Why Theistic Evolution Does not "fit".

[KerrMetric]

I was never talking about that - which I informed you of. But no - you had to run off the deep end about it accusing me of being unclear or refusing to argue a point.

I was talking about what I know about Behe and the redundant complexity argument. He used the mammalian Vitamin C pathway as his example of a biochemical pathway that did NOT posess redundant complexity. The sad thing is that Behe was arguing against a strawman of his invention.

 

[KerrMetric]

you are not blind. his posting:
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=30903601&postcount=109

is incoherent if it is conflating the flagellum and the lactose systems. which it appears to be doing.

see:
http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_responsetokmiller0101.htm

fortunately i unsubscribed to this thread when i read this posting, thinking it was going to ignite a firestorm of replies. the poster appears to think the two systems are the same.

I didn't click on his link. I was addressing specifically the claim of Behe's in arguing against the Shank's/Joplin arguments which is something I am familiar with.

 

[Mallon]

As for” Behe backing down” Behe … 1. Miller's prose is often exaggerated and sometimes borders on the bombastic.

You just admitted earlier that you never read his book, and now you're criticizing him. Are we talking about the same (Kenneth) Miller?

As to mallon's reply; I am pleased that your enthusiasm is strong, and I hope your endeavors are fruit full, yet you lack expierance. I was studying Biology befor you were born!

Great! Sorry you didn't keep it up.
But seriously, if you want to play the education card, what sort of grad degree do you hold in the sciences? My dad studied biology before I was born too, but he only made it as far as high school.

 

[shernren]

Many excerpts of Miller's work, particular on the evolution of flagella and blood clotting, are available for free online. So it wouldn't be impossible for withreason to have criticised Miller (what he read of him online) and yet have not read the book.

Having said that, I'm not sure why withreason tried to bring up IPTG. It was a complete spanner in the works because up to that point nobody had discussed anything good or bad about Barry Hall's work, as far as I can see. The best I can find is http://www2.uwsuper.edu/rseelke/What Can Evolution Really Do_05.doc , which makes noise about the evolution of the ebg gene not being a good example of evolution (never mind that the article nowhere mentions the possibility of scaffolding removed or some such other possibility).

 

[shernren]

Having said that, here is an extremely detailed piece of work covering the current state of knowledge on flagellum evolution: http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html

 

[hsilgne]

Whoa, it's kinda HOT in here.

It's interesting(and dissapointing as well) to see how people use insults and personal attacks to express their beliefs while debating. I have been guilty of this before and know how easy it is to resort to this as well.

Let us pray that the Holy Spirit guide us in our efforts to express our views in charity and respect.

I am not a biologist, or scientist, or for that matter, I am not a highly educated person. But that does not mean I, or people like me, cannot comprehend the "evidence" presented.

One of the many things that have begun to change my view of the whole OEC vs YEC debate is, it seems obvious to me that the evidence we see, supports strongly, MICRO-evolution. And logically, micro-evolution "makes sense" in this world. Simply put, environments change(for a multitude of reasons) and thus all the life in that environment changes with it in order to survive. Where I have become skeptical is the theory of MACRO-evolution. I have yet to see ANY evidence to support this idea. People that do perceive the "evidence" to support this idea can show example after example after example of "missing links", or what they perceive to be missing links, - but at the end of the day, there is nothing that shows me that species change from one to another. The reptiles remain reptiles, the birds remain birds, the dogs remain dogs, and so on. And when I, a lay person, think of this idea honestly, it just does not make sense to have to happen in order for life to survive.

And then ontop of that I look at my life and my experiences - how the idea of evolution was taught to me as fact, how I accepted that fact, how that fact changed my perception of the bible, how these "facts" changed my sibllings perception and pretty much anyone I knew view of the bible - and ultimately how this perception lead us down the road of secularism, and continues to lead most of the people I know down this road - I am forced to look at the "evidence" more closely and with more scrutiny. And as I do this, I cannot in all honesty ignore what "makes sense" to me.

As pointed to earlier, science never has proven anything. And, as Christians, I believe it our responsibility to the Lord, to be sure that any observation we make is rooted in the belief of Jesus Christ our Saviour. If we make an observation, and this observation suggests that Jesus Christ is not real, then we need to take a closer look, or look away.

Lots of good points and arguments in this thread - thank you to all of you for sharing your knowledge. I believe if we keep our focus on Jesus before we post, we can have a healthy and charitable debate, and at the end, walk away with a "hand shake".

Lord Jesus, help us all to stay focused on You.

Blessings to all,

 

[Melethiel]

but at the end of the day, there is nothing that shows me that species change from one to another. The reptiles remain reptiles, the birds remain birds, the dogs remain dogs, and so on. And when I, a lay person, think of this idea honestly, it just does not make sense to have to happen in order for life to survive.

But this shows a misconception of evolution. Species do change, but not from "one to another" - they change into completely new species. What you have described - reptile, bird, etc. - is not what is scientifically described as a "species." In addition, the theory of evolution PREDICTS that organisms will reproduce as you have stated. If we ever saw a dog turning into a cat, for example, it would falsify the theory. That is why we have cladograms. Technically, birds ARE reptiles - they are an offshoot off the reptile "branch."

 

[hsilgne]

That is why we have cladograms. Technically, birds ARE reptiles - they are an offshoot off the reptile "branch."

For the record, cladistics, is another science that does little to help support the theory of MACRO-evolution. IMO - cladistics shows the simularites between life forms, but nothing more. It does not show us one species changing to another species. And this is what I question. I do not see any evidence to support one species changing to another species, whether it's a new species or not.

What we do see is species changing and devolping new "traits" in order to better survive. Maybe this new trait is simular to a trait that another species already has, (perhaps even identical) but that does not mean those species are linked in the form of an "original" species - IMO. Again, I reiterate, I do not see species changing into other species.

Peace in Christ.

 

[Brennan]

For the record, cladistics, is another science that does little to help support the theory of MACRO-evolution. IMO - cladistics shows the simularites between life forms, but nothing more. It does not show us one species changing to another species. And this is what I question. I do not see any evidence to support one species changing to another species, whether it's a new species or not.

Sad that it always comes down to this.

Where does this differentiation between micro and macro evolution come from? 'Cos it sure doesn't come from evolutionary theory.

I suspect you are aware that you can look up known speciation events on talkOrigins, so I won't bother pasting a link. Perhaps you'd care to tell us what evidence you might accept as proving evolution had occurred?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Where does this differentiation between micro and macro evolution come from? 'Cos it sure doesn't come from evolutionary theory.

In the late 1930s, evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky devised the Modern evolutionary synthesis. Bringing macroevolution and microevolution to the English language, he wrote "we are compelled at the present level of knowledge reluctantly to put a sign of equality between the mechanisms of macro- and microevolution."[1]. Some have argued that he was reluctant to equate macro- and microevolution because it went against the beliefs of his mentor, Filipchenko, who was an orthogenetist, and of the opinion that micro- and macroevolution were of a different mechanism and calibre (Burian, 1994). From the writings of Dobzhansky, the modern synthesis view of evolution grew to its present prominence.

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

There are a few problems with these terms, especially in the manner that creationists use them. The first is quite simply that when scientists do use the terms microevolution and macroevolution, they don’t use them in the same way as creationists. The terms were first used in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iurii Filipchenko in his book on evolution Variabilität und Variation. However, they remain in relatively limited use today. You can find them in some texts, including biology texts, but in general most biologists simply don’t pay attention to them.

from: http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionexplained/a/micro_macro.htm

so apparently Filipchenko invented the terms and now the YECists are co-opting (or is it exadaption *grin*?) the terms to mean something slightly different(mutational variation *grin*?).

 

[Mallon]

I am not a biologist, or scientist, or for that matter, I am not a highly educated person. But that does not mean I, or people like me, cannot comprehend the "evidence" presented.

I disagree.
I think the YECs contempt for evolution stems largely from a poor understanding of what it actually is. I don't know how many times I've heard it said here that "Evolution denies God," "Evolution is just a theory," or "Evolution is random."
I also think this misunderstanding stems largely from a botched representation of evolution in the media and the shoddy state of the education system in America. I therefore question the ability of any layman to interpret the evidence fairly. I do think some education is required, in both the natural sciences and science philosophy.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

It does not show us one species changing to another species. And this is what I question. I do not see any evidence to support one species changing to another species, whether it's a new species or not.

ok. lets take an analogous question.
show me that you are your parent's child.
now i assume that you have parents, one of each. how would you go about "proving" to my satisfaction that you are their son(assuming your header icon is correct).
show me your birth certificate.
but i don't read that language. so you translate it. i don't believe that the translation is correct. so get another translation. now i don't trust the government entity that issued the birth certificate, they are only interested in the money that they can make from selling birth certificates.

now. i accept the birth certificate but state that this is not seeing that they are your parents. the only acceptable evidence is eyewitness accounts or a videotape of you being born. but you say you were born before the technology. there is just one black and white snapshot and that is you in your mother's arms. but how can i be sure this is your mother and this baby is you? .....

ok. i finally am persuaded that you are your parent's son. now do the same thing back 12 generations in your family line. now i assume that these people exist because i believe that you exist, so show me the same thing you just did for yourself.
you say you can't.
therefore you do not exist because you can not show me this information that i need to be confident of your real existence.

lest you laugh or shrug it off---
this is essentially what you are requiring of biological evolutionary science. show me is not always the right way to learn about how something might have happened, sometimes the stuff is just plain lost to history. but we have good evidence to develop theories about how it might have happened and that is the TofE.

 

[eddieJ]

Another falsehood. Somehow, a teenager can understand evolution but those who don't understand have obviously been misinformed. In the so-called information age, I can access scholarly papers and journals on the internet for free. Don't make that blanket accusation for each individual here.

Also, don't promote the other false statement that science doesn't "prove" anything. Of course it does! "Your honor, I have the 'mountains of evidence' for evolution and will prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that it has occurred." Followed by, "Members of the jury, what say you?"

"In the matter of did evolution happen or did it not, we, the jury, after examining the evidence, find that it did."

It's a lie to say science does not prove anything.




God bless,
Eddie

 

[Brennan]

Wrong: science always accepts the possibility that there may be unknowns, that require a replacement theory. eg: Relativity replacing Classical gravity.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

It's a lie to say science does not prove anything.



Also, don't promote the other false statement that science doesn't "prove" anything. Of course it does! "Your honor, I have the 'mountains of evidence' for evolution and will prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that it has occurred." Followed by, "Members of the jury, what say you?"


the key element is "evidence beyond reasonable doubt" versus prove. Proof is a term borrowed from logic and mathematics, it means certainty and 100% confidence. show me a scientific statement that makes a certainty and 100% confidence statement. then i will believe like you do that science proves things, until then i will assent to the dominant principles of good philosophy of science and use the terms "evidence beyond reasonable doubt" and not proof.

but please, back up your inflammatory statements that people are lying when they say this.

btw, is calling people a liar a good (as in moral) way for a Christian to argue?

 

[eddieJ]

Then answer the following question: human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals." True or false?

That question comes from the National Science Foundation web site. The correct answer is True and the NSF cites the lack of people knowing the correct answer as a problem. Here's the link (scroll down a bit to the heading: Evolution and the "Big Bang"):

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/c7/c7s2.htm

When I learn something from a teacher, I'm expected to BELIEVE it is either true or flase. Get it?


Evolution never happened. That is what I believe and there is evidence for that. http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/13anc07.htm


I'm not here to give anyone a hard time, just to present the truth. Jesus Christ died for all men so that sins would be forgiven. You have a choice. You have a soul. And yes, God does love you.



God bless,
Eddie

 

[rmwilliamsll]

1. Jesus Christ died for all men so that sins would be forgiven

2. You have a choice.

3. God does love you

4. When I learn something from a teacher, I'm expected to BELIEVE it is either true or false

5. human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals.

Five false propositional statements.

one of them is a scientific question.
one is either a pedigogical or an epistemological question.
and three are theological.
but all are false.

1. Jesus died for the elect only.
2. you do not have a choice, you will sin, because you are a sinner.
3.God loves only those in Christ.
4. there are any number of possibilities here, you probably are supposed to understand what the teacher says first. then later decide on a truth value for it. not all statements are either true or false.
5. is a statement of common descent.

perhaps not everyone believes as you do, yet have adequate evidence for their beliefs, at least a passing acquaintance with other viewpoints is expected of a reasonably educated adult.

perhaps the world holds mystery and new things for you to learn and study. things may not be as you assume.

 

[gluadys]

One of the many things that have begun to change my view of the whole OEC vs YEC debate is, it seems obvious to me that the evidence we see, supports strongly, MICRO-evolution. And logically, micro-evolution "makes sense" in this world. Simply put, environments change(for a multitude of reasons) and thus all the life in that environment changes with it in order to survive. Where I have become skeptical is the theory of MACRO-evolution.

Well, first we need to know if you are using the term "macro-evolution" as scientists do, or whether you are referring to a concept that science does not endorse.

If you are referring to a concept that science does not endorse, you are battling a straw man, not real science and actual evidence.

So, what is you definition of "macro-evolution"?

Why do you think that micro-evolution can exist without macro-evolution being the result? To me it is inconceivable that micro-evolution can continue for centuries, much less millennia, with no macro-evolution as a consequence. After all, the only real difference in the terms is that "micro" means a small amount of evolution, such as that which leads to different varieties of the same species, and "macro" means a larger amount of evolution such that the resulting population can no longer be classified as the same species as its parent. In sexually reproducing species, this is often signalled by an inability or unwillingness to continue interbreeding among the two populations.

That this happens has been observed, both in nature and in controlled experiments.

It may be your contention that such events are not "macro-evolution". In that case you are not using the term as scientists do, so you are basing your objection on a straw man.

I have yet to see ANY evidence to support this idea. People that do perceive the "evidence" to support this idea can show example after example after example of "missing links", or what they perceive to be missing links, - but at the end of the day, there is nothing that shows me that species change from one to another. The reptiles remain reptiles, the birds remain birds, the dogs remain dogs, and so on. And when I, a lay person, think of this idea honestly, it just does not make sense to have to happen in order for life to survive.

We do know, from observation, that new species do arise. And the processes that generate new species are exactly the same processes that generate micro-evolutionary changes.

To me, the paragraph above suggests that either you do not comprehend the scientific concept of species and/or you do not comprehend the concept of nested hierarchy. None of the groups you have mentioned are species. "Species" is a term that applies to much smaller units of population.

And then ontop of that I look at my life and my experiences - how the idea of evolution was taught to me as fact, how I accepted that fact, how that fact changed my perception of the bible, how these "facts" changed my sibllings perception and pretty much anyone I knew view of the bible - and ultimately how this perception lead us down the road of secularism, and continues to lead most of the people I know down this road - I am forced to look at the "evidence" more closely and with more scrutiny. And as I do this, I cannot in all honesty ignore what "makes sense" to me.

Did it ever occur to you that this happens only to those who have been taught a particular view of the bible that is inconsistent with evolution (and, in the case of YECism, much other science as well). I have come from a church background in which evolution has been accepted as sound science for many years. I have not seen people raised with this view of the bible drifting to secularism, but remaining Christian, even becoming clergy and theologians.

As pointed to earlier, science never has proven anything. And, as Christians, I believe it our responsibility to the Lord, to be sure that any observation we make is rooted in the belief of Jesus Christ our Saviour. If we make an observation, and this observation suggests that Jesus Christ is not real, then we need to take a closer look, or look away.

There is no scientific observation of any kind that suggests Jesus Christ is not real. Certainly, that cannot be concluded from evolution, as it does not speak to the existence of individuals, but deals with populations.

 

[eddieJ]

The example I gave shows, conclusively, that the doctrine of the theory of evolution will be taught and understood by all students in the classroom as a true, (it actually occurred) event. Anyone who thinks about and decides it is not true will be excluded from higher education since answering false on any test would be the "incorrect" answer. They will also be denied employment if they "change their minds."

Noet that when I call a statement false or a lie, I am referring to the statement and not the person. When I say that anyone is promoting a lie or falsehood, I am pointing the the factualness of the statement primarily. I don't want to insult people. I want to let everyone know that some people believe evolution actually happened ONLY because a teacher told them it was so. I contend that that statement (evolution actually happened) is untrue.



God bless,
Eddie

 

[Melethiel]

I'm not here to give anyone a hard time, just to present the truth. Jesus Christ died for all men so that sins would be forgiven. You have a choice. You have a soul. And yes, God does love you.

While I agree with this statement, other than the "you have a choice" part, what does this have to do with evolution?