Evolution: Science or Dogma?

[FearlessLeader2]

Because we're sullying the Religion thread with this, I thought it prudent to take it outside...

Here's a thought for you, FL2... Macroevolution naturally happens much more clearly in periods of severe dange for the survival of the species. In such periods, those individuals not suited to deal with the problem at hand rapidly die out and though the gene pool shrinks alot, it has genes that are better for survival across the board.

If macroevolution only occurred when disasters of global scale struck, we'd still be single-celled by your timescale. Try again.

Now, seeing as fossils are not often created from every dead individual (if they were there would be some many of them everywhere we'd have a hard time figuring out what bones went where, or worse, we'd disregard them as simple stones because they'd be just as common), and seeing as it takes extreme conditions to cause extreme changes across the board in a species, it's no surprise these extreme conditions may also have eliminated alot of the chance for fossils to be fromed from this very period of distress.

See above, plus, NOT A SINGLE ONE? ONCE? In HOW MANY zillion occurrances? Also, floods and vulcanism (both of which can be caused by meteor/cometary impacts) are the main causes of fossilization, and are 'extreme conditions'. If your changes require extreme conditions, and extreme conditions cause fossils, why aren't the changes fossilized?

What is it with ToEer's and wanting to have tha cake they ate? Is it a universal trait, or are some of you intellectually honest?

In addition, Occam's Razor cuts "scientific" creationism to tiny little shreds, small enough to make nice big juicy creationism salads.

Pretty prose, now back it up with positive proof.

Which of these options seems simpler to you:

While I don't at all agree that simpler is better, I'll humor you...

1. Macroevolution occurs constantly in nature through natural selection and through the natural spontaneus mutation of the genome. While we may have the general picture, we still lack fossils from many stages of evolution.

Very simple, but it fails to explain anything because there are NO, count them NO, common ancestor fossils.

2. Macroevolution does not naturally occur. There is a superpowerful, superknowledgeable intelligent being that created the world, then created life and let it run along its coarse, occasionally passing by to mutate species into other, better-suited species. In addition, this superpowerful being gave each human being a soul, set up the universe so it's full of tests of human faith, and constantly monitors the purity of the human souls and sorts them into a "good" pile and a "bad" pile, making sure his servant Satan keeps acting like an enemy while doing god's dirty work. This being requires the worship of humans as well as sociable behaviour, though antisocial behaviour can be forgiven if there is enough remorse in the antisocial person.

A badly butchered version of Christianity, and artificially inflated by adding everything after 'In addition' to make it sound longer even though everything that followed had nothing to do with the question. Allow me to rebut by repeating with accuracy:

1. Although there is not a shred of physical evidence to prove it, because we flatly deny the existence of God we have no alternative but to believe that macroevolution occurs constantly in nature through natural selection and through the natural spontaneus mutation of the genome. While we have a general picture, we still lack fossils from any stages of evolution where species lines supposedly diverge. We infer this from genetics research that shows that species with similar body structures have similar genes. (We do not consider it significant that all living things on earth use the same four proteins to code for every one of their proteins, including the ones that determine body shape, as that would make our assumptions based on genetics research meaningless and void.)

2. Because there is not a shred of physical evidence to prove it, we believe that Macroevolution does not occur. Jehovah created the world, then created life and let it run along its course, occasionally using His knowledge to in utero mutate members of one kind into other kinds or simply engineered new kinds from 'whole cloth' and placed them on earth. He showed Moses a vision of these things that happened before man was created, which Moses duly recorded as the Bible Book of Genesis; but due to his education as a 'Palestinian goatherder', he did not write in terms of 'clades' and 'billions of years', but rather in terms of 'kinds' and 'days'. 4,500 years of scientific research have only proven the 'Palestinian goatherder' to be pinpoint accurate, which lends strong credence to the notion that Jehovah really did tell him these things, as no Palestinian goatherder would have known them.

Now, why don't YOU pick an option?


If evolution is science, it has to offer proof/evidence to support its claims. For everything but macroevolution(MacE) it has done so. The only support for MacE is genetic similarity. Genetic similarity is not adequate, as I pointed out above, because with only four base pairs to work with, there's only so many ways to code for a wing, tentacle, fin, leg, or what-have-you. Therefore, if two creatures have the same feature, it stands to reason they will have similar genes, and nothing can be drawn from that except that genetics is a valid study. It offers nothing supportive to MacE.

So support it.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Now, why don't YOU pick an option?

So our options are:

• Genesis as literal Truth
• Genesis as metaphor for evolution directed by god
• TOE as an imperfect scientific model of how things work

 

[newfangle]

I am going to go with option 3!

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Is Creationism science or dogma?

 

[Blasphemous]

If macroevolution only occurred when disasters of global scale struck, we'd still be single-celled by your timescale. Try again.

Way to twist my words!
First of all this reply shows you don't even have a basic grasp of what the ToE says, but I'll humor you anyway.
What I said and what I meant was that drastic circumstances are what causes macroevolution to happen in a way that the whole species is changed (as those without the suddenly vital genes that would protect them from the circumstances are far more likely to die than those that have the genes, making said genes very prominent in the genepool). This does not need to be on a global scale, just on such a scale that a large group of creatures is affected by it, giving them a different genepool than the rest of their species, and slowly turning them into a subspecies or a seperate species of its own. It also does not have to be a sudden disaster. If, for instance, the climate in the area cools down a little bit (just a couple degrees) this can cause very big changes in the diets of the creatures living in the area, which in turn will alter their chances of survival. If a group of craetures were suddenly forced to eat a tougher kind of meat than before, because the softer meats they were used to had almost died out, those individuals lucky to have been born with slightly sharper teeth will eat more, be healthier, and be more likely to mate and spread their genes. Those, on the other hand, with teeth less suited for the new diet will die out within a generation or two. Otehr small changes will take place, eventually accumulating to the creation of a new species.

See above, plus, NOT A SINGLE ONE? ONCE? In HOW MANY zillion occurrances? Also, floods and vulcanism (both of which can be caused by meteor/cometary impacts) are the main causes of fossilization, and are 'extreme conditions'. If your changes require extreme conditions, and extreme conditions cause fossils, why aren't the changes fossilized?

You're generalizing. Not every single extreme condition causes evolution.
Also, you seem to think that just because we haven't found this kind of fossil means it doesn't exist. Stop assuming we know everything there is to know about this, we don't. Remember that the ToE is still regarded as just a Theory, albeit a very solid and logical one that has yet to be discredited scientifically. Odd, isn't it, that you don't seem to find many actual scientists (in the fields of biology, paleontology, etc,) who attack the ToE in the same way that you do.

Pretty prose, now back it up with positive proof.

While I don't at all agree that simpler is better, I'll humor you...

Bleh. As if it weren't obvious, the second sentance you replied to was on the same topic as the first, and Occam's Razor states that simpler is likelier.

A badly butchered version of Christianity, and artificially inflated by adding everything after 'In addition' to make it sound longer even though everything that followed had nothing to do with the question.

Yes, I did go a bit over board there... But since your claim still requires the quite complex existance of a deity, the scientific option is still more logical that your one.

1. Although there is not a shred of physical evidence to prove it, because we flatly deny the existence of God we have no alternative but to believe that macroevolution occurs constantly in nature through natural selection and through the natural spontaneus mutation of the genome. While we have a general picture, we still lack fossils from any stages of evolution where species lines supposedly diverge. We infer this from genetics research that shows that species with similar body structures have similar genes. (We do not consider it significant that all living things on earth use the same four proteins to code for every one of their proteins, including the ones that determine body shape, as that would make our assumptions based on genetics research meaningless and void.)

I don't know about other atheists, but I do not flatly deny the existance of god. I only claim it is illogical and lacks any real evidence of any sort, and so when I'm trying to make sense of the world I must exclude this primitive notion of deity.
About the bit in parentheses, I don't know enough about that to comment. I do however know that macroevolution, even if it still lacks fossil evidence, makes far more sense than your terrible travesty of "scientific creationism".

2. Because there is not a shred of physical evidence to prove it, we believe that Macroevolution does not occur. Jehovah created the world, then created life and let it run along its course, occasionally using His knowledge to in utero mutate members of one kind into other kinds or simply engineered new kinds from 'whole cloth' and placed them on earth. He showed Moses a vision of these things that happened before man was created, which Moses duly recorded as the Bible Book of Genesis; but due to his education as a 'Palestinian goatherder', he did not write in terms of 'clades' and 'billions of years', but rather in terms of 'kinds' and 'days'. 4,500 years of scientific research have only proven the 'Palestinian goatherder' to be pinpoint accurate, which lends strong credence to the notion that Jehovah really did tell him these things, as no Palestinian goatherder would have known them.

Pinpoint accurate? How exactly? I would like you to give me some examples supporting your claim that the bible is accurate and divine. Last time I read it, it was riddled with inconsistancies and even under heavy interpretation sounded like some kind of whacky myth.

Don't write too much for me to reply to, I gotta sleep and have a long day ahead of me. I won't have much time to reply in before Wednsday.

 

[Perfection]

See above, plus, NOT A SINGLE ONE? ONCE? In HOW MANY zillion occurrances? Also, floods and vulcanism (both of which can be caused by meteor/cometary impacts) are the main causes of fossilization, and are 'extreme conditions'. If your changes require extreme conditions, and extreme conditions cause fossils, why aren't the changes fossilized?

Ah but there is much evidence for such events, an example being the Chicxulub impact site!

What is it with ToEer's and wanting to have tha cake they ate? Is it a universal trait, or are some of you intellectually honest?

How are we eating our own cake?

Very simple, but it fails to explain anything because there are NO, count them NO, common ancestor fossils.

WHAT???!?!?!?!

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

2. Because there is not a shred of physical evidence to prove it

What about convergence of physical fossil record/extant species based lineages, genetic similarity based lineages, and developmental based lineages, and times of geologic isolation all producing the same divergent tree?

Also what about homologies, useless structures, suboptimal Jury-rigged structures, proven instances of mutation and speciation, and transitional series?

EVIDENCE!!! EVIDENCE!!! EVIDENCE!!! EVIDENCE!!!

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Theres always so much fire in these debates, and so little light.

 

[Perfection]

Theres always so much fire in these debates, and so little light.

Oh, I'm all light!!!

 

[Bozo Erectus]

I wasnt directing that at you Perfection, or anyone in particular, but in any case, youre alllight in my book

 

[Perfection]

I wasnt directing that at you Perfection, or anyone in particular, but in any case, youre alllight in my book

Yay!!!!!!! [dance]

You're in my allright book too!

 

[classical_hero]

Pinpoint accurate? How exactly? I would like you to give me some examples supporting your claim that the bible is accurate and divine. Last time I read it, it was riddled with inconsistancies and even under heavy interpretation sounded like some kind of whacky myth.

Don't write too much for me to reply to, I gotta sleep and have a long day ahead of me. I won't have much time to reply in before Wednsday.

I'll say that your name says it all. Their is just too much evidence that say that what the Bible has said in the past is true. What inconsistancies are you talking about? Whenever I read the Bible I find that there are absolutely no inconsistencies in the Bible. Show me those "inconsistencies" and I will refute all of them guaranteed. I believe that both are beliefs that people have to hold. One example that Evolution is a belief is the fact that the sun is shrinking at about 0.1m every 100 years in diameter, don't quote me on the amount, but the fact that the sun is shrinking, you can quote me on that. This would make the sun way to big for life to every have existed because at the position the earth is in would be at the edge of the surface of the sun at the 100 million year mark. If the Universe is 4.5 Billion years old, then the sun would have been a massive star that would be too hot for any living thing to survive. Also, there is a question as why there isn't as many SNR (supernova remnants). According to a Universe there should be thousands of SNR's, but when they looke for them, they could only find 205, much less than the 1000's Evolutionist Astromoners had predicted. The amount is very much closer to the amount predicted if the Universe is much younger. The error rate by the Evolutionistic Astronomers was 35 time more than the real amount, a very big margin for error. So these show that Evolution is as much a faith as Creationism. I believe that true Science will always show that Creation is true.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Yay!!!!!!! [dance]

You're in my allright book too!

At last! A friendly moment in an Evo/God debate! Its like when they called a truce in WW1 on Christmas Eve, and the enemy soldiers came out of trenches and partied

 

[Perfection]

I'll say that your name says it all. Their is just too much evidence that say that what the Bible has said in the past is true.

Like???

One example that Evolution is a belief is the fact that the sun is shrinking at about 0.1m every 100 years in diameter, don't quote me on the amount, but the fact that the sun is shrinking, you can quote me on that.

No, that's not evolution, that's astrophysics, totally different thing.

This would make the sun way to big for life to every have existed because at the position the earth is in would be at the edge of the surface of the sun at the 100 million year mark.

Ummm, at 5 billion years and a tenth a meter a century that's only 5000 kilometers, which is less then the diameter of earth.

If the Universe is 4.5 Billion years old, then the sun would have been a massive star that would be too hot for any living thing to survive.

Universe=13-15 billion years old, sun=5 billion years old. Oh and you have no evidence that evolutionists say that the sun shrank in the matter you suppose

Also, there is a question as why there isn't as many SNR (supernova remnants). According to a Universe there should be thousands of SNR's, but when they looke for them, they could only find 205, much less than the 1000's Evolutionist Astromoners had predicted.

Umm, where are you getting these figures? Source please.

The amount is very much closer to the amount predicted if the Universe is much younger. The error rate by the Evolutionistic Astronomers was 35 time more than the real amount, a very big margin for error.

Source please.

So these show that Evolution is as much a faith as Creationism.

See my above post on evidence

I believe that true Science will always show that Creation is true.

Pah!

 

[Perfection]

At last! A friendly moment in an Evo/God debate! Its like when they called a truce in WW1 on Christmas Eve, and the enemy soldiers came out of trenches and partied

Not true, because your not on the opposite side

It's a quite common occurance for a side to compliment a member of the same side.

 

[Esckey]

Well perfection already beat me to it. Was too busy laughing at the post

 

[Perfection]

Well perfection already beat me to it. Was too busy laughing at the post

Good, now you know how I feel when CarlosMM is around!

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Perfection I have diplomatic immunity. I believe in god AND evolution! But when push comes to shove, I grab a rifle and jump into the science trenches, and help fend off the religious horde

 

[Yuri2356]

Where is that guy anyway? He should have homed in on this thread within the first few seconds...

 

[Shadylookin]

I used to believe in evolution, but it only makes since if apes evolved from religionists

I always thought that macroevolution was just many microevolutions over a period of time. Like seeing a little kid and then seeing him again 20 years later after he slowly changes(it only looks like a big jump to someone that didn't see the inbetween parts). In fact I always thought that every new generation was supposed to be a whole link in the evolutionary chain from the last where the weak of the old generation died and the strong survived passing on their genes.

 

[Perfection]

I always thought that macroevolution was just many microevolutions over a period of time. Like seeing a little kid and then seeing him again 20 years later after he slowly changes(it only looks like a big jump to someone that didn't see the inbetween parts). In fact I always thought that every new generation was supposed to be a whole link in the evolutionary chain from the last where the weak of the old generation died and the strong survived passing on their genes.

Darwin would agree with you, but many modern evolutionists would not (myself included). The arguement is natural selection doesn't occur at a purely organismic level, instead there are higher levels of selection (demic, specefic, cladistic) and lower (cellular, genic). Macroevolution concerns with the principles that govern specefic and cladistic levels. Given these operate differently from organisms their evolutionary mechanics should reflect this.

Now as for the "big jump" that is a debated topic among evolutionists, mutations can come in many different sizes, from a diminuative point mutation, to larger frame-shift mutations, to the relatively huge mutations of anueploidy, polyploidy, and other chromosomal alterations. The relative importance of these remains a fascinating and complex puzzle.