I don't personally see how Evolution contradicts or corrupts any mainstream religious beliefs about the origin of life... Or belief in God. Can someone can explain why they think one has to be right and one wrong?

Can we have a discussion, free of nastiness and with open minded input which explores the evidence you see for evolution, or the oposite. Basically a, why you do or don't believe in the theory of evolution, thread.

You must support your viewpoints with the knowledge that drew you to your conclusion - be that images, links, quotes.

If you're going to specifically quote someone to disagree with them, do not make it sound like your view is superior. I dunno about anyone else here, but when someone is treating my opinion like it's dirt I just switch off. I don't want to listen to that.

I'll add my thoughts later. Really should get back to work!

I'm a biologist (zoologist).
I have studied it.
I have seen the masses of evidence that support it.
I have seen nothing that disproves it.
I have not a single valid alternative.

Note: for this I have divided the idea of a creator up into 2 distinct ideas:

when I say "God" I mean a divine creator as literally described in the bible as suggested by creationists and young earth-ists;

when I say "complex creator" I mean a complex biological sentient entity capable of scientific endevour as suggested by many proponants of ID.

1. There is overwhelming evidence to support evolution.

2. The area of evolution is subject to regular change and debate, despite claims it is dogmatic and monolithic.

3. If all living things had been ready made by God, then we should see much wilder variations. For example, why don't we get cats with wings and gills to help them hunt birds and fish better?

The way any animal is constructed can be traced back to previous species (like the similarities between birds and dinosaurs) - if it was created it would be more logical to mix up aspects of different species that work well.

4. If the complex creator is simply responsible for the start of life and/or the start of the universe, then evolutionary evidence dictates that it must be the result of a process like evolution. We know for certain that a complex sentient entity cannot appear from nowhere, therefore evolution must be true.

5. There is no evidence of a divine God (the bible is self-supporting and has no exterior supporting evidence; people "feeling the presence" of a God is not scientificly valid and therefore cannot stand up to the same scruitiny that evolution can; prayer is experimentally proven to make no difference at all)

6. There is no evidence of any alternative to evolution.

What you want me to post my notes from university etc?

No, but examples of the "masses of evidence" would be nice.

Bacteria Evolution
Evolution
Evolution
Evolution
Evolution
Evolution
Evolution
Animal Evolution - A whole text book for you.
Evolution
Evolution
Speciation
Speciation
Speciation
Speciation
Speciation
Speciation
Speciation
Speciation
Speciation
Evolution
Evolution
Links between humans and sharks
Evolution of Dinosaurs.
The extremely well documented evolution of birds from dinosaurs
More bird evolution
Evolution
Bird evolution
Insect evolution
Insect evolution
Cetacean evolution
Cetacean evolution
Cetacean evolution
Plant evolution
Plant evolution

I am a little confused about the bolded part because I remember pointing out to you that you did just that not long ago.

""Stupidity" is in the eye of the beholder. And yes, I do put myself above the "average" people I see every day. Doesn't everyone?"" Ring any bells? that was your answer after I pointed the arrogance out

The "average" person is somone too concerned with... whatever they do, to bother discussing such subjects.

People who provide their opinions should be treated with a level of respect. Those who don't do not really deserve it.

That's your problem mate Hahahahahaha

well this post does a fat lot of good to show us that there is a "valid alternative".

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...24909&st=15

Post 28

This is my alternative : )

GOOD GRIEF!! How many of these flipping things do we need to run at the same time?

I'm not a scientist, so I am not qualified to determine the validity of evolution. The scientific community does have the education and is qualified to determine the validity of the theory. The scientific community has confirmed that evolution is fact and I am ready to believe those who have dedicated their lives to understanding their field of expertise.

In addition to this, the few who oppose evolution, have a worse understanding than I do. They make fallacious arguments, use invalid logic, misrepresent evolution all in areas that I do understand, so I am left to assume, they are not trustworthy in the areas I do not understand. Creationism also comes clearly from a religious view point, usually Christian, which I have determined is an untruthful world view.

It's fact.

What else do I need to say?

Are you a philosopher?

I'm a student. I like philosophy though.

I'll let this article answer for me:

I can already hear a few people screaming, "foul!"

It will be interesting to see if they actually address the points or as quickly as possible shout, "Bias! Christian! Creationism!" and act like that invalidates the points.

Don't want to be answering for anybody..but what I have gleaned is that it throws up dating problems with short earth, shows that humans are part of the animal kingdom and therefore God did not place us upon the earth as we are now. Doesn't the Bible say that? Oh and it is an afront to human dignity that we may be related to apes.


No.

So evolution as per Cimber and co, can be demonstrated in the lab. Where I get my belief is that the intertwining threads of dating fossils/fossil layers, morphology, DNA analysis of Neanderthals, modern chimpanzees, other animals etc posits evolution as the BEST explanation for the evidence SO FAR. Inference to the best explanation. That is all.

How do we know about the past is quite an interesting philosophical question that I have mentioned before on this site. Sometimes, if you want to pare it right back, all we can say is that things that we can observe currently somehow recreate what happened in the past. We all use that to function in every day society, yes?

So - remains get buried in certain conditions –we can see TODAY how certain conditions preserve bones in certain layers and that animals will be in different layers according to time/geographical location. Bones indicate morphological similarities between animals, which in turn can be indicative of biological relationships as per DNA(the intertwining threads I was talking about). We use the present to extrapolate into the past.

Ok so my mother, older sister and I all majored for our undergraduates in Arch and Paleo at Uni (yes a very long history with some of the teaching staff who have been there a few decades) - so perhaps I have just been brainwashed lol.

Are you asking why do Christianity and science come into conflict? Or are you asking why ID and the theory of evolution come into conflict?

Ha ha ha, fair enough then!



For once Yetihunter, I agree with you. Man, these threads are making me very tired and very agitated... simultaneously.

The scientific definition of a species is a group of organisms who can reproduce and produce fertile offspring. That's it. I learned that freshman year in high school. We know what a species is, even if Darwin didn't. Darwin lived over 100 years ago, so of course he isn't going to have all of the answers to his theory. That's what modern science and biology is about; refining this theory. This just shows that the person who wrote this didn't know all of the information and science behind evolution. Either that or they purposefully said something different, but I'm going to bet it's the first one.

Now, I'd like to make it clear that I'm not "discriminating" against Christianity in any way; I'm just saying this article wasn't written with all of the facts, so I thought I would "help" by providing the scientific definition which the article says doesn't exist.

But if we don't have a bunch of these how are the worshipers of evolution going to scoff at the stupid Christians?

Common descent cant be proven?
Look, I'm no scientist, so I'll leave the big words to Cimber and Mattshark (if they aren't tired of these threads already), but I'll explain how I don't necessarily see the logic in saying that common descent can't be proven.

We know that "micro" evolution occurs. The article you posted admitted to that. End of story there. How is it then that "macro" evolution can't be shown to happen? Look, all links aside, don't you see how illogical it is to say that "micro" evolution occurs but "macro" evolution does not? We know that "micro" evolution occurs. We observe this all the time. And on top of that we have a very extensive fossil record that indicates that animals and plants, over time, evolve. How is it illogical to look at this and say "ok, we have 'micro' evolution, the DNA, and the fossil record. since we know that micro evolution does indeed occur, why can it not happen in a large scale? besides, we have the DNA and the fossil record, among many many other things to back it up."

What is further illogical about the common descent statement is its gone blatantly off course into skepticism. If we can't show that "macro" evolution occurs using the above statements, then how are we supposed to show that an omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect and eternally distant God exists? If you're going to hold evolution up to that standard, you have to hold your other belief systems up to that standard.

That is rather bitter Although maybe you were joking?

Can't speak for everyone, but most of us just like a debate - and if we thought you were all so stupid I'm sure most would consider it too boring to continue.

Awww, you know we love you guys (and girls) just the way you are. Well, I should be speaking for myself... but 95% of my friends are Christian, and probably half of them are hardcore (believe in strictly what the Bible says) but that doesn't mean I don't see them as good, intelligent people. Sure, we get a little upset when Creationists make false claims and use untrue logic, but that applies to both sides. If we claimed something that wasn't true about Creationism time and time again, I'm sure Creationists would get a little ticked too. I don't think you're stupid in any way, Iams, but Evolutionists are going to correct Creationists when they don't use the true information and don't understand all of the evolutionary concepts. We just want you guys to understand the misconceptions and stereotypes about evolution aren't true. We just want to make sure you understand the real theory, not the stereotypical one.

church, researchers have been studying thousands of generations of fruit flies. they have subjected these fruit fly populations to all kinds of different environmental conditions, they've irradiated them, fed them various diets, changed humidity and temperature, and after thousands of generations all we have are... fruit flies. There have been mutations, there has been adaptation, but the populations always seem to return to a stable medium, with the variations at the edges being either sterile, or weak and dying off, so, where is the "macro" part?



Belle, visit some of the other threads, look at the way anyone who does not bow to the god of evolution is treated. If Christians treated someone from another religious belief in the same way in the UM forums, they would immediately get called on it by other members of UM and by the mods.


The thing is Lady, most of you seem to think that as long as we don't agree with evolution it must be because we don't understand it and completely ignores the fact that there are people who have studied deeply into the sciences and still do not agree with the theory... of course these people are immediately derided and discredited.

I accept evolution. Change is inevitable, nothing is stagnant. We evolve in our own life times... emotionally, physically based on our environment, even though we have strong traits from our parents. That is on a basic level, but add all those subtleties and stretch that over millions of years, and things change dramatically. Certain species obviously have a more stable genetic code and will not change as rapidly as others, those tend to hang around longer. For me, I don't really have to delve into the science of it all too deeply, it just makes sense to me on a basic level. I just look up at the stars, moon, planets and think.... those didn't spit out spherical shaped, and it didn't take 10,000 or 20,0000 years to do it either.

There is some great posts in here and some... not so great ones which aren't contributing. But oh well, you get that! Thank you to those who have contributed.

And lets just be blunt here, the topic title says what it's about, if it's wasting your time or you can't be arsed to contribute... You can just not click it. 'Tis quite simple. The fact that it has some replies is proof that someone gives a damn.


This is a misunderstanding of how evolution is suggested to work. No, it's not provable that we have a common ancestor. But there is plenty of evidence to show common ancestors and no evidence to show it's false hood (to my knowledge, someone feel free to correct me with examples!) There are animals alive today which are evidence of a bridge between two groups. Such as, for example, the Monotreme's which are the modern leftovers of a group of reptiles which had mammalian characteristics. Montremes are mammals, though. The fact that there are these creatures (and were once lots of them) is evidence that they are unsuccessful when compared to the reptiles and mammals which took over. No?

Just looking at my dog's foot is enough evidence for me that we share a common ancestor.

Or God made us like dogs?


Indeed, species isn't defined very well. Generally though, it means animals which will breed with one another naturally. So, different breeds of dog are all the same species. But there are creatures which look identical which will not breed naturally, because their biological make up and "culture" are different. Different species will not recognize each other's mating displays, I've read.


I suggest you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution at the LEAST.

"One definition of a species is a group of organisms that can reproduce with one another and produce fertile offspring. When a species is separated into populations that are prevented from interbreeding, mutations, genetic drift, and natural selection cause the accumulation of differences over generations and the emergence of new species.[4]"

...This takes a BLOODY LONG TIME. A length of time we cannot even comprehend in our human mind.

Also, Check out the fauna of Australia to see really strong evidence of how population separation causes the birth of different species. It's no coincidence that Australia is geologically isolated, has been for the longest, and has the weirdest animals on board.


I have actually bothered to look up arguments against evolution. Some are good, some are terrible... But most show lack in understanding. I'd like to think you look up arguments for evolution the same way I research both.

Evolution is the most parsimonious explanation of the complexity of the Universe. And evolution also implicitly suggests that Being has a prerogative to erupt. Personally, I think that the idea that cosmic uncertainty will find a way to create life and intelligence is a far more beautiful notion than the notion that some "all powerful being" outside of the system woke up one morning, bored with the state of nothingness, and decided to create life and intellect. Cosmology, quantum mechanics, and evolution are far more Divine, than the other.

"It is we that choose to divide animals up into discontinuous species." - Dawkins

Of course it's given arbitrarily for the sake of convenience, it's not like there's some invisible barrier dividing all species on Earth. All we have are populations of organisms with varying degrees of genetic similarity. No surprises there. How does this implicate the theory?



Nope, but the fact that evolution takes place does provide a strong case for it.



Demonstrate a mechanism which will prevent genetic changes from accumulating over time and you'll have your falsification. What's the matter, can't do it? You already lost the macro evolution debate the moment you conceded to micro evolution occurring. Oops.



Of course there is debate over the intricacies of the theory among biologists, however every single person I've seen that disagrees with evolution as a general process has shown that they do not understand it. I'm still waiting to see a single credible argument from a denier of evolution. You just posted a bunch of nice fallacious ones, let's add them to the pile.

Killing yourself to live...

So there have been mutations and adaptation? Then after you take them out of controlled conditions they return to the base? Congrats, you've proven evolution. Fruit flies are a good medium to use, because if the experiment works you can say that it made them infertile and they died off (with the 24 hour lifespan and all) and if it doesn't work you can just say it didn't work (and thus evolution doesn't?).

By making them adapt to the different conditions and go back, you've proven evolution. That's what it is. Adapting to different conditions.

However, they are still fruit flies, no denying that. Possibly because it would probably take hundreds, if not thousands, of years to selectively breed them into a new species of fly that would be incompatible with their prior species.

You fail. Try again?

Oh wait, no, you won! After all, if you make them adapt to conditions then put them in normal conditions to make them adapt back, there's no way it's evolution! AM I RITE GUYS?

This is why the creationist arguments fail. When they perform the experiments they get actual results that prove what they were trying to disprove. Then they make up some nonsense to make it seem like even though it worked it didn't. Wait, what? I made a blog post on the issue yesterday, I think it's relevant.

Wow, one year since I was here the last time and things haven't changed one bit. I guess that's fun and sad at the same time.
Anyway, to the topic at hand.

I accept revolution because it consists of theories and hard-core facts. The facts are provable (the remains of legs in snake fossils, the DNA connection between lizards and birds, etc etc etc) and the presented theories are valid as they have been dissected by a congregation of scientists where they have been criticised and scrutinized until only the parts that are plausible remain.

In religion, people simply believe what they have been told. Science and religion is like day and night.

We do not believe in evolution as people believe in God. We don't know, we can't be certain, but due to the tests, samples, deductions and connections, we accept it as more probably than an old man in the clouds created this world in six days.

Its like with the word "magic", which people titled things they didn't understand before religion took over with its "explanations". "Magic" and "religion" is the same to me. "Theory of evolution", though, is an element which rests (again) on research, deduction, scrutiny and criticism and is constantly being revised toward higher plausibility and validity. Religion stays put without evolving; nothing's happened there for 2000 years.

Correction: Evolution as the process by which species evolve due to changes in DNA over a (usually) long period of time is a fact. How and why it happens is the theory of evolution.

Minor correction, and you sort of implied it, but it needed to be said I think.

Yes.

Another thing I wanted to add is the fact that "we" say "we can't prove evolution, but we have plausibe theories", while religious people/creationists are saying "we know for sure that this is how things are", or "we feel it's true".

There is a difference between "critical point of view" and "shameless unscrutinized believing". If you guys understand where I'm getting at?

Completely. But you're underplaying it to some extent. It's like you're trying to say something and can't get it out... I'm not sure what though, I'm just an observer. :/

That when evolutionists are asked for evidence, they bring out a fossil, but when creationists are asked for evidence of God, they say "I feel that he's real"?

Hitthelights, of course I am simplifying it. I could write a whole degree on the topic if I had the time.



The point is: yes, exactly so.
I haven't yet seen any hard-rock evidence from creationists that could match (or for that matter, overshadow) evolutionist evidence. The creationist arguments can be described as painting the target around the arrow.

That is because there isn't. Evolution is a fact, it has been proven to occur. Speciation is also a fact and has been observed. Genetic drift is a fact. Genetics are a fact and given enough time the theory of evolution will be proven as well.

Yes I concur to that.

i can't see a contradiction at all. - that is if religious people don't take their bible's literally.
( and i am not in the least bit religious)

the evoultion we see is an evolution of form. behind the form is the creative will at play , ever seeking higher expression.

there is nothing, that is not first created by thought (consciously or subconsciously).

the giraffe desires to reach the higher leaves, and its neck grows longer.

cats will never grow gills, because there are plenty of humans to feed them all the fish they need, and therefore will not have such a desire .

if global warming continues we may grow gills , like the man from atlantis.

as it says in the christian bible the great spirit tought etc..



'mind is the builder ' to be sure .

the answer to what came first the chicken or the egg .. is 'thought'.

thought always precedes action.

why did you say mainstream , i would ask ?

Your position has issues. And while you have shown excellent understanding of both positions - your logic fails. From your blog.

Intelligent Design proponents, also known as creationists, neo-creationists, or IDiots, state that organisms have appeared suddenly because certain features about them are too complex to have evolved.

Your first mistake was calling creationists idiots. That makes a statement about you; yourself. Secondly, the very thing that you diss creationists about, evolutionists use as the basic idea as to how it occurs. Namely, that evolution happens in short rapid bursts and that new species do appear suddenly. You have contradicted yourself and you are leaking.

Except the short rapid bursts happened to be scaled around geological time ie. thousands of years.

From your list - the only actual objection you appear to have is that you believe that Evolution isn't falsifiable.

That's not the case.

For example, Evolutionary theory maintains that: 1. Tyrannosaurs are extinct, 2. They existed in the Cretaceous period of the Mesozoic era and 3. Are never found in rocks younger than approximately 66.6 MY (million years) old. Evolutionary theory also holds that Homo sapiens is a relatively recent addition to the biological sphere (if you look at the history of life on Earth from a geological standpoint), is currently extant and whose remains are never found in sediments greater than approximately 4 MY. Therefore, if one were to be found in an undisturbed section cheek-by-jowl with a T. rex...

... Someone would quickly claim it was a hoax, or some sort of natural phenomenon had caused the fossil(s) to migrate downward/upward, but that it in no way indicates man and T-rex lived at the same time.

If it were true the fossils would be studied with great depth, if the evidence indicates any form of anachronism then something's got to give.

How about my response?

Found one that isn't a hoax yet?

The point still remains that Evolution is falsifiable.

No. IDiot = "intelligent design proponent". It doesn't take someone with a super-high IQ to figure out. IDiots can also be called neo-creationists, creationists, or cdesign proponentsists. First point is strawman: you're attacking an irrelevant statement from a personal opinion. My opinion on creationists is not the law -- it's subjective.

Also, no species appears suddenly. That's flat out not true. They may seem to appear suddenly due to the fossil record being incomplete, but that doesn't mean they did. Your arguments are tired and overused, give it up.

Your response to what?