Why evolution should not be a religious issue

[Mountainmike]

What would you classify evolution as if not a theory? I was under the impression most if not all of the scientific community classified it as a theory.

And what is your field of study as a scientist?

Evolution is not a theory. The word was first used wrongly by Darwin, the name repeatedly abused by Dawkins.

I have clarified the issue. What is a succinct statement of the theory? there is not a single theory.

There is a hypothesis of common descent. But it can only remain a hypothesis for reasons I cited earlier. I can easily disprove it as a provable hypothesis (ie theory) by a simple mindgame , which I did above.

All life is accounted as a directionless biochemical accident. A non starter for a theory, because there is no hypothesis for how it started.

There are a lot of connected theories (eg in molecular biologic genetics, that explain how species drift in morphology, but not much more)
There are also hypotheses, unproven, part proven. How for example did viable organisms ever change chromosome numbers? There is only conjecture.

In short, there is an idea that sooner or later we will come up with a viable chemical pathway from first cell to all the organisms we see. There are too many holes for it to be more than a work in progress, and nobody ever couched the theory that way. It is certainly not a theory as yet.

Darwin aludes to the idea that all organisms are the result of small change. Had he known about molecular genetics he would have seen the massive problems in unaccounted genetic jumps

None of that explains how the even greater problem , a big chemical factory cell) way more complex than any humans create suddenly appeared out of nowhere. How?

So it is all a work in progress. That is all.

 

[Radrook]

Those instances are imaginary so everyone should reject them.

Well, Evolution as described by evolutionists appears to those who have examined your evolution claims to be as imaginary as you say ID or Christianity is to you. In fact, to us the Evolution idea comes across as mere quackery with a very thin veneer of pseudo-science in a desperate effort to provide it with some semblance of respectability.

 

[SteveB28]

As far as I am aware the Chromosome 2 fusion evidence (as a mechanism for ape to human, rather than biologic possibility) is little more than conjecture, not least because the genomic material so produced, or even at the fusion site, is at best similar, not the same.

Leaving aside the erroneous "ape to human" (humans are apes), chromosome 2 is nevertheless ONE piece of evidence for common ancestry, among many.

But also the hooker...it needs two of these accidents to occur, be viable organisms for mating, and find each other to breed. You make it sound far more defined than it is.

You don't know much about this, do you? I'm betting you've relied on nothing more valid than your favourite creationist site for your...... information. Please explain why TWO of these events are necessary ( be aware, I already know what your answer will be...)

Perhaps you should ask the opposition question, how did the higher numbers of chromosomes come to be, to allow a fusion. Surely the fewer number is a stage on route to the larger, not the other way round.

Why? Again you display your ignorance. In order for the 48 chromosomes found on the separate branches occupied by chimpanzees and gorillas to have formed from the 46 number in humans, this proposed increase of yours would have had to occur TWICE, once on each branch. Highly unlikely, but more importantly, we have no evidence for this "route", whereas we do for the more likely one!

Fact is it is all conjecture. And even if a pathway is shown viable, is no demonstration it occured that way.

Please demonstrate an alternative explanation for the fusion event at chromosome 2.

Oh, and when you're finished there, you might care to explain the even more convincing evidence demonstrated by ERV insertions....!

 

[fat wee robin]

in your extreme biased opinion only .
in my extrem biased opinion atheists dont exist ..(& how did you get past my ignore list ?)back on it you go

I agee that atheists are really 'blind' people, who try their very best to ignore what those with
'sight' can see ,as Einstein said
more or less .
The have 'carnal minds ' which are blocked to the higher reality of God , and His designed creation .
Of course some 'christians ', of the YEC etc., do not help at all .

 

[SteveB28]

Evolution is not a theory. The word was first used wrongly by Darwin, the name repeatedly abused by Dawkins.

I have clarified the issue. What is a succinct statement of the theory? there is not a single theory.

"The theory of evolution by natural selection, first formulated in Darwin's book "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, is the process by which organisms change over time as a result of changes in heritable physical or behavioral traits."

There.......succinct enough for you....?

 

[Mountainmike]

My suggestion is you are not so dismissive, when all you have is pure conjecture to support a case. The entire interest of the "evolutionists" in chromosome 2 is because they think it is paving the way to an evolutionary bridge to humans.

The problem with a priori belief, as demonstrated by atheist evolutionists, is they only care about evidence which might support their case, they dont go where evidence leads.

And I suggest you look at the problems to get a realistic evaluation of what science does or does not know.Your rhetoric seems built on a priori belief set, not an enquiring mind, because you are too dismissive of problems to be a scientist.. I dont look at creationist websites. No interest. When my partner is a molecular biologist who messes with genetics , I have no need

My comment on all of it. The jury is out. On whether and how.

Leaving aside the erroneous "ape to human" (humans are apes), chromosome 2 is nevertheless ONE piece of evidence for common ancestry, among many.



You don't know much about this, do you? I'm betting you've relied on nothing more valid than your favourite creationist site for your...... information. Please explain why TWO of these events are necessary ( be aware, I already know what your answer will be...)



Why? Again you display your ignorance. In order for the 48 chromosomes found on the separate branches occupied by chimpanzees and gorillas to have formed from the 46 number in humans, this proposed increase of yours would have had to occur TWICE, once on each branch. Highly unlikely, but more importantly, we have no evidence for this "route", whereas we do for the more likely one!



Please demonstrate an alternative explanation for the fusion event at chromosome 2.

Oh, and when you're finished there, you might care to explain the even more convincing evidence demonstrated by ERV insertions....!

 

[Mountainmike]

"The theory of evolution by natural selection, first formulated in Darwin's book "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, is the process by which organisms change over time as a result of changes in heritable physical or behavioral traits."

There.......succinct enough for you....?

Who was not a scientist - which is why it is so badly formulated.

 

[SteveB28]

I can easily disprove it as a provable hypothesis (ie theory) by a simple mindgame , which I did above.

Please stop trying to masquerade as someone with a scientific background. The jig is up, with that little definition of yours....!



.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

In principle if you have inconsistent beliefs you ought to abandon some of them, till consistency reigns supreme.

but

Paraconsistent logic - Wikipedia

 

[SteveB28]

My suggestion is you are not so dismissive, when all you have is pure conjecture to support a case. The entire interest of the "evolutionists" in chromosome 2 is because they think it is paving the way to an evolutionary bridge to humans.

The problem with a priori belief, as demonstrated by atheist evolutionists, is they only care about evidence which might support their case, they dont go where evidence leads.

And I suggest you look at the problems to get a realistic evaluation of what science does or does not know.Your rhetoric seems built on a priori belief set, not an enquiring mind, because you are too dismissive of problems to be a scientist.. I dont look at creationist websites. No interest. When my partner is a molecular biologist who messes with genetics , I have no need

My comment on all of it. The jury is out. On whether and how.

I see. Leaving the blather aside, how do you or your claimed 'molecular biologist partner' explain the fusion event at chromosome 2 AND the evidence provided by ERV insertion sites...?

We wait with bated breath.......


.

 

[SteveB28]

Who was not a scientist - which is why it is so badly formulated.

You asked for a succinct statement of the theory.....there it is.

 

[Mountainmike]

Now if you had looked, I said I could disprove common descent as a provable hypothesis by a mindgame.

And you would see what I said.

If you conjecture that life is a biochemical accident likely enough to have happened at all, you cannot exclude it having happened more than once or many times. From which you can only conclude you have no idea whether there was one or many common starting points.
Therefore showing that common descent can only remain a belief. It is not a provable hypothesis.

I do logic, not ranting. And if you want to continue this, you can
turn of the smarmy condescending patronising Dawkinsian b/s. You have no idea who I am or what I know, and even if you did, critical thinking says "who I am" is a straw man in the context of whether what I say is true.. So you clearly do not know critical thinking, therefore by your own illogic, you are not a scientist.

 

[Mountainmike]

You asked for a succinct statement of the theory.....there it is.

And it is not succinct. It makes no reference to whether he means "all life" "some life" or just the life he observed. Dawkins conflates it to all life. He clearly uses a different definition.

Science has to be precise. Darwin demonstrated he is not in that formulation.

 

[SteveB28]

[staff edited]

Not very nice of you. Evolution is indeed a fact. Evolutionary theory provides the explanation underlying that fact.

 

[Jimmy D]

Being a theistic evolutionist, I obviously believe in both God and evolution (or rather, accept evolution based on the evidence, just because I know some people will nitpick my wording on that).

But I have a question for creationists: If biological evolution (not talking abiogenesis here, just evolution) was proven to your satisfaction, would it cause you to lose your faith in God? I'm guessing probably not. So then why do so many people take this particular scientific theory as an affront to Christianity?

Also, for atheists: If it was completely proven to you that the ToE was false and everything we knew about modern biology was wrong, I bet you probably wouldn't start believing in God (at least not the Christian God), am I right?

So when you get down to it, the ToE really has nothing to do with religion or belief in God. They are separate issues.

Good post, you certainly seemed to have riled up the creationists though! I've seen a similar question asked (I've probably asked it myself) which is "what evidence would convince you to accept the idea of common descent?" and it seems that the answer is none.

I agree with you that there is no reason why a God couldn't have 'created' through evolution, it appears the main stumbling block is a failure to accept that certain parts of the bible can be taken as myth or allegory. Such a failure to recognize the history and development of a collection of books they hold so dear seems incredible to me, especially when coupled with the denial of so much easily verified evidence from the natural world.

Your also right that even if an exterior influence (or designer of some sort) was found to have created life on our planet I wouldn't become religous in any way. It just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[SteveB28]

And it is not succinct. It makes no reference to whether he means "all life" "some life" or just the life he observed. Dawkins conflates it to all life. He clearly uses a different definition.

Science has to be precise. Darwin demonstrated he is not in that formulation.

What is your obsession with Dawkins...??? Did he run over your cat?

The validity of evolutionary theory relies not on the input of any one particular scientist.....


.

 

[Jimmy D]

What is your obsession with Dawkins...??? Did he run over your cat?

The validity of evolutionary theory relies not on the input of any one particular scientist.....


.

I was just about to post along the same lines.

 

[Larniavc]

funny . evolution has never been proven true .

Which part of ToE has been shown to be incorrect?

 

[SteveB28]

And it is not succinct. It makes no reference to whether he means "all life" "some life" or just the life he observed. Dawkins conflates it to all life. He clearly uses a different definition.

Science has to be precise. Darwin demonstrated he is not in that formulation.

It mentions neither. It speaks of "organisms" that exhibit "changes in heritable traits".

That's it.

Give up.....

.

 

[Larniavc]

There are scientists who understand Evolution perfectly and who reject it.

For religious reasons.