Question About Evolution

Post Reply New Topic

Yes but, what if that only argues that

1.) we have a common designer

and

2.) the commonalities that do exist between species are the basic pre-requisites to life. The genetic possibilities are 2(on or off) to the 25,000th power, and the possibilities are endless, but what is finite is the limited range that said species has into morphing into anything other then something similar to it, with variances in hairiness, color, and size, but a horse cannot evolve into a whale regardless of what its environment demands.

Thats basicly the whole thread here in a nutshell!

I honestly do not know how any movement would go without a structured campaign and expect to survive. Atheists play by the exact blueprint, makes you wonder if the people hear themselves. You act like this is a power move foreign to atheism.

You don't believe that someone could seriously believe in intelligent design.

Which is why ID is labeled as dishonest, because, since you cannot imagine a normal person believing in it, there must be bad intentions involved that are not science related like their just trying to feed off of and cash in on misinformed peoples fears, or, they are just anti-science for religious power, respect, and prestige. You also don't think that - for those of us who should know better - deep down we actually disagree with Evolution, because to you, how could someone be presented with what you see as overwhelming evidence and deny it?

Where I part with Evolutionists framing of Evolution is the material confines naturalism as all there is, which precludes a designer. I see design all over the evidence. I might even prescribe to macro evolution if data showed that an intelligent source planted life on earth, and that then germinated into everything we know today, and had a hand in the process. That is more palpable then material nothing + random chance + natural selection equals life, and life evolving into things it wasn't instructed to evolve into.

And many important figures in science have also laughed at those who hold that the universe and life on earth was not tweaked or tampered with to make reality what it is... that it just all just happened, randomly. I feel the evidence we call evidence is evidence, but of what exactly? is where we differ. I don't think biology will fully resolve creation and theories of how life evolved on earth for another few hundred years, but I do not think Darwinism will be around when things are resolved.

"Darwinism"?!'
*snort*
Darwin, genius though he was, couldn't pass a modern college evolution course.

The Greeks did call it insane. They called the Jews lazy because they rested every 7th day.

It baffled them why one would take a break from life, to just be with friends and family, to rest and not work, to give their animals rest, to reenact creation by resting on the 7th day as God did.

To the ancient Jew, it is understood that we are not merely here to work. That God took them out of slavery in Egypt wherein they had to work 7 days a week. There are other things more important then work, even if you do work every day of the week but get paid a million bucks, the torah feels you are still a slave, even if well-paid, a slave to your money, identity, and performance. This life time is short, at the end of your life, you can spend your dying days on a pile of money, and it won't mean a thing to you -- memories of people are what will occupy your mind, so they should be what focuses your mind long before your mortality forces you to, and to commit one day out of the week to just that is morally elevating. The Greeks had a philosophical concept of this as well, their insult was just out of misunderstanding.

Points Being Answered
No one's answered any of my points either. Do go back and reread every post I have ever made, this isn't a debate, it is merely two sides throwing points at each other, if you want to dance around my points, that is fine, none of my critiques have been answered, I answer you all regularly.


My Response:
I don't know anything about that horse and its mammalian ancestor and do not know where to start in researching it and why it has what it has. Your demands of explaining the horse by a visual is simplistic. WE KNOW ABSOLUTELY NOTHING from looking at those pictures. I don't know the fossil record and what we have to work with, there are large collapses of time, millions of years between each example(according to the diagram), I don't know the reasons it abandoned 5 toes for 1 hoove. Please post images of the fossils we have that we then constructed the ancestors you see in that picture.

I can simply look at these simplistic drawings and draw homological similarities, and say that since they look similar, they are the same, which they may be. If they are the same creature, then they are. But it is just definitional. Give me a month to study it, and feel free to educate me as well while I learn about it. Specifically, why it evolved the way it evolved.


Materialism:
Materialism also dictates that matter is all there is. Matter. Entropy, does not exist. Neither does time, or numerical values. Neither does force. Physical terms can only be used descriptively to define a mode that matter occupies. That is it. Fields don't exist, nothing to be frank, if it is not material. That relates to my definition of naturalism. Darwinists believe our beginnings were within the confines of naturalism, and that the material world is all there is. The super natural and the non-material do not exist, ruling out the possibility of a spirit of higher consciousness.

what about the human being and human evil?

Judaism doesn't deny the concept of evolution. Evolution excludes Judaism when it says that Evolution happened ONLY within the confines of naturalism, and even if a supernatural exists, its role in the creation of the world and the universe and life in general is irrelevant.

The catholic church is right. Not from a scientific perspective, but scientific truth is not the only truth, and doesn't over-rule philosophy as the only supplier of truth. Which universe matters more to you? The geographical or the personal? Home is where the heart is, and we are the centers of our universe in the final analysis. And what the hell does evolution have to do with church theology? They are clearly bowing to internal pressures that feel the church may be seen as anti science(because of its history) and doesn't want to be left behind. I understand that. But why would the catholics, or the buddhists accept science when it has nothing to do with their theological viewpoints?

You keep attacking something I have never said or supported. Intelligent Design can and should be taught in a philosophical setting. Thats it. Darwinian evolution should be taught in a science setting, it should be critiqued, and challenged, and if new SCIENTIFIC theories arise, it should be given teaching time alongside Darwinism.

Major fallacy in your first paragraph. Evolution does NOT exclude Judaism, because evolution does not have anything to say about whether or not there is a God. Evolution is not pro-God. Evolution is not anti-God. It is absolutely neutral. Evolution is nothing more or less than an accurate description of observable reality. This false dichotomy (that if one accepts evolution one must necessarily reject God) is a favorite of anti-evolution people, but it is false. Anyone who says that evolution disproves God is just as wrong as those who say evolution doesn't happen or that the evidence for it does not exist.

The Catholics and others say truth does not conflict with truth. Why would God say one thing in His Book that is blatantly contradicted by all the evidence of the physical world UNLESS perhaps some of what is said in that book is not meant to be read as literal fact but instead is meant to be a spiritual teaching? It does have to do with their theology. Some churches can appreciate the power of metaphor and symbolism without thinking that everything in the Bible is literally true as read. They know that stories can be used to communicate meaning, and the details of the story don't matter nearly as much as the message being conveyed. The story is like an envelope you get in the mail, with the message contained within, but some people never open the damn envelope.

Okay, so you DO admit that intelligent design is NOT science and should NOT be taught in a science classroom? Cool. There is no reason to not teach intelligent design in a philosophy or sociology class, but it ain't science so it does not belong in a science classroom. We agree on that? Cool. Darwinism is not science either though. Darwinism is just what the anti-evolution people call evolution because they equate it with a religion that has a founder. We have come a LONG way in our understanding of evolution since Darwin's time. Also, even if Darwin raped kittens and confessed on his deathbed, it makes no difference as to the truth of what he discovered.

Some anti-evolution people try to discredit the man as if that has any impact at all on whether or not what he discovered is true (it doesn't make a difference). If Darwin hadn't discovered evolution when he did, someone else would have. Wallace was close for example. Darwin was one of the greatest geniuses in human history though to see it so clearly and state it so elegantly. It might have taken us a while longer to figure things out, but since evolution is a fact of nature it was bound to be discovered.

It is unlikely that any new evidence will completely overturn evolution, but if it does happen I will be delighted. I seek truth, knowledge and understanding. Public school science classrooms are not the place to critique evolution though. It is one of the (if not THE) best supported ideas in science and it is very very wrong to present it to kids as if there are serious questions about whether or not it happens. The scientists argue HOW it happened. They argue WHY, but they agree it DID happen. It's senseless to deny (lyrics from my evolution song). If there are challenges and critiques to be made of evolution, let the scientists fight it out and whoever has the EVIDENCE wins. Then what is accepted as mainstream science can be taught in science classrooms. The critique and challenges to something that is as well-supported and accepted as evolution is do not belong in elementary or high-school level classes. That is something for much higher-levels of education. Don't present kids with distortions and LIES and expect them to be able to sort out the truth.

Last edited by TheBicyclingGuitarist on 06 Nov 2012, 8:44 am, edited 1 time in total.

You are SO very wrong about this. I'll name just one of the more spectacular transitional fossil hominids found: Lucy from about three and a half million years ago and nearly a complete skeleton. There have been other fossils found of her kind too. It doesn't matter if she was not a direct ancestor of ours or not. She is quite clearly at the very least a very close cousin to our species, but her species is not the only transitional form. There are at least a dozen transitional hominid forms from the past six or seven million years. Look up "hominid fossils" on Wikipedia IF you are sincerely interested, but to say we don't have the fossils is a LIE MarketAndChurch.

Just as with the sequence of horse evolution, there is a clear progression over time in the fossil record that is supported by genetic evidence from living species too. With the hominids, the older fossils are more ape-like and there is a clear progression over time to more human-like features. What could be clearer? If evolution didn't happen, please explain these FACTS.

Based on how well you argue and use words, I figure you're not stupid. That is why it ticks me off to see you spreading such lies and distortions about the fossil record. Even if you're unwilling to look it up for yourself, I hope other readers of this thread are not so intellectually dishonest as you.

As for transitionary links between fish and human, we can start with Tiktaalik and there are transitional forms found between every group between fish and humans in between. If evolution did not happen there should not be any transitional fossils at all (and that is what some ignorant people try to say), but there are thousands or millions found with more being discovered all the time. Plus our understanding of the genetic evidence and mechanisms is also increasing. I cannot understand what points you are trying to make. Some of your points or questions asked seem reasonable at first glance, but then you spread LIES about the fossil record.

Last edited by TheBicyclingGuitarist on 06 Nov 2012, 9:43 am, edited 7 times in total.

Humans haven't regressed and have become more fit for the habitat they live in. An evolutionary change that has happened to (many) humans during recorded history (! !) is that many humans now retain the lactase enzyme into adulthood. Originally, humans could only digest milk lactose as nursing babies. Their bodies would stop making lactase as they aged. But the domestication of milkable animals favored humans with the mutation to keep making that enzyme lifelong. That mutation became entrenched in populations that milked animals. It made them more fit for the enviroment they lived in. This mutation wasn't favored in populations that ate mostly seafood (which you don't milk) which is why the majority of asian people are what we now call "lactose intolerant".

What about human evil? Evil, horribly enough, has tended to promote the DNA of evildoers at the expense of the DNA of their victims. I think genocide is the greatest evil there is. But it favors the DNA of those who do it by clearing out whole populations (and their DNA) to make way for the evildoers (and the DNA of the population they belong to) to expand and reproduce exclusively. The Family of Man meme is an attempt to get people to see past the DNA of "their group" and start seeing the commonalities of all humans so as to stop destroying them. The Gaia meme is an attempt to get humans to see past the simple promotion of human DNA at the expense of other species and get humans to see the interrelatedness of all life.

If you look at the famous Seven Deadly Sins, you notice that calling them "sins" is an attempt to reign in natural impulses that promote one's DNA, often at the expense of others. All life is driven to promote its' own DNA, but only humans can cause damage to others on a giant scale by doing this without restraint. The notion of "sin" provides that restraint. So evil and sin don't run counter to fitting in to a habitat. But if unrestrained they are destructive. So there must be a balance. The desire to consume as much as possible while destroying whatever (and whomever) stands in our way is evil but it doesn't go against the continuance of DNA...until it does. So we have created the concept of ethics and balance to keep in check our natural impulse to promote our own DNA no matter what. Good thing we evolved the ability to come up with those concepts. We probably wouldn't have survived as a species if we hadn't come up with these memes that kept the tiny little tribes alive 200,000 years ago.

It didn't happen randomly. Everything you see around you, from space to natural selection, is extremely orderly.

"Moral character" (or lack thereof) is selected for in various ways. By working in communities (that traditionally would be composed of our relations), we further the chances of our genes being passed on. By avoiding going to prison or being executed, we increase our chances of meeting a fertile mate. If we refuse to have abortions or allow our mate(s) to have abortions, then we have more progeny. Since marriage for love became a thing, sexual selection has also began to act on morals.

We can also become more successful through a lack of morals (you could, of course, argue that removing a woman's control over her body is immoral, but I am not really looking at that). Historically, the best way for a man to ensure he had many offspring was for him to rape as many females as possible; equally, killing sexual competitors increased your chances. Being seen as a rich or powerful person also makes you more desirable, which explains many practices in business and politics that are at best questionable. Additionally, the self-interested will be less likely to die of starvation.

Evolution is an ongoing process, but isn't always obvious. There have been studies, especially of House Sparrows, which are an introduced species in North America, that show how different populations have adapted to various environments here.

I can't find it now, but I'm sure I came across an article, a dozen or so years ago, about two populations of sparrow in California that had apparently adapted separately to the point that they could no longer interbreed.

We also have numerous examples of bacterial adaptation (resistance to antiobiotics) and insects developing resistance to pesticides. That's evolution at work.

The fact that a species is new can't easily be proven in the wild due to the fact that there are still old species we don't know about. Listen to those who are fighting the destruction of the world's rain forests - where thousands of species we know nothing about are being destroyed. But the fossil evidence is substantial (if limited in comparative numbers due to the fact that fossils require special circumstances in order to form and be preserved), and new DNA evidence relates species to each other in ways that weren't possible before. The similarity of chimpanzee DNA to ours is hard evidence of our close relationship.

Evolution happens over time - a long time. In humans much longer than in bacteria or insects, because our lifespans are so long in comparison, and because our advanced intelligence helps us adapt artificially rather than needing to adapt biologically to recent changes.

I don't see why it can't be true that a meta-consciousness created life AND that life evolves. One does not have to be an atheist to understand evolution and accept that it happens. The two - science and spiritual belief - don't preclude each other. There is so much that isn't known, our firm knowledge of anything is a grain of sand on a very large beach. Scientists are curious because they understand there is so much we don't know. Spiritual people are spiritual because they understand there is so much we don't know. I'm both spiritual and interested in science, and all science has ever served to do to my beliefs is help me adjust them to known reality. It doesn't do away with them.

We do actually. We know the distant ancestor that evolved INTO ape-like creatures. We know there were dozens of these ape-like creatures living in Africa at the same time and we know that ONE of them evolved into modern humans. We know of a couple of those ape critter living in the same time which had pelvic adaptations that enabled them to walk mostly upright. Each of them was a different attempt towards the same end result. Only one made it.

WHICH one of those is what we do not know yet. That is the modern 'missing link'.

So you see, we have clear evidence of the evolutionary chain from a rat-like critter turning into multiple ape like creatures ... BLANK... then clear evidence of one of those ape like creatures becoming us.

Now, if we had NO evidence of what came before that blank I would agree you have a case to make. But we do.



*sigh*. First fish to develop lungs & walk on land. We have their fossils. Those critters radiated on land and became dinosaurs (this is way oversimplifying it btw). The dinosaurs radiated over hundreds of millions of years.. their smallest versions evolved into the first warm blooded creatures. We have evidence of it. Those warm blooded were among the few that survived the dino extinction event ...one of those became the little rat critter that fossil evidence shows became the proto-apes and later on , us.

The links are in the tens of thousands of species between that first fish that breathed air and us. You may not find every single link in the fossil record but it is in your DNA. You breathe air.




Ok. Lets take that at face value. There is a designer.

Who designed him?

No matter how far back we go in who designed who you will reach the same point: complexity arose from nothing. Somehow. And at the very start of all things there was no one to design it.

Then what? It must have been a supreme being of ludicrous power and knowledge of course.

mmm... and how did he come about?

hes always existed!

...which brings us back to the something extremely complex (a supreme being) coming out of nothing to create everything else.




Random variation and natural selection (among other evolutionary forces) are precisely how complex biological structures are formed. They are SIMPLER form that adapted to survive and that adaptation was added to its DNA and thus became more and more complex. Its just like math.. you learn to add then divide then calculus.. stuff gets more complicated because the more math you develop the more complex you become and the more complex you become the MORE stuff you can learn (adapt into). Think of it that way.