Why you accept evolution? Or, why you don't?

[Lady Otterwynnd]

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

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.

[IamsSon]

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

[artymoon]

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 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.

[HAJiME]

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.

3. Common Descent Can’t Be Proven

The idea that all animals formulated from the same organism is simply unprovable. This is especially true of plants and animals. It’s also a souped up version of “Goddidit”. If two things are similar, and another thing is later discovered that looks like both, does this mean they evolved from each other?

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?

2. Evolution Is Vague

We don’t know exactly what a “species” is. That’s kind of important. Even Darwin said, “I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given for the sake of convenience to a set of individuals closely resembling each other.”

“Closely resembling each other”? That’s helpful.

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.

You can’t prove that a species couldn’t have evolved, because that would require knowing every theoretically possible prior existence of the species. This means that Evolution can’t be proven wrong. This means it fails a basic test for being considered scientific. Oops.

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.

Edited May 7, 2008 by HAJiME

[Silmarillion]

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.

Edited May 7, 2008 by lmbeharry

[Raptor]

2. Evolution Is Vague

We don’t know exactly what a “species” is. That’s kind of important. Even Darwin said, “I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given for the sake of convenience to a set of individuals closely resembling each 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?

The idea that all animals formulated from the same organism is simply unprovable. This is especially true of plants and animals. It’s also a souped up version of “Goddidit”. If two things are similar, and another thing is later discovered that looks like both, does this mean they evolved from each other?

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

You can’t prove that a species couldn’t have evolved, because that would require knowing every theoretically possible prior existence of the species. This means that Evolution can’t be proven wrong. This means it fails a basic test for being considered scientific. Oops.

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.

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.

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.

Edited May 7, 2008 by Raptor

[Burning Love]

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?

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.

[Mr Slayer]

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.

Edited May 8, 2008 by Mr Slayer

[Burning Love]

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.

[Mr Slayer]

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?

[Burning Love]

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. :/

[Emma_Acid]

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"?

[Mr Slayer]

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

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"?

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.

Edited May 8, 2008 by Mr Slayer

[Mattshark]

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.

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.

[Mr Slayer]

Yes I concur to that.

[Almeisan]

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?

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 ?

[Guyver]

Killing yourself to live...

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.

[fullywired]

[Cimber]

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.

[Tiggs]

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.

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...

[IamsSon]

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.

[Raptor]

... 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?

Edited May 8, 2008 by Raptor

[Tiggs]

... 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.

Found one that isn't a hoax yet?

The point still remains that Evolution is falsifiable.

[Burning Love]

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.

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.

[IamsSon]

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?

Your response to what?