Do you believe in evolution?

[PLC1]

PLC1
So evolution, which is a theory, is really a fact?
There is a difference between theories and facts.
Theories are always on the table for revision. That is one of the differences between theory and fact.
Evolution is a theory and can't be positively proven (or disproven).
Evolution is either a theory or it is a fact. It cannot be both, by definition. It is either one or the other.
So which is it?

I didn't post that evolution was a fact. I said it was based on facts, not on a belief system.

It is on the table for revision, but that doesn't mean it will be proven false and thrown out. There are so many facts that support it, it is not going to go away just because someone doesn't want to believe it.

 

[Beetle Bailey]

That we are all made of the same stuff? The improbability of DNA forming out of chaos is enough of a leap, but to suggest that each species should have developed something besides DNA? I favor intelligent design and if I were designing a set of life for a world, I would reuse the same materials as much as possible.

If intelligent design exist you must be the exception to the rule. Talk about side stepping the issue. Oh and by the way. Could you possibly include more blatent misrepresentations about the science of evolution? I don't think it's possible.

 

[Coyote]

The problem with Intelligent Design is, in the end - it isn't scientific. It requires a belief in some sort of deity.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Coyote
If you will think this through, you will realize this is undeniable. There MUST be:

1. a male and female who are fertile with each other and infertile with the remaining population
2. they must be alive at the same time
3. they must successfully mate

Your logic chain is faulty. As mutations gradually change members of specie it may very well be that the individuals will continue to mate but simply produce offspring less often, or offspring that are less viable with non-mutation bearing individuals, but more viable with their brothers and sisters who are also mutation bearing. It can be a very gradual process that eventually produces two different species.

 

[palerider]

If intelligent design exist you must be the exception to the rule. Talk about side stepping the issue. Oh and by the way. Could you possibly include more blatent misrepresentations about the science of evolution? I don't think it's possible.

Macroevolution isn't science. It is shabby theory held together by faith.

 

[Coyote]

So...if life didn't evolve. Where did the present forms come from?

 

[palerider]

The problem with Intelligent Design is, in the end - it isn't scientific. It requires a belief in some sort of deity.

I have known some who believed we were the result of "galactic farming" by a race far far older than anything we could imagine. Hardly a belief in a diety.

 

[Coyote]

I have known some who believed we were the result of "galactic farming" by a race far far older than anything we could imagine. Hardly a belief in a diety.

It is still a belief in an imaginary being or race that we have no evidence to support, that is supposedly all powerfull or far more powerful then mere humans - in other words what many cultures would refer to as a diety.


That's a big stretch.

 

[DrWho]

So...if life didn't evolve. Where did the present forms come from?

It is possible that at least some of the forms on this planet evolved and that that evolution was directed or set in motion by God. (this is the theory that the evidence leads me to)

But if we assume that it did not evolve (as your hypothesis states) then I would say that those forms were created by God. Is it possible that they did not evolve? There is some good evidence for microevolution, and microevolution opens the door to the possibility of macroevolution, but so far there is not a single credible example of a species evolving into another species.

Recently you said there was no evidence for God, but the Big Bang is the best science has to offer as to how the universe got here and many renowned scientists have said that this is a pretty good evidence for the existence of God - not proof - just evidence.

 

[invest07]

DrWho

"Recently you said there was no evidence for God, but the Big Bang is the best science has to offer as to how the universe got here and many renowned scientists have said that this is a pretty good evidence for the existence of God - not proof - just evidence."

The problem for evolutionists begins right here, at the Big Bang.According to the Big Bang theory, all the matter in a previous universe congregated at a particular point. Then, for unknown reasons, the matter exploded.

The problems here are numerous. Matter had to exist before the Big Bang. For matter to congregate at a point requires the existence of space and time. So the Big Bang is not the beginning of everything, only a continuation.

Another problem is the direction of movement of galaxies. If you have ever watched a firework explode, it sends out sparks in lines radiating in all directions form a central point. Today galaxies are moving in all directions. Shouldn't they be all be moving away from the central point? Even if gravity has pulled some off the original path, shouldn't there be some indication of movement away from a central point? And where is that point? Isn't that the "center" of the universe?

The central core of Evolution is atheism. If you can't accept the possibility of the existence of God, you have to believe we got here without God. Therefore, regardless of how absurd the idea of highly complex life developing from random, unintelligent, unfocused forces becomes the only thing you can accept. Remember this every time you talk to an evolutionist.

The position of agnosticism can be defended scientifically. Stephen Hawking is an agnostic. Hawking says, "the existence of God can't be proven or disproven" and this statement is true. Atheism says "There is no God" and this is a belief and not scientifically defensible. The existence of God can neither be proven or disproven, scientifically.

I am highly skeptical of the Big Bang theory, as there are too many problems with it. I don't know specifically how we got here but I don't think we got here as a result of random, unfocused and unintelligent forces. There is too much order for there not to be Design.

I believe it was Stephen Hawking who said the closer he got to the secrets of the universe the more he saw God.

 

[Coyote]

It is possible that at least some of the forms on this planet evolved and that that evolution was directed or set in motion by God. (this is the theory that the evidence leads me to)

That requires a belief in a hypothetical deity that has no scientific proof to support it's existance.

But if we assume that it did not evolve (as your hypothesis states) then I would say that those forms were created by God. Is it possible that they did not evolve? There is some good evidence for microevolution, and microevolution opens the door to the possibility of macroevolution, but so far there is not a single credible example of a species evolving into another species.

There is plenty of evidence for macroevolution which I outlined earlier in this thread - for example fish to amphibian in the fossil record. But aside from all that - just because we don't know the answer yet doesn't mean that a deity came in and created it. Negative evidence is not evidence - it just means we have to keep searching.

Recently you said there was no evidence for God, but the Big Bang is the best science has to offer as to how the universe got here and many renowned scientists have said that this is a pretty good evidence for the existence of God - not proof - just evidence.

I don't at all see how it's "evidence" for God - it could be evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster for all that. It's negative evidence and negative evidence is not scientific.

 

[invest07]

Your logic chain is faulty. As mutations gradually change members of specie it may very well be that the individuals will continue to mate but simply produce offspring less often, or offspring that are less viable with non-mutation bearing individuals, but more viable with their brothers and sisters who are also mutation bearing. It can be a very gradual process that eventually produces two different species.

Even if speciation could happen gradually, it still requires a fertile male and female. And whatever changes in the male would have to be matched by different changes in the female. You see, the same mutation, or the same string of mutations, doesn't produce compatible males and females. The changes to the female have to be quite different from the male, but result in 100% sexual compatiblility.

Regardless of how you twist this to introduce millions of years into the speciation equation, you must have a male and female sexually compatible with each other who are alive in the same generation and successfully mate. If you don't have the following speciation can't occur:

1. A male and female must be sexually compatible with each other and not the remaining population.
2. The male and female must be alive in the same generation.
3. The male and female must successfully mate.

Speciation either occurs in one generation or it doesn't occur.

 

[invest07]

The problem with Intelligent Design is, in the end - it isn't scientific. It requires a belief in some sort of deity.

The correct question to ask here is what best explains all the evidence. You either think unfocused, random and unintelliegent forces can shape highly complex biological systems or you don't.

It seems to me that you can't (or won't) accept the possibility of the existence of God. This is a belief and not scientific. The existence or non-existence of God can't be proven. You either accept the possibilty or you reject it. There is no definitive evidence either way. No science involved here. Just a belief.

And I can't accept the premise that everything in the world is a mistake. There is too much order and things are too interrelated. I can see virtually zero chance of a host/parasite developing when the host and the parasite are on different evolutionary tracks. Life appears to have a strong desire to survive but there is no explanation within evolutionary theory for such a desire. A human heart would require hundreds or thousands of mutations to develop but what good is a partly developed heart?

Differences like this make for lively exchanges.

 

[invest07]

coyote
"Why would you say a mutation is a "gigantic mistake"? If it's an improvement - it isn't. It's natures way (or God's way if you wish) of introducing innovation"

According to evolutionary theory there are 3 forces driving evolution. Genetic mutation, natural selection and genetic drift.The initiating event for every evolutionary event is the mutation. Until the gene is in the genepool, natural selection (which are environmental forces) and genetic drift (partly environmental and partly genetic) don't have any opportunity to influence the gene.

A mutation is a mistake. A mutation is like throwing one dice and rolling a seven. It is a random, unexpected mistake and can't be predicted.

One definition of mutation is a copying error. As an evolutionist you must believe in the power of beneficial mutations. A mutation is a mutation is a mutation. A mistake is a mistake. Even if the result is accidently positive, it is by mistake. All mutations are mistakes and about 1 out of every thousand or so is beneficial to the organism. 999 out of a thousand mutations diminish the ability of the affected organism.

 

[ArmChair General]

The correct question to ask here is what best explains all the evidence. You either think unfocused, random and unintelliegent forces can shape highly complex biological systems or you don't.

It seems to me that you can't (or won't) accept the possibility of the existence of God. This is a belief and not scientific. The existence or non-existence of God can't be proven. You either accept the possibilty or you reject it. There is no definitive evidence either way. No science involved here. Just a belief.

And I can't accept the premise that everything in the world is a mistake. There is too much order and things are too interrelated. I can see virtually zero chance of a host/parasite developing when the host and the parasite are on different evolutionary tracks. Life appears to have a strong desire to survive but there is no explanation within evolutionary theory for such a desire. A human heart would require hundreds or thousands of mutations to develop but what good is a partly developed heart?

Differences like this make for lively exchanges.

Too much order?

99% of the species that ever walked on Earth are extinct.

Galaxys collide with each other, stars supernova, meteors impact planets.


Every where you look, you see disorder. Consider that smallpox alone has killed around 500 million people, just in the 20th century, many of them were infants.

Where is all this 'order' that your speaking of?