What is evolution, not what some think

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: chr0naut
In regard to your "99% of Biologists" figure. In that video clip you posted of Neil DeGrasse Tyson talking about 7% of top American scientists believing in a Creator God, with the majority of them being Biologists and Physicists and the percentage goes up as the academic credentials normalize. If I were your professor, I'd give you a fail in either observation or simple mathematics. Can't possibly be 99%.

7% of these scientists are religious and pray to a personal god. What does that have to do with creationism and the rejection of evolution? You're not trying to imply that this 7% reject evolution, are you?

While they may not outright reject Evolution as a mechanism, they do have reason (aside from the science and mathematical issues) to doubt it.

Consider:

It follows that the God they pray to is the creator of all things, or not.

If not, he would be a liar and not worthy of prayer or devotion.

If God did create, then it is most likely that the appearance that Evolution has occurred; is a misreading of the result of ongoing directed intelligent design towards a goal of biological diversity, leading ultimately to ourselves (and potentially higher biological forms).

originally posted by: chr0naut
While they may not outright reject Evolution as a mechanism, they do have reason (aside from the science and mathematical issues) to doubt it.

[citation needed]

Support for evolution across the entire scientific board is 97%:

There is a notable difference between the opinion of scientists and that of the general public in the United States. A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time – 87% say evolution is due to natural processes, such as natural selection. The dominant position among scientists – that living things have evolved due to natural processes – is shared by only about a third (32%) of the public."[42]

I'd wager a considerable money that the percentage of biologists is even higher.

originally posted by: vjr1113
a reply to: chr0naut

what do you think of jews or muslims? hindus or other? numbers don't make something true.

i think you forget that there was a time when we lived under the thumb of religion. a very long time.

I wasn't forgetting them.

Mandatory Wikipedia link in support of my statement.

And numbers don't make it true but they do lend some significance.

So now are we living under the thumb of Science?

Like I said, if political power was the goal of Christianity, you'd now be under its thumb. The fact that you aren't might indicate that we never actually lived under its thumb.

Many charismatic leaders have called themselves religious and utilized religion to support their cause. But the true goal of Christianity is a personal, moral and spiritual path that has nothing to do with empires.

a reply to: chr0naut

how is the scientific process bad in anyway? i can't call it evil.

yea try asking a gay person if they would be better off living under christianity, or even an african. try telling muslim women that they are better off being oppressed. absolute morality is a position i can't agree with.

you previous post seems to say that evolution is part of the revealed truth that god has allowed you to discover, does it not?

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: chr0naut
While they may not outright reject Evolution as a mechanism, they do have reason (aside from the science and mathematical issues) to doubt it.

[citation needed]

Support for evolution across the entire scientific board is 97%:

There is a notable difference between the opinion of scientists and that of the general public in the United States. A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time – 87% say evolution is due to natural processes, such as natural selection. The dominant position among scientists – that living things have evolved due to natural processes – is shared by only about a third (32%) of the public."[42]

I'd wager a considerable money that the percentage of biologists is even higher.

Look at the 87% figure and ask yourself why that isn't more applicable in light of scientists who pray to a personal God.

I still hold that these scientists see Evolution as a viable mechanism, but do not preclude supernatural creation. And look, the numbers have risen to 13%!

I'd wager that biologists are well represented within that 13%. At religioustolerance.org the Gallup Poll of number of Earth and Life Scientists who believe in Theistic Evolution is as high as 40% (but I doubt that the figure is that high. The Pew Research poll puts it at a more reasonable 18%).

(Definition: Theistic Evolution posits that God controlled and directed evolution and used it as a tool to produce the diversity of species currently present on Earth or now extinct.)

"(Definition: Theistic Evolution posits that God controlled and directed evolution and used it as a tool to produce the diversity of species currently present on Earth or now extinct.)"

i can't follow the thought process of

- we see evolution, therefore it was god.

originally posted by: vjr1113
a reply to: chr0naut

how is the scientific process bad in anyway? i can't call it evil.

yea try asking a gay person if they would be better off living under christianity, or even an african. try telling muslim women that they are better off being oppressed. absolute morality is a position i can't agree with.

you previous post seems to say that evolution is part of the revealed truth that god has allowed you to discover, does it not?

The Nazi Holocaust was supported by the best scientific theory and data of the time.

Science itself is entirely amoral, lending itself to uses that are deeply evil.

No, the appearance of Evolutionary Theory as being applicable is part of the observed. There could be other reasons that are just as applicable (i.e: directed intelligent biological creation).

As an atheist, and a scientist in training (education), let me clarify something... When I say that I see evidence supporting evolution through natural means, it would be dishonest to say that a god could not have "evolved" all of the lifeforms before us. A better, more direct, way of saying what I "believe" is that I see no evidence to support a god, and no evidence that evolution requires a god, so why add an extra claim?

a reply to: chr0naut
science is a tool that can be used for good and evil. the actions of man is a different discussion. you can't discredit science because it was used for evil by evil ppl.

i don't understand how you explain a natural observation with a god. i have to stress this point.

but i think i know. you assume god created everything therefore everything is a product of god. a rather large assumption that i would say requires a very big leap of faith.

originally posted by: vjr1113
"(Definition: Theistic Evolution posits that God controlled and directed evolution and used it as a tool to produce the diversity of species currently present on Earth or now extinct.)"

i can't follow the thought process of

- we see evolution, therefore it was god.

I can't follow the thought process of "we see what looks like it could be a sequence of biological changes" therefore it is Evolution.

If the data doesn't actually fit the theory (e.g: mutation rates and observed genetic changes) then the theory isn't working and needs to be revised or replaced.

When it comes down to it, Evolution dictates that Biological change should be describable by randomness, mathematics, chemistry, and physics. In each of these disciplines, there are major issues with Evolutionary process.

You're absolutely right about hypotheses not panning out. When one fails, a new one is needed. That's how theories advance in science. You get the big picture and you refine the smaller details. It's why no one believes in "Darwinian" evolution these days. He had no idea about DNA, how could he? Punctuated equilibrium is a better model, so it replaces gradual change. There will always need to be refinement of theories as we can better explain our models of reality.

If you want to add a god, I must simply state that any god that cannot be tested is an unscientific concept. Science focuses on explaining the natural, testable world we live in. There may very well be a god, but if he is an untestable, unfalsifiable god, then he does not belong in the realm of science. Humans are limited to their senses, are they not? We can only explain what we can observe.

originally posted by: vjr1113
a reply to: chr0naut
science is a tool that can be used for good and evil. the actions of man is a different discussion. you can't discredit science because it was used for evil by evil ppl.

i don't understand how you explain a natural observation with a god. i have to stress this point.

but i think i know. you assume god created everything therefore everything is a product of god. a rather large assumption that i would say requires a very big leap of faith.

And you assume everything happened by randomness (random mutation) operating within physical constraints. Yet any application of actual mathematics reveals incredible improbabilities. Since we observe an incredibly improbable universe, randomness must be discarded as a conceptual tool. It can't do what you suggest it has done, it works quite opposite to it.

a reply to: chr0naut
evolution is the explanation and observation of the diversity of species.

not randomness. no one said it was random. in fact it's very not random. strawman. if you know of a problem with current evolution, go and get your nobel prize

a reply to: chr0naut
no one ever just assumed evolution lol read some charles darwin.


what i want to know is how you explain evolution with a god? or even why?

originally posted by: hydeman11
You're absolutely right about hypotheses not panning out. When one fails, a new one is needed. That's how theories advance in science. You get the big picture and you refine the smaller details. It's why no one believes in "Darwinian" evolution these days. He had no idea about DNA, how could he? Punctuated equilibrium is a better model, so it replaces gradual change. There will always need to be refinement of theories as we can better explain our models of reality.

If you want to add a god, I must simply state that any god that cannot be tested is an unscientific concept. Science focuses on explaining the natural, testable world we live in. There may very well be a god, but if he is an untestable, unfalsifiable god, then he does not belong in the realm of science. Humans are limited to their senses, are they not? We can only explain what we can observe.

Punctuated Equilibrium! Dawkins would disagree with you there, he and Steven Jay Gould had major disagreements over it.

I actually like the idea of genetic transfer, gene splicing by natural means between species, in this way wholly adapted features can be added to a species, complete, without any need of natural selection, random mutation or otherwise. You could simply discard most of Evolutionary Theory in one hit.

I imagine God laughing at those Evolutionists who are "so superior" that they can't even account for the very process we use for recombinant DNA, even after we have been doing it in the lab for about 42 years (having copied it from nature). Troo geenyus indeed!

originally posted by: vjr1113
a reply to: chr0naut
no one ever just assumed evolution lol read some charles darwin.


what i want to know is how you explain evolution with a god? or even why?

I don't & I won't.

It would be a waste of my time.

I have a vague recollection of Dawkins once telling a story about his old professor. His professor was apparently convinced that the golgi apparatus was not truly a cellular organelle for some length of time, until someone showed him otherwise. Scientists are people. People make mistakes. Scientists are not worshipped, no matter how much they are admired. No theory is complete or sacred, all are up for changing.
However, I should mention that you are correct. Based on fossil evidence, both punctuated equilibrium and phyletic gradualism have been noted, but I again have a vague recollection (and would need to supply a source) that punctuated equilibrium was by far the more likely for the majority of speciation events. You can call me lazy for not doing that, I admit to as much.
If you wish to talk about DNA, I must confess that it is beyond my field of study, and thus I must profess ignorance in all but general concepts. I will, however, say that even if you have a means to add or remove genes that affect phenotype, you still need a process by which to allow a population to adapt, survive, or die. You still need a means of killing off those ill suited to an environment and allowing those better suited to reproduce more successfully. That is evolution by natural selection.

Edit:
Also, I'm not sure what you meant by Gould having issue with his own hypothesis. It was, after all, his own hypothesis.

a reply to: chr0naut

that's fair enough mate you can believe what you want, no one can stop you

cheers

originally posted by: chr0naut
The Nazi Holocaust was supported by the best scientific theory and data of the time.

That's flat out BS. Social darwinism isn't a scientific theory and never was. Evolution is NOT = to social darwinism.

If the data doesn't actually fit the theory (e.g: mutation rates and observed genetic changes) then the theory isn't working and needs to be revised or replaced.

The data fits perfectly, though.

When it comes down to it, Evolution dictates that Biological change should be describable by randomness, mathematics, chemistry, and physics. In each of these disciplines, there are major issues with Evolutionary process.

Why are you capitalizing scientific terms? They are not religious words, they are not proper nouns. The mathematics, chemistry and physics of evolution adds up perfectly. Randomness is on the genetic level based on mutations, but is controlled by the environment, so it isn't completely random.

I imagine God laughing at those Evolutionists who are "so superior" that they can't even account for the very process we use for recombinant DNA, even after we have been doing it in the lab for about 42 years (having copied it from nature). Troo geenyus indeed!

What about the creationists that have been trying to prove their guess for thousands of years, but can't even come up with a single fragment of evidence for it? God must REALLY be laughing at them! Saying that science hasn't yet figured out XYZ, is a nonsensical argument because given another few decades there's a very good chance we have a much greater understanding. In the past we didn't understand hundreds of things, but that didn't mean god did it, it meant that our understanding of the various subjects wasn't there yet. Science guarantees 1 thing. That our overall knowledge on a subject will increase. That's it. Leave science alone and let them keeping working to make YOUR life better, despite your denial.

If theistic evolution is true, then you are slapping god in the face by arguing against his process of creation. This is why I don't understand why folks attack science. They cling to literal interpretations of scriptures as their primary argument.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: vjr1113
a reply to: chr0naut

how is the scientific process bad in anyway? i can't call it evil.

yea try asking a gay person if they would be better off living under christianity, or even an african. try telling muslim women that they are better off being oppressed. absolute morality is a position i can't agree with.

you previous post seems to say that evolution is part of the revealed truth that god has allowed you to discover, does it not?

The Nazi Holocaust was supported by the best scientific theory and data of the time.

Science itself is entirely amoral, lending itself to uses that are deeply evil.

No, the appearance of Evolutionary Theory as being applicable is part of the observed. There could be other reasons that are just as applicable (i.e: directed intelligent biological creation).

What???? The Holocaust was supported by what again??? Where the hell did you get that revolting claim?