Why I do not accept evolution part one

[NxNW]

Do you think evolution means something like a cat giving birth to a bird?

Of course not, but creationists seem to.

 

[NxNW]

Why do you think Macroevolution means one species giving birth to a different species?

I'm not sure I follow your question the way it's phrased. Speciation happens between populations, and not individuals, of course. I'm arguing against the nonsensical strawman definition commonly used by creationists.

 

[NxNW]

He understands it, too. What other kind of evolution is there besides that which results in speciation? Genus-ization? No, there isn't such a thing, only repeated speciation which leads to the formation of new genera. And so on.

Exactly.

 

[pitabread]

I look forward to @Aussie Pete's response to this.

Looks like he's choosing to ignore it. Not surprised.

 

[NxNW]

Now I get it. I also get why the way you put it caused so much unnecessary confusion and dismay. You might have said, "repeated speciation events are sufficient to account for the biological diversity we see. No other kind of event is necessary."

Well, I can't argue with that!

 

[Kylie]

I'm not sure I follow your question the way it's phrased. Speciation happens between populations, and not individuals, of course. I'm arguing against the nonsensical strawman definition commonly used by creationists.

Ah, sorry. That's what happens when I reply before my coffee.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Nor do they say the issues are separated as people imagineate.
In fact, I can only find the claim they are separate in this forum.

While this post was posted some time ago, I'm going to say that I partially agree with SkyWriting here.

We don't know how abiogenesis happened. And, it's extremely hard to say what is life and what isn't. But, some of the experiments into RNA world show that molecules with extremely limited ability to self-reproduce (e.g. coupled pairs of RNA molecules that assemble each other from precursors) can evolve. In that the reproduction may have errors and it's possible for a more effective molecule to arise which may out-compete others.

It depends on wherre the line is drawn between living and non-living. Or whether any precise line can be drawn at all. But, it appears that evolution or at least something analogous to biological evolution may have played a role in the emergence of life. In which case the processes of abiogenesis and evolution may not be as distinct as some say, and may effectively have overlapped.

I personally wouldn't call those RNA molecules alive. Any more than I would call crystals alive if they were able to shed shards which grew into new crystals. I'd call the reproducing RNA molecules proto-life. So, in my point of view, evoluation has started while abiogenesis is still in progress.

Personally I don't believe there was ever a 'spark of life' where non-living changed to living, and then evolution started. Of course, all this depends on how abiogenesis actually happened.

 

[Ophiolite]

While this post was posted some time ago, I'm going to say that I partially agree with SkyWriting here.

We don't know how abiogenesis happened. And, it's extremely hard to say what is life and what isn't. But, some of the experiments into RNA world show that molecules with extremely limited ability to self-reproduce (e.g. coupled pairs of RNA molecules that assemble each other from precursors) can evolve. In that the reproduction may have errors and it's possible for a more effective molecule to arise which may out-compete others.

It depends on wherre the line is drawn between living and non-living. Or whether any precise line can be drawn at all. But, it appears that evolution or at least something analogous to biological evolution may have played a role in the emergence of life. In which case the processes of abiogenesis and evolution may not be as distinct as some say, and may effectively have overlapped.

I personally wouldn't call those RNA molecules alive. Any more than I would call crystals alive if they were able to shed shards which grew into new crystals. I'd call the reproducing RNA molecules proto-life. So, in my point of view, evoluation has started while abiogenesis is still in progress.

Personally I don't believe thee was ever a 'spark of life' where non-living changed to living, and then evolution started. Of course, all this depends on how abiogenesis actually happened.

Pretty much my thinking on the matter with this caveat. Biochemical evolution would differ from biological evolution in its character: both mechanism and consistency would necessarily be comparable, but not identical.

And I would emphasise your notion of a spectrum of behaviours and characteristics between life and non-life. Where one puts the dividing line - if one feels compelled to do so - is a subjective choice. Nature would be quite indifferent whatever line we chose, since it would be there for our convenience, not Nature's.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Pretty much my thinking on the matter with this caveat. Biochemical evolution would differ from biological evolution in its character: both mechanism and consistency would necessarily be comparable, but not identical.

And I would emphasise your notion of a spectrum of behaviours and characteristics between life and non-life. Where one puts the dividing line - if one feels compelled to do so - is a subjective choice. Nature would be quite indifferent whatever line we chose, since it would be there for our convenience, not Nature's.

Yes, I agree. The nature of evolution would be different early on in abiogenesis compared to when things have developed far enough so that the evolving things are properly living. I agree with your division into 'biochemical evolution' and 'biological evolution'.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Answering as a Christian, I accept evolution because it is the best explanation to the questions that are raised when we look at both living things today, as well as those that lived at some point in the past. And that He who made all things is at work through the observations of the natural world. If He is truly the maker of all, the One who sustains everything, then the observable processes of the universe are not alien to God's work, but are the fruit of Divine labor.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[FredVB]

Being scientific should be involving conclusions from evidences showing it. Is there fossil evidence showing that there was evolution from one family directly from an ancestral family immediately preceding it? If it isn't an immediate offspring of a new family of life viable and capable of reproducing with others of the original family to continue the new family, than there would be some transitional form between the families, if this transition is its own family, the first one is not the one immediately preceding the later one, and it was the immediately preceding one being asked for. Is there such transition known from fossil evidence between any family and its immediately preceding ancestral family?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Being scientific should be involving conclusions from evidences showing it. Is there fossil evidence showing that there was evolution from one family directly from an ancestral family immediately preceding it? If it isn't an immediate offspring of a new family of life viable and capable of reproducing with others of the original family to continue the new family, than there would be some transitional form between the families, if this transition is its own family, the first one is not the one immediately preceding the later one, and it was the immediately preceding one being asked for. Is there such transition known from fossil evidence between any family and its immediately preceding ancestral family?

New species don't emerge in a single generation. If a biologist could be there, they would categorize both the individual parents and offspring as part of the same species. Only later would it become clear (if we had records of every individual) that the group split into two.

There aren't really transitions between families. Families are parts of larger clades, such as orders. So what we would see is what we would now call the order splitting into multiple families as time moved forward. (There are also sub-orders and super-families to add additional granularity to the branching of the tree of life.)

 

[Speedwell]

Being scientific should be involving conclusions from evidences showing it. Is there fossil evidence showing that there was evolution from one family directly from an ancestral family immediately preceding it? If it isn't an immediate offspring of a new family of life viable and capable of reproducing with others of the original family to continue the new family, than there would be some transitional form between the families, if this transition is its own family, the first one is not the one immediately preceding the later one, and it was the immediately preceding one being asked for. Is there such transition known from fossil evidence between any family and its immediately preceding ancestral family?

No. The only evolutionary process which directly impacts taxonomy is speciation. The higher taxa are created to classify the results of repeated speciation. If a family becomes too crowded with genera and too diverse, it may be split into two new families and the original family promoted to an order.

 

[Kylie]

Being scientific should be involving conclusions from evidences showing it. Is there fossil evidence showing that there was evolution from one family directly from an ancestral family immediately preceding it? If it isn't an immediate offspring of a new family of life viable and capable of reproducing with others of the original family to continue the new family, than there would be some transitional form between the families, if this transition is its own family, the first one is not the one immediately preceding the later one, and it was the immediately preceding one being asked for. Is there such transition known from fossil evidence between any family and its immediately preceding ancestral family?

It depends. Where do you draw the line between different families?

 

[Ophiolite]

New species don't emerge in a single generation. If a biologist could be there, they would categorize both the individual parents and offspring as part of the same species. Only later would it become clear (if we had records of every individual) that the group split into two.

There aren't really transitions between families. Families are parts of larger clades, such as orders. So what we would see is what we would now call the order splitting into multiple families as time moved forward. (There are also sub-orders and super-families to add additional granularity to the branching of the tree of life.)

All of which is another way of saying, as @Kylie's red to blue example demonstrates, classification is an artificial process and in biology is designed to facilitate the study of life.

 

[SLP]

Check anywhere in the bible anywhere for "poof".

Genesis I

19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.


In one 24-hour period - your creation tale indicates that Yahweh created:


EVERY lining creature that moves.

Current estimates are that there are some 8.5 million species of animals alive today. Since there were ALL created in one 24-hour period as per the KJV, this means that Yahweh created one hundred moving things every second.

Or, 1 moving thing every 0.001 seconds.

That is about as close to poofing as one can get.

 

[SLP]

Yes Aussie Pete I find it very depressing how many Christians on here hold firmly to secular evolution or try and somehow fit it into the Bible and claim God caused it when nothing in the Bible indicates that at all. I ask for verses and they give me none. They refuse to even acknowledge the scriptures that say sin brought in death -yet to them evolution is proven fact no matter what the Bible says to the contrary. Yet they will read about the miracles of Jesus and fully acknowledge they happen -why? Why one and not the other? It continually perplexes me.

Since you posted this to the secular area not the Christian area I will dip out now since debating atheists is a complete and utter waste of time and simply too stressful. Atheists and humanists I expect to believe in evolution- since they have nothing else to believe in. The Christians who hold onto it trouble my heart and I will continue to try with them. I took a break from the creation area recently. If you post this to the Christian section I will post back some more.

My interpretation of this is - we cannot beat knowledgeable people when they are not constrained by believing ONLY the rantings of ancient middle eastern simpletons like we real Christians are. I'm outta here...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Genesis I

19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.


In one 24-hour period - your creation tale indicates that Yahweh created:


EVERY lining creature that moves.

Current estimates are that there are some 8.5 million species of animals alive today. Since there were ALL created in one 24-hour period as per the KJV, this means that Yahweh created one hundred moving things every second.

Or, 1 moving thing every 0.001 seconds.

That is about as close to poofing as one can get.

In other words all you have is an overly literal interpretation of a poetic work. There is a huge theological problem with interpreting Genesis literally that should be avoided by any serious Christian. Oddly enough when Jesus says "I am the door" no Christian makes the error of taking that too literally and begins to worship doorways. Yet certain groups take Genesis far too literally even though it portrays God as incompetent and evil when one does so. As a poetic work it can have validity. As a literal work it does not.

 

[coffee4u]

In other words all you have is an overly literal interpretation of a poetic work. There is a huge theological problem with interpreting Genesis literally that should be avoided by any serious Christian. Oddly enough when Jesus says "I am the door" no Christian makes the error of taking that too literally and begins to worship doorways. Yet certain groups take Genesis far too literally even though it portrays God as incompetent and evil when one does so. As a poetic work it can have validity. As a literal work it does not.

The problem here is the author of Genesis-probably Mosses- did not write these passages to be taken as either poetry, song or parable, he intended them to be read as literal history.

There are plenty of well thought out apologetic arguments for why Genesis is meant to be read literally due to how certain words were placed and how ancient Hebrew poetry was formulated-and Genesis was not formulated in that way.
There are cross-references across the Bible to Genesis and again there is no indication that Jesus, Paul or the other men who speak of Genesis did not believe it to be literal.

The only reason many people don't take Genesis literally is that they have been swayed by science and evolution. If evolution is 'proven' then Genesis must by extension not be literal, but an allegory or a parable teaching a spiritual but not literal truth.
Claiming that, is claiming a doctrine. A doctrine effects not only those verses in Genesis 1 and 2 but affect other verses throughout the Bible. You can't make a claim like that and leave it at that. How are you going to demonstrate that at work throughout the rest of the Bible? What is it actually teaching? What do all the other verses about this subject mean in that context? For example, the Bible says that Adam died at 930 years of age if he was not literally created back in Genesis 1-2 then you need an explanation for that. All loose ends have to be tied up with a reasonable explanation but most importantly to be a doctrine you need supporting verses that indicate how you have interpreted this is a biblical teaching.

In this sense, it is not unlike science. In science you expect a theory to have some proof and reasonable explanation and be able to show how it ties in with many other accepted facts. It can't be left with gaping holes.
I have continually asked to see scripture that backs up the non-literal view as well as reasonable teachings on all the verses that a non-literal view raises issues with, I have yet to be shown any. If you have no scripture and no explanation you do not have a doctrine, only at best an interesting view point or speculation.

God made a perfect world to show man how it could be and how he plans it to be at the end. To achieve this Jesus died for mankind.
Romans 5:8 8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
Man had to have free will to choose. The only other option is no choice at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The problem here is the author of Genesis-probably Mosses- did not write these passages to be taken as either poetry, song or parable, he intended them to be read as literal history.

There are plenty of well thought out apologetic arguments for why Genesis is meant to be read literally due to how certain words were placed and how ancient Hebrew poetry was formulated-and Genesis was not formulated in that way.
There are cross-references across the Bible to Genesis and again there is no indication that Jesus, Paul or the other men who speak of Genesis did not believe it to be literal.

The only reason many people don't take Genesis literally is that they have been swayed by science and evolution. If evolution is 'proven' then Genesis must by extension not be literal, but an allegory or a parable teaching a spiritual but not literal truth.
Claiming that, is claiming a doctrine. A doctrine effects not only those verses in Genesis 1 and 2 but affect other verses throughout the Bible. You can't make a claim like that and leave it at that. How are you going to demonstrate that at work throughout the rest of the Bible? What is it actually teaching? What do all the other verses about this subject mean in that context? For example, the Bible says that Adam died at 930 years of age if he was not literally created back in Genesis 1-2 then you need an explanation for that. All loose ends have to be tied up with a reasonable explanation but most importantly to be a doctrine you need supporting verses that indicate how you have interpreted this is a biblical teaching.

In this sense, it is not unlike science. In science you expect a theory to have some proof and reasonable explanation and be able to show how it ties in with many other accepted facts. It can't be left with gaping holes.
I have continually asked to see scripture that backs up the non-literal view as well as reasonable teachings on all the verses that a non-literal view raises issues with, I have yet to be shown any. If you have no scripture and no explanation you do not have a doctrine, only at best an interesting view point or speculation.

God made a perfect world to show man how it could be and how he plans it to be at the end. To achieve this Jesus died for mankind.
Romans 5:8 8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
Man had to have free will to choose. The only other option is no choice at all.

Modern scholars are very sure that Moses was fictitious. Have you studied the history of the Bible at all, when various parts were written?

And yes, of course people have been "swayed by science". Scientific claims are testable and confirmable. By the legal standard of "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" evolution has been proven better than any murder trial. And there is a clear explanation for the ages of people in Genesis. Tribal people exaggerate, not just in the Bible, but all tribal people all around the world. Adam is a youngling compared to the ages of people in other creation myths.

Lastly the theory of evolution does not have "gaping holes". That is a claim that creationists make but can never support. What supposed holes do you think exist in the theory? And let's watch the false accusations. If you claim that others are making "speculations" that is not just an insult, it is also a claim that you need to be able to support. Speculations are not allowed in the sciences in the sense that you appear to be using the term. Early on one may speculate, but that is not science. One must then test and retest those ideas until they are no longer speculations.