Looks like it's time for another evolution thread

[homebrew2ny]

Did not read all posts before me, but understand many have varying degrees of opinion on evolution. I believe it is a fact that micro-evolution is a constant, however the empirical proof of macro-evolution is just not there. Sure, it has a good deal of evidence supporting it, but the proverbial smoking gun is just not there, again in my opinion. Having said all of that, I think it is evident that some form(s) of evolution take place, have taken place, and will take place.

Here is where it gets murky for me....

Most that debate evolution are more likely than less cloaking their real 'truth' that implies there is no creator, no God. And here is what perplexes me. Despite evolution, macro or micro, despite the validity of either. Until someone can show how actual replicating life is formed from nothing, until someone can show how DNA can just 'become' fully functional and capable along with these first simplistic living organisms, the theory of evolution is non sequitur.

Now before you think I am some bible thumper, think again. I am all about scientific results, but evolutionists have blinders on just as much as creationists. I like absolute truths and neither side of the evolutionary coin can claim with certainty their side without overlooking something(s).

I have spent many years studying and researching both sides of evolution & creation, both with an open mind, and both hold validity to varying degrees. Eventually it would not surprise me to see that both evolution and creation are related...

 

[sandorski]

Did not read all posts before me, but understand many have varying degrees of opinion on evolution. I believe it is a fact that micro-evolution is a constant, however the empirical proof of macro-evolution is just not there. Sure, it has a good deal of evidence supporting it, but the proverbial smoking gun is just not there, again in my opinion. Having said all of that, I think it is evident that some form(s) of evolution take place, have taken place, and will take place.

Here is where it gets murky for me....

Most that debate evolution are more likely than less cloaking their real 'truth' that implies there is no creator, no God. And here is what perplexes me. Despite evolution, macro or micro, despite the validity of either. Until someone can show how actual replicating life is formed from nothing, until someone can show how DNA can just 'become' fully functional and capable along with these first simplistic living organisms, the theory of evolution is non sequitur.

Now before you think I am some bible thumper, think again. I am all about scientific results, but evolutionists have blinders on just as much as creationists. I like absolute truths and neither side of the evolutionary coin can claim with certainty their side without overlooking something(s).

I have spent many years studying and researching both sides of evolution & creation, both with an open mind, and both hold validity to varying degrees. Eventually it would not surprise me to see that both evolution and creation are related...

There is no such thing as Micro and Macro Evolution. Absolute Truth is another such non-existent thing, something is either True or it is not.

 

[elitejp]

Homebrew just wrote out what I was thinking. Religion or no religion it still hasnt been proved that something can come from nothing or even that evolution takes places from one species to another. Science still hasnt proven that fish can and did turn into birds or whatever. What evolution does do is provide an theory about things that havent been proved but that we see the results of. In other words we see life but if you dont accept creation/God as the reason this is the next solution to accept.

 

[DrPizza]

Did not read all posts before me, but understand many have varying degrees of opinion on evolution. I believe it is a fact that micro-evolution is a constant, however the empirical proof of macro-evolution is just not there. Sure, it has a good deal of evidence supporting it, but the proverbial smoking gun is just not there, again in my opinion. Having said all of that, I think it is evident that some form(s) of evolution take place, have taken place, and will take place.

Here is where it gets murky for me....

Most that debate evolution are more likely than less cloaking their real 'truth' that implies there is no creator, no God. And here is what perplexes me. Despite evolution, macro or micro, despite the validity of either. Until someone can show how actual replicating life is formed from nothing, until someone can show how DNA can just 'become' fully functional and capable along with these first simplistic living organisms, the theory of evolution is non sequitur.

Now before you think I am some bible thumper, think again. I am all about scientific results, but evolutionists have blinders on just as much as creationists. I like absolute truths and neither side of the evolutionary coin can claim with certainty their side without overlooking something(s).

I have spent many years studying and researching both sides of evolution & creation, both with an open mind, and both hold validity to varying degrees. Eventually it would not surprise me to see that both evolution and creation are related...

Do you agree or disagree that there is time? And that the Earth has been around for a long time? Because, if you believe in time, there's no difference between macro and micro evolution. Micro is over a short amount of time. Macro is the *exact same thing* over longer scales of time.

 

[elitejp]

only problem is that even with time there isnt evidence of macro evolution or one species completely changing into another, and thus we can only draw conclusions based on what theories you want to accept as true.

 

[sandorski]

only problem is that even with time there isnt evidence of macro evolution or one species completely changing into another, and thus we can only draw conclusions based on what theories you want to accept as true.

Except there is. Mountains of it.

 

[elitejp]

then it still wouldnt be called a theory if there was all this so called evidence. I mean we dont have a theory of gravity:hmm:
So if all these evolutionist scientist still call it a theory the evidence must still not be there. Just saying.

 

[sandorski]

then it still wouldnt be called a theory if there was all this so called evidence. I mean we dont have a theory of gravity:hmm:
So if all these evolutionist scientist still call it a theory the evidence must still not be there. Just saying.

We do have a theory of gravity, it's called the Theory of Gravity. Before using the term, you should learn what a Scientific Theory is. Just saying.

 

[JD50]

then it still wouldnt be called a theory if there was all this so called evidence. I mean we dont have a theory of gravity:hmm:
So if all these evolutionist scientist still call it a theory the evidence must still not be there. Just saying.

Are you joking?

Maybe a comic would be easier to understand.

http://darryl-cunningham.blogspot.co.nz/2011/06/evolution.html

 

[elitejp]

I thought it was the law of gravity. Oh well, it doesnt really matter to me. Evolution just doesnt have enough proof for me to agree with it, and many others think the same way. Its not fact, its guesswork. And science works that way until enough evidence is found.

 

[sandorski]

I thought it was the law of gravity. Oh well, it doesnt really matter to me. Evolution just doesnt have enough proof for me to agree with it, and many others think the same way. Its not fact, its guesswork. And science works that way until enough evidence is found.

The Theory of Evolution is not guess work, it is fact with practical applications that are used everyday.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I thought it was the law of gravity. Oh well, it doesnt really matter to me. Evolution just doesnt have enough proof for me to agree with it, and many others think the same way. Its not fact, its guesswork. And science works that way until enough evidence is found.

But this is what we have been saying, over and over again, that there is more then enough evidence found. We have plentiful evidence across multiple fields of study, to prove evolution beyond any shadow of a doubt. We have as much evidence for evolution as we have for any theory in any field.

 

[Screech]

then it still wouldnt be called a theory if there was all this so called evidence. I mean we dont have a theory of gravity:hmm:
So if all these evolutionist scientist still call it a theory the evidence must still not be there. Just saying.

This set of posts is an incredibly good example of the Dunning–Kruger effect. Yes, it is the theory of gravity. Yes, it is the theory of evolution. The use of the word theory does not imply that there is not very much evidence behind it; quite the opposite, in fact. But again, this is something that literally anyone who was paying attention in middle school science class is aware of, which is why these posts are a great example of the Dunning–Kruger effect: based on your complete lack of knowledge about the area or anything even remotely related to science in general, you have decided that you are in fact quite knowledgeable, and that knowing (close to) nothing on the subject merely shows that there is little/nothing to know and therefore little/no evidence for evolution. Obviously those things are incorrect, as the rest of us are aware. But I do not say this to suggest you are a stupid person; merely misguided or misinformed, probably by people who falsely claim to give a shit about you. The real tragedy is that such people are often elected to positions of power with respect to science and the administration of funding for scientific endeavors, etc.

 

[elitejp]

well i'll be all my textbooks said it was a law. Anyways, you can say there is tons of proof that species came from nothing into something and then for necessary reasons evolved into a completely different species but Im not sure where the mountains of proof is. On the same note why dont we see these intermediate changes between species now? Im talking today. Take a human and we can see the changes from conception to death. We have constant visual proof. Now this is just a very short time but its still time. Why dont we see half fish half birds. To me that would be such a more beneficial evolutionary change. Now before this gets sidetracked i trust the example is understood clearly enough to answer my question.

 

[elitejp]

Interesting. I did a web search and certain enough there is a theory of gravity which is being emphasized by one main evolutionary proponent Ellery Schempp.

 

[Caravaggio]

Fascinating and eloquent though this slightly circular thread is, what I really wanted to ask about is your link to the myotonic 'fainting' goats.
Do you know much about them?
Since the thread is about evolution I wondered why anyone would want to breed-in a type of goat 'disability'? Goats that have to be encouraged to clean their kids are not going to make it for long in the big Goat World beyond the fence.
I have heard that some deaf parents want to breed deafness into their offspring. Because they refuse to regard their condition as a 'problem'. Is that analogous?

 

[inachu]

When Jesus comes back and when he does I think he will look like Carl Sagan.

 

[JD50]

well i'll be all my textbooks said it was a law. Anyways, you can say there is tons of proof that species came from nothing into something and then for necessary reasons evolved into a completely different species but Im not sure where the mountains of proof is. On the same note why dont we see these intermediate changes between species now? Im talking today. Take a human and we can see the changes from conception to death. We have constant visual proof. Now this is just a very short time but its still time. Why dont we see half fish half birds. To me that would be such a more beneficial evolutionary change. Now before this gets sidetracked i trust the example is understood clearly enough to answer my question.

We do, every species is in an intermediate state. You don't even understand the basics of evolution and you really don't seem to be interested in learning.

Also, "coming from nothing into something" has nothing to do with evolution, that's a completely different discussion.

 

[Retro Rob]

Who observed G-d creating the Universe and everything in it over a period of six days roughly 6000 years ago?

No one, and that's his point. Whenever something predates written history (Prehistoric), it takes a level of faith to believe X happened the way its hypothesized to have happened, because no one was there. On the flip side, it takes faith to believe that theory X will hold up for the foreseeable future.

Religious people have no problem with faith, since what they believe is all about faith anyway. Scientists are more reluctant to admit that faith plays a role in what they do, especially when has to deal with theorizing what happened X Millions of years ago before humans were around to write about it.

 

[JD50]

No one, and that's his point. Whenever something predates written history (Prehistoric), it takes a level of faith to believe X happened the way its hypothesized to have happened, because no one was there. On the flip side, it takes faith to believe that theory X will hold up for the foreseeable future.

Religious people have no problem with faith, since what they believe is all about faith anyway. Scientists are more reluctant to admit that faith plays a role in what they do, especially when has to deal with theorizing what happened X Millions of years ago before humans were around to write about it.

It sounds like you're using 2 different definitions for the word faith. Can you define faith please?

Edit - the reason many of us are reluctant to use the word "faith" in these conversations is because theists take it to mean "believing without evidence."

 

[Retro Rob]

It sounds like you're using 2 different definitions for the word faith. Can you define faith please?

Faith, as the Bible defines defines it at Heb 11:1 "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see."

This is how I'm using the word.

What happened 10 Million years ago is "unseen", though there is evidence X took place. Having evidence still doesn't change the fact no one was there to write about it. What we want to happen, is what we can hope for.

Don't be scared...faith is just a word.

 

[moonbogg]

I think evolution is just replicating matter in motion. That process can lead to things like us and we can lead to other things. I think there is a greater than 50% chance that there is more to evolution than most think. Its not the evolutionary processes themselves, but the fact that things are able to operate like this and arrive at a level of rich experiences makes me think the environment is fundamentally this way deep down. Its not an accident is what I'm saying. Its fundamentally this way.
If we happen, in any universe, at any time, then we are inevitable. We have to be inevitable. Otherwise you are left asking yourself, "Do I feel lucky?" To believe that complex life is nothing but an accident, above all else, strains credulity far beyond any religious nonsense you might choose to scoff at.

 

[Retro Rob]

Edit - the reason many of us are reluctant to use the word "faith" in these conversations is because theists take it to mean "believing without evidence."

Well, make the context clear. Religious people who reject evolution in many cases use the world "evolve" when speaking about something that undergoes a change (i,.e my understanding of the Bible has 'evolved' - not referring to biological evolution).

No one owns words or how they're used. We can use them how we want to.

 

[moonbogg]

If someone wants to believe in God, then their belief must evolve to include the facts currently known about the world. Evolution is known. Rejecting evolution means your concept of God is wrong. Do you want to believe in another fake God?
Belief in God is the art of filling in the knowledge gaps with your imagination of what you think God might be like and combining that with what is already known. But once you stray outside of the knowledge gaps and start ignoring actual knowledge, then the chances of your God existing become zero instantly.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Well, make the context clear. Religious people who reject evolution in many cases use the world "evolve" when speaking about something that undergoes a change (i,.e my understanding of the Bible has 'evolved' - not referring to biological evolution).

No one owns words or how they're used. We can use them how we want to.

No, and scientists will regularly use the word faith when describing something. You will hear a scientist say that they have faith in a methodology for example. But we try not to use the word faith in conversations about how science and religion overlap because often the two sides are using a different definition of the word faith and it just needlessly confuses the issue.