Why evolution should not be a religious issue

[SteveB28]

Hello Steve.

Your wearing rose colored glasses.

You must be under a powerful delusion.

Science has enabled mankind to destroy our world. Nuclear weapons stand as the greatest mistake science has ever made.

Industrialization is turning the planet into a wasteland, Industrialization is built on scientific advances.

You have already been irradiated by Fukishima, all the nuclear tests world wide, have also contaminated the planet with radiation.

No such thing as luck. The advances are slowly moving this planet beyond the point of no return. Take those glasses off and take a good hard look at the real world.

The human primate is a destructive creature, stop giving the primate, more and more power, to wreak havoc on this planet.

What Luddite rot....!

The same development of nuclear technology allows us to detect and treat cancers. The same industrialisation permits us to develop medicines, feed millions more than we were able to previously and to prevent you dying from your teeth in your 30's!



.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think a good lesson for students would be to take the Bible and use It to calculate what year the creation week took place.

They don't have to believe It -- just do it.

For what reason?

 

[Speedwell]

We now have science in the dock. Has science made the claim
about human descent, yes, science most certainly did make the claim. Science must furnish the proof beyond any reasonable doubt. Not controversial evidence, hard evidence is required.
Make the claim, remove any reasonable doubt.

What science does is provide the best explanation for the available data. All such explanations are provisional and capable of being falsified by new data at any time. Since science does not claim absolute truth for its theories, asking "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" is silly.

There seems to be an increasing reluctance to progress theory into law.

Theories do not "progress into law." Laws are observed regularities in the behavior of natural phenomenon. Theories are explanations of that behavior.

I have never seen a claim that is not controversial, in evolutionary theory. Just add this claim to the list, I am not a geneticist, so I cannot comment on your evidence.

All a theory has to do is be the best explanation for the available data and be contradicted by none of it. It is tested by it's ability to predict the discovery of new data. The theory of evolution meets these conditions and there is no credible competing theory. That's as good as it gets in science.

 

[driewerf]

The problem with evolution is establishing facts about the distant past, which we cannot verify or see in front of us in a laboratory. (Yes I know there are experiments to do with bacterial mutations or what have you, and the Galapagos finches, but these are very different). It's like a detective who finds a bunch of fossils and goes "ah well this one connects to this one, and this one appears older than this one", and then looks at DNA similarities between species, and they formulate a theory.

I just default to the position that I don't know what happened in the distant past, aside from what the Scriptures have clearly said. It isn't really a big issue to me. Maybe it happened, maybe it didn't.

Evolution is a very elegant theory to be sure, I like how it fits all the fossils together and comes up with a way that all of life could have developed in all of its diversity. Whether it is actually true or not I do not claim to know, for I was not there in the distant past, the best we have are scientists playing detective.

I prefer the science I can see in a lab, right in front of me. There is clearly something different about the science I see in the lab in front of me, and the one that looks at fossil records over alleged millions of years and makes conclusions.

Actually, no there is no difference.
Both gather data through observations or experiment, formulate a set of hypotheses and ways to test these hypotheses. The these hypotheses are tested against new observations or experiments.

 

[AV1611VET]

For what reason?

Discipline? reading comprehension? exercise? extra credit? because it's there?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Discipline? reading comprehension? exercise? extra credit? because it's there?

Nope, if you are going to have them do something that stupid you would need a much better reason.

 

[Strathos]

Do you really think someone is going to tell you in person that they are leaving the Christian faith because they find Doctrine X so offensive?

Oftentimes they have. And I've heard it over the internet, too.

 

[Strathos]

You did not understand the point, which was that the blood sacrfice Able offered represented Jesus

Is this a SDA doctrine? Because I'm not familiar with it.

 

[Astrophile]

Science is deeply flawed, at the very foundation of science, is the reliance on observational data. Yet astrophysics claims, that the visible universe is less than 5% of the real universe. How can science rely on observational data, when the bulk of the data is beyond the realm of observation or detection.

Yes, if our present ideas are correct, dark matter and dark energy combined make up about 96% of the universe. However, dark matter operates on galactic and super-galactic scales of at least tens of thousands of light-years, and dark energy operates on cosmological scales of billions of light-years.

Neither dark matter nor dark energy has any effect on the scales of star clusters (<100 light-years) and planetary systems, and both are irrelevant to the measurement of the age of the Earth and to biological processes such as evolution.

 

[Larniavc]

Can it be supernaturally enhanced?

Yes it can. But absent of evidence of that happening we may tentatively conclude it is not.

 

[klutedavid]

This makes absolutely no sense. Do you know how to use the scientific method?



What on earth are you talking about? Please demonstrate that you understand how to use the scientific method.



First, humans are apes. An ape is a large primate with no tail. I think what you're asking is for evidence that humans share a common ancestor with chimpanzees and other apes? I can certainly provide you that.

99.9% of endogenous retrovirus insertions in the human genome insert in the exact same base pair in the chimpanzee genome. Considering that ERV insertions are random and the human genome has 3 billion base pairs, the odds of them inserting in the same place in the chimpanzee genome is very highly unlikely. The only possible way for this to happen is if we share a common ancestor. This is overwhelming evidence. We can now make a prediction with this fact. Shared ERVs among other species should fall into a perfect nested hierarchy. Guess what we see when that is tested?.....exactly what we predict.



You don't understand how science works if you think it deals in proof. Again, you need to demonstrate you know how to use the scientific method. Science uses evidence through observation and experimentation. All scientific theories are subject to revision in light of new evidence. New evidence could be discovered tomorrow that changes our understanding of how gravity works. Gravity would still be a fact but the theory would be revised.



Evolution meets these standards. It has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.



Where would you like to start? DNA, comparative anatomy, embryology, fossil record, observational experiments in the lab and in nature? Searching "Human evolution" on google scholar brings back over 4 million results. 216,000 results in 2016 alone. We can grab any paper you'd like from there and go over it.



....You love laws in science but ummm....you don't seem to understand what a law in science means.

A law in science is just an observation you make. There are laws of gravity and there is also the theory of general relativity. Do you know the difference? A law is just repeated simple observations. A theory in science is an explanation of a body of facts. The definition is a well substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world acquired through the scientific method and is repeatedly tested and confirmed.





I think we've established that you don't know what either of those words mean in science. The proper course of action would be to ask questions if there is something you do not understand.



Are you interested in understanding it or not? I think this is just your way of saying you aren't interested in any evidence what so ever. You're simply closing your eyes and plugging your ears. Please, correct me if my conclusion is wrong on this.

 

[klutedavid]

Hello Jon.

This makes absolutely no sense. Do you know how to use the scientific method?

Observe an event, collect the data, develop an idea to explain the event, test this idea against further data. This process continues, collecting more data, objectively testing the data with experiments, e.t.c.

If the idea developed to explain the event, continues to be supported by experimentation, then over time, the idea will be accepted as a valid explanation of the event. The failure to falsify the explanation of the event, should lead to a peer reviewed acceptance of the explanation.

What on earth are you talking about? Please demonstrate that you understand how to use the scientific method.

That the idea, the formulated, conceptual idea, that observations and thought, and testing, will explain an event.

For example, gravity in the field of science, is defined as a force that mutually attracts entities. Science can observe the effect of the force that gravity generates. Though science cannot explain why gravity exists. Science also cannot explain how gravity is generated, the source of gravity is unknown. Gravity is an invisible force without a formal scientific explanation. Gravity remains a mystical force beyond the reach of science.

Considering that ERV insertions are random and the human genome has 3 billion base pairs, the odds of them inserting in the same place in the chimpanzee genome is very highly unlikely. The only possible way for this to happen is if we share a common ancestor.

I reject the concept of random events, all ERV insertions will never be a random occurrence. Every event has causation, no event is beyond causation. Every event influences and precipitates other events, no matter how small or large any event may be. Any event cannot and never will, operate outside of the influence of every other event in space time. Perhaps events are influenced even beyond the concept of space time.

You don't understand how science works if you think it deals in proof.

Mathematics deals in proofs, mathematics is a pure ideology, that stands on imaginary axioms. For example, a mathematical axiom, between any two points, there exists a straight line, connecting these two points.

Whether there is such an entity as a straight line, in curved space time is irrelevant. Mathematics is an ideology, an intellectual construct, mathematics is not bound by space time.
Mathematics is not defined within science, mathematics is employed within the scientific methodology.

Again, you need to demonstrate you know how to use the scientific method. Science uses evidence through observation and experimentation. All scientific theories are subject to revision in light of new evidence. New evidence could be discovered tomorrow that changes our understanding of how gravity works. Gravity would still be a fact but the theory would be revised.

Not sure that I would call gravity a theory? Gravity is a word that identifies a force, a force that has an observable effect. The effect of gravity is observable, yet the force itself is invisible. We do not understand why gravity occurs, so I would be hesitant to say, that we have a theoretical explanation of gravity. A measured force most definitely, a theoretical explanation of gravity, certainly not.

Evolution meets these standards. It has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Evolution is an idea, a scientific idea, an overall correlation between species. An explanation of the association between species, an explanation for the generation of species through time. This species has a fin, that species has a fin, they are related species.

The idea of evolutionary theory proposes two broad explanations for life on this planet. The first explanation, all species are related to one another in a hierarchy construction. Secondly, all species that exist are generated by preceding species.

Evolutionary theory is an extremely popular idea in the scientific domain. Evolutionary theory is regarded as fact, beyond question, thoroughly tested by the science community for a century or more.

Well may you ask, what could possible go wrong with such a powerful scientific idea?

This idea that species generate other species is pure speculation.

The observable evidence is virtually non existent. The fossil record lacks the clear transition of one species into another species. The hundreds or even thousands of observable
fossil specimens of this transition, from one species to another species, is oddly missing in the fossil record.

For example, the dragonfly, the earliest example found in the fossil record, is dated at around 325 million years old. There are no preceding ancestors of the dragonfly in the fossil record. The dragonfly just suddenly appears in the fossil record and fully formed, not a transitional entity. Today the dragonfly we observe is smaller than the ancient dragonfly, yet is identical in every way, an exact copy. Almost no genetic variation over a period of 325 million years is observable.

What could possibly go wrong, with probably the most powerful scientific theory ever conceived? Remember that evolutionary theory is true and regarded as beyond any reasonable doubt.

So what do we do with the dragonfly? Does the dragonfly represent a reasonable doubt?

 

[klutedavid]

Yes, if our present ideas are correct, dark matter and dark energy combined make up about 96% of the universe. However, dark matter operates on galactic and super-galactic scales of at least tens of thousands of light-years, and dark energy operates on cosmological scales of billions of light-years.

Neither dark matter nor dark energy has any effect on the scales of star clusters (<100 light-years) and planetary systems, and both are irrelevant to the measurement of the age of the Earth and to biological processes such as evolution.

Hello Astrophile.

If dark energy and dark matter, have never been measured or observed, how are you able to quantify the effect of dark energy and dark matter?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hello Astrophile.

If dark energy and dark matter, have never been measured or observed, how are you able to quantify the effect of dark energy and dark matter?

The gravitational effects of dark matter have been observed and measured. And Dark Energy is what seems to be pushing the universe apart even to this day. The acceleration caused by it has been observed and measured.

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

This thread had a clean up. folks, if you think someone is bypassing a ban, please do not debate with them. ​

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Observe an event, collect the data, develop an idea to explain the event, test this idea against further data. This process continues, collecting more data, objectively testing the data with experiments, e.t.c.

If the idea developed to explain the event, continues to be supported by experimentation, then over time, the idea will be accepted as a valid explanation of the event. The failure to falsify the explanation of the event, should lead to a peer reviewed acceptance of the explanation.

The theory of evolution has passed this process numerous times. Every single falsifiable test it has faced it has passed with flying colors.

Gravity is an invisible force without a formal scientific explanation. Gravity remains a mystical force beyond the reach of science.

It's called the theory of general relativity. Are you saying you're smarter than Einstein and that he was wrong? Gravity is pretty well understood. Here is a fun video. You may learn something. It explains gravity in a very simple way:

I reject the concept of random events, all ERV insertions will never be a random occurrence.

I thought you said earlier that you aren't a geneticist. But apparently you know more about genetics then them? Have you studied ERVs in depth?

Not sure that I would call gravity a theory? Gravity is a word that identifies a force, a force that has an observable effect

Once again, it is called the theory of general relativity. It is our best explanation for gravity based on experimentation. If you didn't hear, one of relativity's predictions was recently confirmed. (Gravitational waves).

We do not understand why gravity occurs, so I would be hesitant to say, that we have a theoretical explanation of gravity.

This idea that species generate other species is pure speculation

Evolution takes place in populations not individuals. One species will never give birth to another species. This would FALSIFY evolution.

The fossil record lacks the clear transition of one species into another species. The hundreds or even thousands of observable
fossil specimens of this transition, from one species to another species, is oddly missing in the fossil record.

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia

Enough with this PRATT argument.

There are no preceding ancestors of the dragonfly in the fossil record. The dragonfly just suddenly appears in the fossil record and fully formed, not a transitional entity.

Is this your tricky way of saying "But its still a dragonfly!"?
Dragonflies are apart of the order Odonata. It poses no problems for evolution.

What could possibly go wrong, with probably the most powerful scientific theory ever conceived?

It's stood up for 150 years. All available data supports evolution and it is contradicted by literally nothing. Considering biomedical research depends on the understanding of evolutionary theory, I find it unlikely it will be falsified.

So what do we do with the dragonfly? Does the dragonfly represent a reasonable doubt?

It does not. Evolution of the dragonfly is well understood. It seems that your response to the abundance of evidence is "No its not" and then you move the goalposts.

 

[Speedwell]

. This species has a fin, that species has a fin, they are related species.[/QUOTE] Wow! Do you really think that's all there is to it? Do you really have no idea of the amount of scientific investigation which lies behind a conclusion like that?

This idea that species generate other species is pure speculation.

Which has been observed in both the lab and in the field. You can call those observations "speculation" if you like.

So what do we do with the dragonfly? Does the dragonfly represent a reasonable doubt?

The evolution of the dragonfly is reasonably well understood and presents no problem for evolutionary theory.

But I really would like to know where you are getting these astonishing strange notions about the theory of evolution and the evidence which supports it.

 

[klutedavid]

. This species has a fin, that species has a fin, they are related species.

Hello Speedwell.

Thanks for the reply.

The evolution of the dragonfly is reasonably well understood and presents no problem for evolutionary theory.

That is amazing, the dragonfly suddenly appears in the fossil record, no problem you say, it must have evolved?

I would sure would like to see, the preceding fossil record of the dragonfly. Not a speculative explanation, but the actual evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hello Speedwell.

Thanks for the reply.

That is amazing, the dragonfly suddenly appears in the fossil record, no problem you say, it must have evolved?

I would sure would like to see, the preceding fossil record of the dragonfly. Not a speculative explanation, but the actual evidence.

You are using an argument from ignorance fallacy. I know, it is sort of difficult when there is no scientific evidence at all that supports your beliefs. When that happens people will grasp at the sleightest straw that they can see.

 

[klutedavid]

You are using an argument from ignorance fallacy. I know, it is sort of difficult when there is no scientific evidence at all that supports your beliefs. When that happens people will grasp at the sleightest straw that they can see.

Hello Zone.

Just asking for the fossil evidence for the dragonfly, what is the issue?