[_ Old Earth _] Evolution is only a THEORY

[Catholic Convert]

Does anyone else agree that evolution is only a theory & we cannot truly know that it's correct?

 

[Catholic Convert]

Our souls come from God & our bodies come from our parents. Why does it really matter the origins of our humanly bodies?

 

[evanman]

The doctrine of the Fall of man is essential doctrine.

If genesis' account of creation of man is not true then how do we explain the entrance of sin into the world and the need for redemption?

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

So is the theory of gravity, go jump off a cliff and test it.
The "Only a theory argument" is false because it simply shows us that you don't know what being a theory means.

Furthermore, evolution ISN'T a theory, it is a FACT. It has been observed to happen and to have happened in the distant past. The theory that you are refering to so haphazardly is the theory explaining the phenomenon, the Theory of Natural Selection.

 

[Vic C.]

So is the theory of gravity, go jump off a cliff and test it.
The "Only a theory argument" is false because it simply shows us that you don't know what being a theory means.

Furthermore, evolution ISN'T a theory, it is a FACT. It has been observed to happen and to have happened in the distant past. The theory that you are refering to so haphazardly is the theory explaining the phenomenon, the Theory of Natural Selection.

Interesting...you call gravity a theory and evolution a fact!

 

[Barbarian]

Technically, gravity and evolution are phenomena. They each have theories that explain them. Gravity isn't quite as well understood as evolution.

 

[Featherbop]

Sintax, if evolution has been proven to be a fact, then show me an ape evolve into a man. If you can't show that, then its not proven to actualy happen.

___________

Evolution is just an idea. It has been around for centuries, it has not been proven or observed, small changes, sure thats been seen, but thats not real evolution.

A bacteria becoming immune to antibiotics is not evolution.

A mutation is not evolution, those are harmful, hindering, or non-useful anyway.

All living things stay within their own kind. A plant will always be a plant, A chimp will always be a chimp, a human will always be a human, A turtle will always be a turtle, a bird always a bird.

Variation within kinds is not only evolution, it is Biblical.

_____

Of course some things I said above are inncorrect if define evoltuoin as simply change.

 

[cubedbee]

A bacteria becoming immune to antibiotics is not evolution.

A mutation is not evolution, those are harmful, hindering, or non-useful anyway.

Bacteria become immune to antibiotics through genetic mutations. These mutations are beneficial obviously.

 

[legamus]

The doctrine of the Fall of man is essential doctrine.

If genesis' account of creation of man is not true then how do we explain the entrance of sin into the world and the need for redemption?

i don't understand the relevance of this. what does the evolution of a pig for example have to do with any sort of doctrine. just calm down, the bible is true. it is not concerned with topics like biology, chemistry, physics, mechanics etc... as for human evolution. my own opinion is that we've always been the same species.

 

[Blue-Lightning]

Should I get into this... I dunno...

Listen, the whole debate is this -

Everyone (at least every sane person) accepts that things change over time. Me, you, humans, horses, houses and fashions change. Same with organisms, they change too. Don't believe me - take a look at someone's baby. Is it a carbon copy? Noop.

The area where I think the evolutionist's go wrong is that I don't believe a species* can evolve so far as to not be the same species (not able to reproduce with their ancestors' offspring). At the same time, I have issues with the way species are classified... and then you have the issue of dating and how old all this stuff is. It's a very complicated issue.

So, the moral of my post? Educate yourself, that's the best thing the Christian community can do.

Later ,

BL

 

[M82A1]

Go to my thread entitled: "Five mojor Misconceptions about Evolution." Ah, nevermind, I'll quote it myself.

"Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved."

First, we should clarify what "evolution" means. Like so many other words, it has more than one meaning. Its strict biological definition is "a change in allele frequencies over time." By that definition, evolution is an indisputable fact. Most people seem to associate the word "evolution" mainly with common descent, the theory that all life arose from one common ancestor. Many people believe that there is enough evidence to call this a fact, too. However, common descent is still not the theory of evolution, but just a fraction of it (and a part of several quite different theories as well). The theory of evolution not only says that life evolved, it also includes mechanisms, like mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift, which go a long way towards explaining how life evolved.

Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. The argument rests on a confusion between what "theory" means in informal usage and in a scientific context. A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.)

Lack of proof isn't a weakness, either. On the contrary, claiming infallibility for one's conclusions is a sign of hubris. Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be. Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you're operating in. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain.

What evolution has is what any good scientific claim has--evidence, and lots of it. Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others. If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better. Of course, to do this, you must know both the theory and the evidence.

 

[Barbarian]

Yes, speciation is a fact. That kind of macroevolution is directly observed. (instances on request) We have compelling evidence for more extensive evolution over periods of time beyond human lifetimes.

None of this makes any difference to Christianity, which isn't about evolution or creationism.

 

[Bryan]

Yes, speciation is a fact. .

No it isn't. True speciation never happened. Those who claim it has are either stupid or lying. (or in some cases, closet racists).

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Barbarian claims to have some examples, examine them before making your statement Bryan.

 

[Blue-Lightning]

Let me say something to Bryan first and then I'll get into the real meat of the discussion,

Bryan, keep quiet unless you are willing to be polite and/or educated in your responses. Your statement is neither contributive nor beneficial to the conversation.

Now, Barb:

That kind of macroevolution is directly observed. (instances on request) We have compelling evidence for more extensive evolution over periods of time beyond human lifetimes.

Okay, can you provide me with observed instances where a population of reproducing organisms have had a sub-population that changed to such a degree that their sperm/eggs could no longer create a zygote? If so, please do and show some references. Thanks.

None of this makes any difference to Christianity, which isn't about evolution or creationism.

To some degree, I disagree. It has an effect on your view of the Bible, on how you view the Old Testament, and your understanding of God's creation. So while I think there are definitely Christians who accept evolution, I do think that it has an effect.

Appreciate the time you spend talking with us Barbarian. While we may not agree, I think you being here certainly does increase the knowledge about evolution and ToE amongst all here - and that is the key to more competent Christians in a more and more scientific world.

BL

 

[M82A1]

Bryan, keep quiet unless you are willing to be polite and/or educated in your responses. Your statement is neither contributive nor beneficial to the conversation.

Thank you. I was just about to go off, until I decided to scroll down. :evil:

 

[Barbarian]

Examples of observed speciation:

de Vries, H. 1905. Species and varieties, their origin by mutation. Discovery of primrose speciation via polyploidy.

(you may know de Vries as the person who rediscovered Mendel's work)

Rice, W. R. 1985. Disruptive selection on habitat preference and the evolution of reproductive isolation: an exploratory experiment. Evolution. 39:645-646.
Reproductive isolation (speciation) by selective pressure.

Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1990. The evolution of reproductive isolation as a correlated character under sympatric conditions: experimental evidence. Evolution. 44:1140-1152.
Demonstration of sympatric (no geographic isolation) speciation.

Dobzhansky, T. and O. Pavlovsky. 1971. Experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila. Nature. 230:289-292.


Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution. 46:1214-1220.

I appreciate your coments, BL. I too, can be more blunt than necessary. Some of us can do better. I will keep in in mind. Hopefully, we all will.

 

[Blue-Lightning]

Hey, Barbarian, thanks for the speedy response and the excellent references. However, and I hate to do this, could you summarize those for me - I am lacking the time to read those in an efficient amount of time and reply on this thread regarding their validity/value.

Before you do that however, let's remove:

Laboratory genetic alteration: (we can do a lot of unnatural things).
Examples in which populations can reproduce (fertalization) but do not due to physiological/psychiological differences.
Assumed macroevolution (non-observed).
Examples utilizing species which are not classified strictly by the ability to reproduce through fertilization.

I don't know if that knocks out any of the examples you gave, but just as a timesaver I thought I'd list those. And once again, I truly am sorry about not taking the time to read them, it's not that I'm lazy, I just really don't have the time to read and resond in a decent amount of time.

BL

 

[Barbarian]

Hey, Barbarian, thanks for the speedy response and the excellent references. However, and I hate to do this, could you summarize those for me - I am lacking the time to read those in an efficient amount of time and reply on this thread regarding their validity/value.

OK. DeVries found a new species of plant, a form of wild primrose, never seen before. It was not fertile with any other species. From this, he suggested that evolution could be directly studied. We know today that this species was formed by polyploidy, multiplication of chromosomes. This is a common sort of macroevolution in plants.

This from Talk.origins, on Dobzhansky's studies:
"Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972). "

There's one example, of speciation of a plant which evolved a tolerance to high concentrations of metals. It flourished in mine tailings, but could not produce viable crosses with the parent species. It had become a new species.

I'll try to find the reference for you. I don't know of any genetic manipulation leading to speciation; generally, it's just a matter of selective pressure, and nature does the rest.



Before you do that however, let's remove:

Laboratory genetic alteration: (we can do a lot of unnatural things).
Examples in which populations can reproduce (fertalization) but do not due to physiological/psychiological differences.
Assumed macroevolution (non-observed).
Examples utilizing species which are not classified strictly by the ability to reproduce through fertilization.

I don't know if that knocks out any of the examples you gave, but just as a timesaver I thought I'd list those. And once again, I truly am sorry about not taking the time to read them, it's not that I'm lazy, I just really don't have the time to read and resond in a decent amount of time.

 

[Bryan]

Lightning, appeasing the evolutionists while they play their shell game is hardly a productive use of anyone's time. I may have been blunt, but it is true, they ARE lying.