lab.

Science is science. Evolution and creation are beliefs based on ancient data.

They don't affect the present. The present is used to predict the past.

Not once?

"To see the integral role of evolution in biomedical research, consider Nobel Prizes, a good indicator of the most important breakthroughs in biology. Reviewing the last 50 years of Nobel Prizes in medicine or physiology, I asked, "Is training in evolutionary biology necessary for a thorough understanding of the award-winning discoveries and work resulting from each breakthrough?" By my criteria, understanding of evolution is necessary in 47 of 50 cases. From vaccines, viral cancer genes, and nerve cell communication to drug trials, and genes controlling cholesterol and heart disease, evolutionary insights are crucial."

Evolution is a Winner for Breakthroughs and Prizes | NCSE

Davian · Mar 31, 2015

JacksBratt said:
Really?

In what war has a strong army changed the belief of the ones with strong faith in that belief. Have there not, always, been the pockets of strong believers who go underground, continue their faith in prisons, face prosecution or persecution for continuing to be openly following their beliefs?

Of course there will be exceptions. Religion makes big promises.

JacksBratt said:
Are there not, in fact, large groups of certain religious followers carrying on in countries where their religious beliefs are against the law and, in some cases, punishable by death, even to this very day.

Yes there are. And for what?

lifepsyop · Mar 31, 2015

DerelictJunction said:
Please remove the "s" from the "https" in the URL for your video.
That's what was said. Based on the context, I doubt he meant that Natural Selection was in any way sentient. It could be said of a sieve that it constantly scrutinizes the input in order to allow only those particles that met size constraints.
Do you believe that Darwin was trying to convey that natural selection was a sentient entity?

Obviously it's not being described as a literal sentient selector, however Darwin and his disciples tend to describe natural selection as if it were comparable in effectiveness. This view of NS is flawed.

DerelictJunction · Mar 31, 2015

lifepsyop said:
Obviously it's not being described as a literal sentient selector, however Darwin and his disciples tend to describe natural selection as if it were comparable in effectiveness. This view of NS is flawed.

Please explain in detail how this view is flawed. Also, what experiments have shown this view to be flawed?

Why do you believe in the evolution theory?

Chaotic Neutral

rational

georgemacdonald.info

Searching for Truth

Chaotic Neutral

Searching for Truth

Senior Member

Searching for Truth

DerelictJunction

Guest

Regular Member

DerelictJunction

Guest

Regular Member

DerelictJunction

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

fallible

fallible

fallible

Regular Member

DerelictJunction

Guest

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency