[_ Old Earth _] A Few Question For Evolutionists

[DD_8630]

If the ToE does not say that a single celled organism evolved into all the species we see today exactly what does it say?

It posits that all life on Earth today is ultimately related via one or a few very simple organisms. The evidence confirms that such an organism existed ~3.5 billion years ago.

Almost every argument I see on here is basically "You don't understand the Theory of Evolution" So go ahead and tell me what it is all about then?

If you have reproduction (be they self-replicating molecules or sexually reproducing elephants) with variation (i.e., mutation), then the theory of evolution explains the role of natural selection in guiding this population of reproducers to optimise their environment.

So you have these reproducers. The next generation will have a genome derived from their parent(s), and with some elements that have spontaneously formed.
Most of the time, these mutations don't do anything.
Some of the time, they are detrimental to the organism (they halt the embryo's gestation, make the organism unable to reproduce, make it susceptible to disease, etc).
On rare occasions, they are beneficial: they make stronger muscles or bones, they increase the speed of action potentials, etc.

These beneficial traits, by virtue of their benefit, quickly become widespread throughout the population after a few generations. This is evolution: the average genome changing over time.

Now, speciation occurs when the population is split into two groups by some barrier that prevents breeding between the two groups: a large river (as in Madagascar and Africa), extraordinary distance, etc.
When this happens, mutations from one group cannot pass to the other. Thus, over time, the two groups accumulate different mutations, and diverge in similarity over the eons. Eventually, if you then remove the barrier and put the two groups back together, you'll find that the gametes of one group no longer recognises the gametes of the other: their respective genomes are too dissimilar.

So doesn't common ancestry imply that we all came from a single organism?

A single organism, yes, but not necessarily a single-celled organism.

Which is that whole molecules to man thing again?

A crude way to put it, since it implies some form of goal-orientated progression. But yes, it explains how we get from simple replicators to complex replicators. The evidence tells us that these simple replicators were likely self-replicating molecules that existed ~3.5 billion years ago.

 

[Cirbryn]

So doesn't common ancestry imply that we all came from a single organism? Which is that whole molecules to man thing again?

Common ancestry does imply we came from a single organism. So that’s a single organism to man thing, not a molecules to man thing.

 

[Possumburg]

Common ancestry does imply we came from a single organism. So that’s a single organism to man thing, not a molecules to man thing.

If that single organism is not made of molecules, then what exactly is it made of?

 

[Slevin]

Common ancestry does imply we came from a single organism. So that’s a single organism to man thing, not a molecules to man thing.

If that single organism is not made of molecules, then what exactly is it made of?

Everything is made of molecules...so "molecules to man" is a strawman.

 

[jwu]

Common ancestry does imply we came from a single organism. So that’s a single organism to man thing, not a molecules to man thing.

If that single organism is not made of molecules, then what exactly is it made of?

The ToE does not include a statement about the origin of the first lifeform, while that is implied by the "molecules to man" statement.

 

[Possumburg]

Is there some "statement of faith" somewhere that says what the Theory of Evolution states? Or do you just have to dig through the endless wordplay and lies to get the gist of it?

 

[Possumburg]

From http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... soflife_01

However, within the field of evolutionary biology, the origin of life is of special interest because it addresses the fundamental question of where we (and all living things) came from.

Looks like they are interested in it.

 

[Possumburg]

More here http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... soflife_04

 

[jwu]

Is there some "statement of faith" somewhere that says what the Theory of Evolution states?

The theory of evolution is clearly defined - it's an explanation for the diversity of life. There is no fixed statement of faith, as science is not like a religion. It adapts to new evidence.

Or do you just have to dig through the endless wordplay and lies to get the gist of it?

Not wordplays but insistence on accurate usage of terminology. One short way to state the ToE is "the frequency of allele changes due to differential reproductive success"

Looks like they are interested in it.

Of course scientists are interested in it...that doesn't make it a part of the ToE though. It's a related but distinct field.

 

[Possumburg]

Yeah, it is a religion.

 

[jwu]

How so? Please elaborate. What does science have in common with religion?

 

[Possumburg]

I did not say science is a religion. I said belief in evolution is a religion. There is no proof that it happened the way we are taught. All of the evidence is interpreted, and interpretations cannot be called proof. So basically it is belief in something without proof, which makes it a religion.

 

[Guest]

I did not say science is a religion. I said belief in evolution is a religion. There is no proof that it happened the way we are taught. All of the evidence is interpreted, and interpretations cannot be called proof. So basically it is belief in something without proof, which makes it a religion.

That is the BIGGEST misconception about Evolution that is currently out there. There is plenty of evidence of evolution, and we have even observed it on a small scale. As I pointed out there are two parts of evolution which are often confused:

1. Abiogenesis.
2. Evolution of the Species (as described by Darwin).
#1 is still under speculation
#2 there is hardly any speculation it's occurring.

In addition, what you just said is VERY interesting: believing in something without proof is a Religion. Christianity happens to be a religion, so there is no proof for anything related to Christian beliefs. That doesn't mean that the moral standards set by Christianity are wrong, but the proof behind them is lacking.

 

[Possumburg]

And as a Christian I am commanded by Jesus to spread truth. The teaching of evolution is the biggest enemy of Christianity today, so it is our job to show how false it is, so your argument about Christianity also being a religion doesn't hold water. And before you spew out the old "I know plenty of Christians who believe in evolution" argument, I would like to add that many scientist don't believe in it, so neither argument really proves anything. The thing I am trying to point out is how inconsistent evolution is with the Biblical account of Creation. So what sense does it make to change what I believe about my religion based on what another religion believes. Doesn't really add up if you ask me.

So by all means believe what the "smart" scientists tell you, and I will hold to the beliefs of the "uneducated".(not my words but the words of evolutionists, who say that all "credible" scientists believe in evolution. Which sounds to me like they are saying only dummies disagree.)

 

[Slevin]

There is no proof that it happened the way we are taught.

There is evidence, which constitute support for the theory, as well as various avenues for falsification of said theory. Proof is not a valid concept in the Scientific field, since Science works directly on inductive reasoning and empiricism.

If you have any issues with concepts in the Theory of Evolution, then bring it up.

All of the evidence is interpreted, and interpretations cannot be called proof. So basically it is belief in something without proof, which makes it a religion.

Uh, no.

The evidence is interpreted and tested against a self-correcting mechanism called the Scientific Method. If there is not enough evidence, or the concept is not cogent, then the concept will generally be tossed out until the person proposing it comes up with ways of validating.

Look at String Theory in cosmology. It is wonderfully cogent mathematically, but it has no evidence and currently there is no way to properly test the validity of the theory. We continuously strive to find ways to validate and invalidate our ideas so that we can have a better idea as to how the world is set up.

Science isn't a set of beliefs, it's a dynamic methodology concerning the discovery of the naturalistic behaviour of reality.

 

[jwu]

I did not say science is a religion. I said belief in evolution is a religion. There is no proof that it happened the way we are taught. All of the evidence is interpreted, and interpretations cannot be called proof. So basically it is belief in something without proof, which makes it a religion.

You are contradicting yourself. Proof is for math and alcohol, in science such a thing as proof (as in "100% certainty")does not exist.

Since you say that unproven things are religion and science does not deal with proof, science must be a religion

However, that does not mean that things which are not "proven" are just pure guesses.
E.g. evolution is not 100% certain, but based on the available evidence it is more than 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999% certain (based on ERVs alone i could add about 300 additional 9s to this).

 

[VaultZero4Me]

The ID and creation crowd has pushed this line of thinking into some of the public. They use sciences strength (its continuous strive to correct itself) to attack it.

That is why the YEC and ID community use this "proof" and "theory" angle.

ie. per Kevin Hovind "Evolution is just a theory based on a bunch of guesses and assumptions. It is not a fact."

Watch his debating tactics. I watched him debate a phd microbiologist on YouTube. The biologist went through a series of slides talking about various fossils, showed some slides comparing dinos and modern birds, and some DNA slides.

Hovinds rebuttal? "Did you see that? He just showed you a bunch of pretty computer drawings and graphics of things that all these scientist are guessing on. Anyone can make a pretty drawing, but that doesn't make it real. Its science fiction, not science fact"

The church audience clapped with ecstatic approval.

It was ridiculous. Look up "Hovind debate"

Unfortunately they trap some people in with cunning language use. I say scientist should change the whole scientific lexicon to take some of the ammo out of Hovindish guns.

 

[Guest]

And as a Christian I am commanded by Jesus to spread truth. The teaching of evolution is the biggest enemy of Christianity today, so it is our job to show how false it is, so your argument about Christianity also being a religion doesn't hold water.

This is how ridiculous Christians are, they call Evolution the enemy! This is not a war, scientists are not your enemies... I can't believe you can even have that thought in your head, it's purely repulsive.

And before you spew out the old "I know plenty of Christians who believe in evolution" argument, I would like to add that many scientist don't believe in it, so neither argument really proves anything. The thing I am trying to point out is how inconsistent evolution is with the Biblical account of Creation. So what sense does it make to change what I believe about my religion based on what another religion believes. Doesn't really add up if you ask me.

Of course evolution is inconsistent with the Biblical accounts of Creation, but so is 90% of everything else related to the origins of the Universe... you have to understand, science does not have a "hidden" agenda to prove that God doesn't exist. The only thing that science is trying to do is to help us understand our environment. The problem is that the Bible is open for interpretation, so when it was first discovered that the Earth is round and NOT in the center of the Universe a lot of heads got chopped off and a lot of people lost their lives in the dungeons... The Church didn't really want to hear any of it, it completely contradicted their current interpretation.

This is not the first time the interpretation of the Bible is wrong, just because we have a poor explanation of God's power doesn't mean that God is wrong. Just think about it, you have people who know nothing about atoms, molecules, matter, light speed, stars, radioactivity and not even the basic laws of physics trying to use current vocabulary to explain CREATION! Really think about it... how likely is it that the people who wrote the bible really didn't understand what God was "talking" about. You have a being as mighty and powerful, such as God, talking to a man/woman who barely even understands what we consider basic things now: how would that person really interpret God's words?

So by all means believe what the "smart" scientists tell you, and I will hold to the beliefs of the "uneducated".(not my words but the words of evolutionists, who say that all "credible" scientists believe in evolution. Which sounds to me like they are saying only dummies disagree.)

Nobody, but NOBODY is trying to make you believe anything that you don't want to believe. You're as free as a bird, if you want to believe in Unicorns, then do. The fact of the matter is that people at the time when God "spoke" to them could not even imagine the extent of God's power, they knew it was great, but they didn't have words to describe it. How can you explain something which you have no words for? Science provides the vocabulary to explain God's creation.

 

[DD_8630]

I did not say science is a religion. I said belief in evolution is a religion. There is no proof that it happened the way we are taught. All of the evidence is interpreted, and interpretations cannot be called proof. So basically it is belief in something without proof, which makes it a religion.

By that set of definitions, you are calling science a religion: science only ever deals in theories and unproven hypotheses. Einstein's theory of special and general relativity are both unproven beliefs, as is the belief in the existance of atoms, or germs.

Are those religions?

 

[DD_8630]

And as a Christian I am commanded by Jesus to spread truth. The teaching of evolution is the biggest enemy of Christianity today,

How on Earth? Evolution is a biological fact, and the theory of common descent is more evidenced than any other scientific theory. Moreover, none of the core beliefs of Christianity are at all related to the posits of evolutionary theory. So what if the Earth is billions of years old? So what if humans share an ancestor with chimps? Jesus still came down to Earth to die for our sins, etc.

so it is our job to show how false it is,

Since you have shown no such thing, and have instead been refuted time and time again, my confidence in you wavers.

so your argument about Christianity also being a religion doesn't hold water.

How on Earth does this follow from your previous statement? And in any case, Christianity is a religion. A religion isn't necessarily false, y'know.

And before you spew out the old "I know plenty of Christians who believe in evolution" argument, I would like to add that many scientist don't believe in it, so neither argument really proves anything.

On the contrary, it shows that Christianity is not threatened by evolutionary theory, contrary to your whining.
Also, only ~800 scientists disbelieve in common descent. The remaining millions, however, are unanimous in their support.

Note also that those 800 come from all kinds of fields, like mathematics, physics, history, etc, but none come from the disciplines that focus on evolution itself. Funny how the experts are unanimous in their support for evolutionary theory, but the layman is not.

The thing I am trying to point out is how inconsistent evolution is with the Biblical account of Creation.

Since you have done no such thing, we rest peacfully.

So what sense does it make to change what I believe about my religion based on what another religion believes. Doesn't really add up if you ask me.

Hey, it's your [edited for vulgarity] argument, not ours.

So by all means believe what the "smart" scientists tell you, and I will hold to the beliefs of the "uneducated".(not my words but the words of evolutionists, who say that all "credible" scientists believe in evolution. Which sounds to me like they are saying only dummies disagree.)

As Richard Dawkins said: "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane."


Please refrain from vulgar language.

Thank you.