Do you believe in evolution?

[Truth-Bringer]

No, it is still a theory. A widely-accepted and highly probable theory, but a theory, because it is not fully provable as "fact."

^^ that is correct. But I wouldn't say highly probable. The way they've got things set up, it was almost miraculous how humans allegedly evolved from apes. Thousands of years in the future, if we find that extraterrestrial life in the form of humans is widespread in the universe, that will pretty much disprove evolution.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Evolution has a lot of very good evidence for it, creationism only has the gaps in evolution as its ground to stand on, and that is not evidence. Until someone comes up with something conclusive about creationism rather than picking holes in evolution, it has no evidence.

Bible-based Creationism certainly has no evidence to support it due to all the clear falsehoods in the Bible. But I think evolution is highly flawed also, and I don't accept it.

When someone asks me "How do you think we got here?" - I simply say "I don't know." That, to me, is the only rational answer at this point.

As for hard evidence against evolution, from a non-Christian source, consider the following archeological finds:

http://www.forbiddenarcheology.com/

 

[r0beph]

Creationism = argumentum ad ignorantiam. There is no evidence whatsoever for it EXCEPT that it cannot be disproved. Thus it is only "valid" because you can't prove it wrong. That post is so chock full of logical fallacies it's laughable.

In fact, Sir Arthur Keith, he man who wrote the foreward for the 100th edition of Origin of the Species said: "Evolution is unproved and unprovable."

Just because He says something, doesn't make it true. I don't think they had DNA testing and all the goodies we have today back when he was alive. That is invalidated of any usefulness to the argument.

In the broadest sense, evolution simply means change. The and animals that we see around us didn't always exist and some that used to exist no longer exist. In that sense, evolution is true and I can't think of any religious person who would disagree. That is not the sort of evolution that is the topic of this discussion though, is it?

uhm.. yes it is what we're talking about, the animals around us that didn't always exist NOW DO. That's the meat of it, and those animals came from previous forms or diverged as subspecies.

But how much change? In Darwin's examples no new species appear and no new features appear within the species that are changing. Domestic breeding can't turn a sheep into a goat, much less a lizzard or a fish. And bird predation does not change moths into butterflies. Biologists have long recognized a distinction between relatively minor changes within a species, which is defined as "microevolution," and the much larger changes necessary to produce significant new features or entirely new species which they call "macroevolution." It is entirely possible and even probable that evolution in its third sense (change through random variations and natural selection) is true when it is applied to microevolution, but completely untrue when it is applied to macroevolution.

You know who that is? Strawman! No one said that sheep could become a goat, or a butterfly into a lizard. That's so far off any of the evolutionary arguments. But while you're on that point, inter-specific hybridization occurs all the time, Ligers (Lion[f] / Tiger[m]) and Tigon (Lion[m] / Tiger[f]), these are NOT sterile. If a liger were to reproduce with a tiger, it would be called a ti-liger, and if it were to reproduce with a lion, it would be called a li-liger. The fertility of hybrid big cat females is well-documented across a number of different hybrids. This is all fact. Now in the long term I'm sure this type of hybridization has a lot to do with macro-evolution and natural selection played a role in domination of superior hybrids over previous incarnations. Natural hybridization has been noted quite recently with lonicera fly, it's a completely viable natural hybrid between R. zephyria and R. mendax. Then another viable natural hybrid is the Pomarine Skua or the Great Skua, which genetically could go either way, with a Greater Skua mating with a lesser skua, hybridizing to the Pomarine, or where the pomarine and one of the southern hemisphere skuas hybridized to the Greater Skua. Either way it's pretty evident that the new specification occurred, just kinda hard to tell which way it went. Then you have a manner showing how natural selection removes those hybridized specied not viable in the long run, but stable else wise, with the mariana mallard, which was a cross between the Australian black duck and mallard. The Mariana mallard is not an officially recognized proper species. However, as the population constituted a distinct, established and independent evolutionary unit (although not yet phenotypically homogenized), it was at least an incipient species. If considered specifically distinct, it was one of the most short-lived vertebrate species known to science, existing for a few 10.000 years at most from the fist hybridization event to its extinction. And so we have natural selection, it didn't die out due to reproductive errors as you see in many semi-compatible hybrids. (which can be shown as a contemporary form of "fossils" showing a failed transitional species.)

The fields of molecular biology and biochemistry are producing scientists that say simply that Darwin's mechanism is simply incapable of producing the mechanisms by which organisms would use energy, move around, detect light, heal wounds, etc. The theory of macro evolution becomes less supportable the more we learn about the "biomechanical machinery" of living cells. "

So? It's also producing plenty who say it is quite capable of doing that very thing. Again this is inviable as an argumentative....The assumption that since new scientists come forward with the theory that macro evolution is a malfeasance, that it also means that the more we learn the less supportive things become. In fact all this proves is that there is still, as always, partisanship in science. Look at quantum-physics, there's 100 different theories out there and the more we learn the more theories pop up. Science is moving forward on the back of a bullet, until we catch up with it, the theories will continue to come in drove. This includes theories that support and don't support any given ideal.

Lastly let me add; I'm not contending that Darwin was correct. But I am asserting that creationism is, well, rather unlikely. That being said, I do believe darwin was on the right track. Usually theories need some heavy revisions before they are full realized and concreted.

robf

 

[r0beph]

Bible-based Creationism certainly has no evidence to support it due to all the clear falsehoods in the Bible. But I think evolution is highly flawed also, and I don't accept it.

When someone asks me "How do you think we got here?" - I simply say "I don't know." That, to me, is the only rational answer at this point.

As for hard evidence against evolution, from a non-Christian source, consider the following archeological finds:

http://www.forbiddenarcheology.com/

it's an interesting bit there. but if it's legitimate, their is also the likelihood of perhaps intelligent beings predating humans, that would still allow for evolutionary movement. It niether supports darwinian theory or creationism, but rather brings more mystery. Maybe I can find it in PDF somewhere on the net and I'll get back to you on that.

 

[9sublime]

So palerider, how do you believe species that have been around for only a million odd years got here if they didn't evolve from another ancestor? Dropped from the sky by God?

 

[palerider]

So palerider, how do you believe species that have been around for only a million odd years got here if they didn't evolve from another ancestor? Dropped from the sky by God?

I couldn't say how they got here but that doesn't mean that I need to accept a theory as shaky and as poorly supported by the fossil record as macroevolution evolution in order to explain it to myself to achieve some sense of well being. There are things that we know, and things that we don't know and until we know, I will content myself with not knowing.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

it's an interesting bit there. but if it's legitimate, their is also the likelihood of perhaps intelligent beings predating humans, that would still allow for evolutionary movement. It niether supports darwinian theory or creationism, but rather brings more mystery. Maybe I can find it in PDF somewhere on the net and I'll get back to you on that.

Also, check out the book "The Mystery of Physical Life" by E.L. Grant Wilson for an interesting read.

 

[r0beph]

I couldn't say how they got here but that doesn't mean that I need to accept a theory as shaky as evolution in order to explain it to myself. There are things that we know, and things that we don't know.

no response to my post?

 

[palerider]

Creationism = argumentum ad ignorantiam.

First, I am not arguing creationism. You must first realize what sort of argument is being presented before you can effectively argue against it.

Just because He says something, doesn't make it true. I don't think they had DNA testing and all the goodies we have today back when he was alive. That is invalidated of any usefulness to the argument.

Actually, DNA is creating a problem for evolutionists. For example, it hasnt been very long ago that DNA testing threw a wrench in the works with regard to neanderthals. Evolutionary theory suggested that they should be more closely related to europeans than groups in other areas of the world. DNA testing, however, showed that neanderthal is more closely related to chimps than to any homo sapien sapien.

uhm.. yes it is what we're talking about, the animals around us that didn't always exist NOW DO. That's the meat of it, and those animals came from previous forms or diverged as subspecies.

You are describing microevolution, not macroevolution. Girraffes decending from a more short necked ancestor is one thing. Mammals coming from reptiles is another.

But while you're on that point, inter-specific hybridization occurs all the time, Ligers (Lion[f] / Tiger[m]) and Tigon (Lion[m] / Tiger[f]), these are NOT sterile. [/quote]

Lions - Felidae Felinae Panthera Leo. Tigers - Felidae Felinae Panthera Tigiris. These are members of the same family, sub family and genus. It is a much longer leap with no supporting evidence to explain a transition from class reptilia to class mammalia which the theory of macroevolution requires.

Lastly let me add; I'm not contending that Darwin was correct. But I am asserting that creationism is, well, rather unlikely. That being said, I do believe darwin was on the right track. Usually theories need some heavy revisions before they are full realized and concreted.

robf[/b]

I am not asserting creationism and never have.

 

[Coyote]

There was a huge jump from homo erectus to homo sapien in an extremely short time. In fact, many scientists are now claiming that they lived at the same time along side each other. The only way that can happen is if they are different species that shared a common ancestor, which would throw out a lot of what we think we know about human evolution. It would also mean that the evolutionary jump that created homo sapiens would be even bigger. Evolution is based on the theory that changes occur over extremely long periods of time, but archeology is showing that while this is the case most of the time, there are times when really big changes take place over a very short period of time.

The issue here is not whether evolution occurs or not but exactly how. Sudden, big jumps or incremental changes or a mixture of both. Evolution is not necessarily based on on the theory that life evolved from simple to complex over a long period of time and even though there are periods of rapid change interspersed within long slow periods - that does not mean evolution is wrong - it just means we are still trying to understand the mechanics of it. Evolution itself is a fact - it is present and observable even in the modern time.

What we know about evolution is constantly changing - the thing is, unlike say Creationism, evolution is not static - it is constantly re-evaluating itself in the light of new evidence. This does not mean that evolution itself is in question.

Here's another article that talks about transitional fossils and might answer some of the confusion: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#gaps

 

[9sublime]

I couldn't say how they got here but that doesn't mean that I need to accept a theory as shaky as evolution in order to explain it to myself. There are things that we know, and things that we don't know.

But you are quite happy to accept anything that doesn't make sense or is unexplained in the world in respect to Christianity as 'Gods great plan' and that you have to have 'faith' to be a real Christian. Its funny how Christianity and a rejection of evolution so often go hand in hand.

 

[Coyote]

I couldn't say how they got here but that doesn't mean that I need to accept a theory as shaky and as poorly supported by the fossil record as macroevolution evolution in order to explain it to myself to achieve some sense of well being. There are things that we know, and things that we don't know and until we know, I will content myself with not knowing.

The fossil record is not the only support. What about DNA which shows relationships between unrelated species?

 

[r0beph]

The issue here is not whether evolution occurs or not but exactly how. Sudden, big jumps or incremental changes or a mixture of both. Evolution is not necessarily based on on the theory that life evolved from simple to complex over a long period of time and even though there are periods of rapid change interspersed within long slow periods - that does not mean evolution is wrong - it just means we are still trying to understand the mechanics of it. Evolution itself is a fact - it is present and observable even in the modern time.

What we know about evolution is constantly changing - the thing is, unlike say Creationism, evolution is not static - it is constantly re-evaluating itself in the light of new evidence. This does not mean that evolution itself is in question.

Here's another article that talks about transitional fossils and might answer some of the confusion: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#gaps

I agree, I'm always annoyed by people who confuse "darwinism" with evolution, sure he was the biggest contributor with his name tossed around blatantly, however evolution != darwinism. Darwinism is just A theory of evolution, according to darwin. Often you see people disavow evolution because "darwin is wrong yada yada." The thing is however if you don't agree with some of his ideas on evolution, then come up with something better. It seems you rarely get that. You get a binary position on evolution with the naysayers, they don't agree with one aspect, so none can be true. What sense does this make. Ok so maybe darwin doesn't account for the rapid deployment of diverse specification. Well As with the Marinara Mallard I think that is exemplary as an example of evolution in action and failing. Where as the other two I mentioned in my previous posts were the successes. If you can have slight hybridizations and then those new hybrids can possibly mate outside the hybrid's parent genus due to the new chromosomal make up, and then you can have even more subspecifications and so on. That's what I assume occurred, there's science backing it, and I like it.

to palerider:

Please read my post on the other page, I'd like your response.
Also I'd like to know what do YOU believe. You spend your time telling us why our views are shaky and likely incorrect, I've yet to hear your alternative. Since you are arguing against evolution, that means you have something you believe trumps it in likelihood. So please. What is this, also please explain why it is more likely than evolution. Just the facts please, leave the logical fallacies at the door.

 

[Coyote]

For example - all life forms on Earth use DNA and RNA as genetic material. DNA and RNA have a code that admits of only very rare and insignificant alterations, which is what one would expect had all life evolved from a common ancestor. There is, furthermore, a high degree of correspondence between molecular phylogenies and evolutionary expectations, even for nonfunctional changes in DNA. Why would these evolutionary expectations be borne out in the case of similar species living in similar climates on different continents: creationists for example, should expect the DNA of such creatures to closely match, if DNA was designed for functionality. However, we find instead that these species often have DNA more closely resembling that of different species in adjacent environments than that of the similar species in distant locales. The appearance of the similar species is the result of convergent evolution: the species have managed to adapt in similar ways to their environments, but they remain genetically closer to the different species near them, with whom they share a more recent common ancestor. The manner in which such genetic correlations match evolutionary expectations is independent confirmation of evolution that would serve absolutely no purpose but deception in a world in which all life was created directly by a God.

 

[Dave]

Actually R0beph, palerider isn't attacking a strawman at all. Evolution does suggest in many cases that some animals become something completely different over time. Evolution accounts for mammal marine life such as dolphins and whales by saying they evolved from prehistoric creatures that looked like wolves. This is just one of the many cases of macroevolution that science has yet to offer any proof of.

It seems to be Truth-Bringer, 9sublime, and yourself that are beating the strawman here. I don't think palerider is trying to argue that creationism is the answer, and I am certainly not making that argument in this thread. I am simply stating that there are a lot of holes in the evolutionary theory when you start talking about big changes. I'm not claiming that I have the answer, but I am claiming that you don't either.