Evolution, It's only a theory

Originally posted by jasonjnelson
What I think we can agree on, is that if there was a God, then I highly doubt he would have created any species that would not be able to evolve slightly to handle the enviroment.

Yes, hopefully we can all agree that you highly doubt that He would have created any species which would not have been able to evolve. Or She. Or It.

Why? Because (1) You have explicitly stated that you have this belief, and we have no reason do doubt it. (2) You are a most likely a fellow human being who operated in a similar culture to ours (from the language and concepts you express), so we can internally model your mindset and find it consistent with other humans holding similar beliefs.

Frankly, I have a hard time believing that we are equipped to similarly model the mind of a divine being or how they would operate. Reasoning from "what makes sense" within our culture and our everyday experience gets us into lots of trouble within science, much less theology. What basis do we have?

"The last time I created a universe from scratch, that's how I did it"?

"4 out of 5 leading Dieties reccommend incorporating at least limited evolvabililty into lifeforms, if they choose to implement life in their universe creations; the other twenty percent wind up spending way too much taking their creation to Universal Health Care specialists for a checkup every time an axis tilt changes a planetary environment or an asteroid hits".

Why should we assume that a Diety would want life to survive changes in their environment (because we would?), or that they would prefer to have life adapt rather than "manually" intervening (because God must be lazy?)?

We've seen humans who like their kids to have freedom and humans who like to control their kids tightly - but is either one a good model for how a Diety would behave?

reasoner

Evolution is as yet an imperfect or incomplete science. That does not mean it is not relevant. There are a few contradictory findings.

Religion is diseased by many hundreds of years of selfish hearted spirits modulating thoughts to their advantage and the language being so old it can easily be taken out of context, misinterpreted or misrepresented.

There is a larger understanding we are hopefully ascending to. These subjects might both play a role in piercing the veil of understanding, but they are for different reasons as yet incomplete or insufficient.

I would say rather we are working on the theory of evolution and using the best tools we have. But the answer or a determination with any certainty is not a goal, it is a direction for our continued efforts.

Evolution is OK to use for study, but be prepared for a better theorem some day. Hopefully soon.

We don't have a theory of everything yet (unified field theory). That does not mean everything does not actually exist. Or.. does it???

ZG

[edit on 3/2/2009 by ZeroGhost]

reply to post by B.A.C.


One of the better replies from a "religious nut" (as you say - a backhanded compliment )

You bring up some very valid points. Seriously. And I am all for evolution and against the religious agenda.

The only thing I can offer you is if evolution is instant. A tiny DNA change could bring out the exact changes - no middle ground. Just a thought.

Also - as said before here on ATS, Religion (Christianity) and evolution can coexist. There is a war between the two ideas...but for the religious people, I would only think it would be most logical to accept both?

Regardless of your comments, evolution still has a LOT of proof behind it

As much as this topic has been beaten to death on ATS, I have to chime in. Anyone who dismisses evolution as only a theory and tries to argue against it has a long way to go on denying ignorance. Evolution is arguable one of the most if not the most important 'theory' man has ever came up with. The time scale in which it takes is unfathomable by many, hence the excuse that it is only a theory and okay of being dismissed by them I suppose. No other theory so beautifully explains life's diversity, the fossil record, our own DNA, ect. as evolution does. I feel that many diehard and ignorant creationists are itimidated by what they dont understand and their life long dogmatic belief of the creation prevents them from opening their eyes and seeing the world for what it is. That said evolution does not disprove God, only the dogmatic ideals that has hurt man throughout history. At one time Copernicus was afraid to publish his works because the that dogma, and we know now that he had it right. Man is too evolved and too intelligent to let traditional beliefs that have been proven false to rule the masses, but look what we are still doing. We still have people who are so closed minded that they will believe fantastic fairy tales over the facts and use their belief system to justify the persecution of others. This still happens today, I know of college profesors in the bible belt who are outcasts in their community simply because they are not afraid to teach evolutution as the theory that it is, versus the blind creationist approach that it is only a theory and certainly not true.

Wake up and deny ignorance!

Evolution is not even a theory. It is an hypothesis. No one has observed the evolving of one species into another, or from one form of life to a higher form.

Ten to the millionth power of years will NEVER allow nature enough time to produce life from non living matter. You can't prove any of this, so why even bother getting people upset with it. This is just another obvious and deliberate attempt to put down anyone who believes in a divine creator with a divine purpose for us being here.

I'm not a religious nut. But creation makes more sense. The law of cause and effect supports the Universe as being the effect of an intelligence that caused it to come into existance. Everything has a creator.

We did not crawl out of a slime pit that was struck by lightning.
We cannot create one living cell that can replicate itself.
There are no transitional forms in the fossil strata.
You can't tell the date of the bones by the strata they are found in, and the you can't tell the date of the strata by the bones that are found in it. That's called circular reasoning when you do that.

Carbon dating is based on a known constant decay rate, but we do not know what that decay rate was in the past, or how much carbon 14 was entering and leaving the atmosphere in the past. We don't know a lot about the past because we were not their to obseve it.

My relatives did not hang in trees by their tails. If you want to believe yours did, that's fine by me, but keep it in your own family tree because I want nothing to do with it. Many people believe that crap, which is why people act more and more like animals every day.

If you think believing in evolution is part of your waking up, then you have been lulled back to sleep by the biggest conspiracy to ever infect the human speices and delude the masses.

Product of chance? Right. Give me a break.

Originally posted by John Matrix
Evolution is not even a theory. It is an hypothesis. No one has observed the evolving of one species into another, or from one form of life to a higher form.
........

If you think believing in evolution is part of your waking up, then you have been lulled back to sleep by the biggest conspiracy to ever infect the human speices and delude the masses.

Product of chance? Right. Give me a break.

Religion has been the opiate of the masses and science the light of mankind. Don't listen to what other people tell you, research the facts for yourself, and dont reject new ideas that go against your belief system.

Originally posted by John Matrix

Ten to the millionth power of years will NEVER allow nature enough time to produce life from non living matter.

I'm not a religious nut. But creation makes more sense. The law of cause and effect supports the Universe as being the effect of an intelligence that caused it to come into existance. Everything has a creator.

Product of chance? Right. Give me a break.

John Matrix - fascinating. When you lay out your unimaginably long timeline, how can you be absolutely sure that the probability of life developing is an absolute zero? Does the slight difference between "extremely improbable" and "impossible" trouble you?

State lotteries offer 1 in 10 million odds of winning, and yet someone claims the top prize several times a year. On the cosmic scale, on a near infinite timeline, can you reject the possibility of life developing on its own?

I find this subject fascinating, because there seems to be a split of two types of minds - those who can embrace the concept of a random, unforgiving, probability-driven universe, and those who reject that notion for divine providence.

reply to post by jrod


jrod.....beating your head against the wall, here.

SOME of these people will just NEVER get it!!

Excellent post, anyway!

I have learned a lot from my friends: nj and noob and gw, all evolutionists and atheists. I am grateful.

But...I have not heard anyone with convincing information surrounding the reality of consciousness. I believe that evolution/natural selection/abiogenesis are a reality in the whole, but with "issues."

One of the issues many atheists have with the concept of ID/Creator/Infinite, or power with consciousness is the "philosophy aspect" that enters the picture.

How much speculation and philosophy truly enters the picture with the above theories? Isn't there also a lot of guesswork with the dissimulation or gaps otherwise known as the missing links?

Would it not take some faith to believe that at some point in history man will discover the gaps and fill them in without intelligent consciousness?

We always go back to infinite regression - I realize, but shouldn't it be part of the research? Where DID consciousness originate? How could two chemicals or crystals produce this phenomena?

Who were the unconscious lab techs in evolution that created the variables, and how would this scientifically take place without speculation or faith?

We realize that we have brilliant lab techs and scientists - using their gray cells that can test and reproduce in a lab many formulas and theories, but where were they in nature? How did all these experiments take place even in millions of years that would produce the mind with its thinking abilities and creativity, imagination, and problem solving? How would time ever produce something so abstract without an mind to create the template?

I am one who believes in a God not just for personal reasons but for very logical reasons. I am very pragmatic and have no issue with reasoning intelligently with no prejudice. Why couldn't a creator use evolution? It would certainly answer the problem with gaps, etc. He is the God of science, what would stop him?

What would an evolutionist/atheist do, if there comes a time where it is determined that a power with consciousness HAD to be involved at some point in the evolutionary/natural selection/abiogenesis - journey?

Plain and simply for those without prejudice...doesn't it make more sense? I am not speaking to those who are making a religion out of science to support atheism, but those who are truly open to discuss this possibility without getting offended.

Originally posted by B.A.C.

Originally posted by ExistenceUnknown
reply to post by B.A.C.

 

You are arguing semantics. If I force the dog to evolve by breeding him, or a predator forces him to evolve, you end up with the same result.

I'm saying it isn't evolution, it's only breeding, forced at that.

Now if a deer can only eat something that is 12 feet in the air and he grows extra long legs so he can reach it, I would consider that evolution.

exactly, but the problem with that would e the necesity for co-evolution based on modern evolutionary theory.

The deer CAN'T reach twelve feet up so that plant or berry that he needs to survive would at some point have to within reach and then grow a little out of reach so that only those deer who are born taller can reach it and survive, then it has to grow a little taller, and the deer that are a little taller would have to be the only deer to survive or at least be the most likely to breed.

it's supposed to occur over millions of years, a centimeter at a time.

But even if this does occur, (not much empirical evidence supports this by the way, only inductive reasoning through inferincial evidence), it stil would haveto have a driving mechanism, what caused the trees that the deer ate to grow taller?

Jaden

Originally posted by jrod

Originally posted by John Matrix
Evolution is not even a theory. It is an hypothesis. No one has observed the evolving of one species into another, or from one form of life to a higher form.
........

If you think believing in evolution is part of your waking up, then you have been lulled back to sleep by the biggest conspiracy to ever infect the human speices and delude the masses.

Product of chance? Right. Give me a break.

Religion has been the opiate of the masses and science the light of mankind. Don't listen to what other people tell you, research the facts for yourself, and dont reject new ideas that go against your belief system.

Mainstream science, itself, is a religion

reply to post by vcwxvwligen

Where's the button to put a foot in somebody's ass ??

Well said. Give us some more intelligent posts please.
Jesus would be so proud

But then again that's how religion works...right?
'nuff said.....

[edit on 2-3-2009 by griffinrl]

Neo-Darwinnian evolution (ie: incorporating genetics) is never claimed by science to already have explanations for every aspect of evolution. It's still evolving itself in the details; biology is FULL of papers and discoveries and controversies about aspects of evolutionary theory.

The broad outline I presented earlier (about mutation and natural selection, differential reproductive rates, and the origin of species), however, has a great deal of evidence. There's virtually nothing scientific that holds up as counter-evidence; there are however some parts of the picture which are not explained yet. (This is true of Physics as well, by the way). There is no scientific field with is "complete", with no gaps or unexplained edges in which to continue to refine our understanding, and that includes evolution in Biology.

As or our knowledge at this time, it's still possible that God or intelligent aliens stepped in here and there to bridge a "gap" of some sort - fill in a small hole that's not yet explained by science. You may have to hurry tho, these holes tend to shrink over time.

It's important to understand the difference between "we have no explanation for X yet", and "the existence of X disproves a theory". There was once no explanation for bats navigating in a completely dark cave - it could have been God helping them fly, as science had no explanation. Did that lack of explanation mean that the entire field of Biology (and maybe evolution too) should be considered invalid? Hardly - it was just "not yet explained", rather than contradicting science.

But then a scientist measured ultrasonic frequencies and found that bats could echolocate with sound, somewhat like SONAR. That gap was closed.

There continue to exist gaps. Some animals navigate in ways we don't yet understand (tho we keep learning more and narrowing this). That doesn't cast doubt on all that we do already know about animal navigation.

So, suppose that today mutation and natural selection explains 95% of the history of life. The framework of evolution is NOT threatened by pieces of the puzzle which have not yet been explained; they are just question marks, not contradictions. As time goes by, these holes in the detailed analysis shrink.

Maybe there will always be some mysteries, something we still don't understand. I hope so.

But those mysteries don't discredit what we do understand.

There's often a double standard here. Some folks seem to imagine that evolution is some perfect monolith that has to get every detail completely right. If any detail can be demonstrated to be wrong, then the whole thing will come crashing down. But details are disputed among scientists constantly; and mistakes are made. The overall theory (or framework) is pretty robust by now.

The double standard - sometimes folks believe that if they can dispute any fraction of evolutionary theory, this allows them to substitute another theory which won't need to stand up to even a tiny fraction of the same criticism. That is, they hold alternative explanations to a vastly lower standard of evidence.

reasoner

Originally posted by John Matrix
Evolution is not even a theory. It is an hypothesis. No one has observed the evolving of one species into another, or from one form of life to a higher form.

You are correct. I misspoke/mistextd.

After a time and such pervasive acceptance It can seem as such however.

Bow to your correction.

ZG

reply to post by MatrixProphet


Not sure what you're asking, Matrix?

Are you assuming only Humans are aware?

Just for grins, I'd venture a guess.....a 'consciencenous' (consciousness, correct spelling)...(gee, one of the harder words to spell) would be an evolutionary advantage for any higher-order species.

IF you believe that only Humans have minds, then you've never had a pet.

My gosh! Just about every multi-cellular species on Earth have some way to communicate!!! THAT implies, if not self-awareness, at least instinct.

These instincts lead to mating rituals....birds do it, even bees do it!! (OK, joke)

Didn't want to bring insects into the discussion....but, erm....they DO reproduce, too.

WE, as Humans....mostly talk. But, there are other, more subtle things that WE do, and unlikely to be noticed by other species....just as we don't understand every thing that THEY use to communicate.

I still see consciousness in dogs, cats, apes.....elephants, dolphins, whales.....I could go on, but I think I've made my point.

A few hundred million years.....and ONE species became, through adversity, a 'thinking' creature.

There is ample fodder to imagine a branch, a species of the dinosaur, to have evolved something akin to Human intelligence. Events didn't work out for them....mammals now rule.

Originally posted by FritosBBQTwist
reply to post by B.A.C.

 

One of the better replies from a "religious nut" (as you say - a backhanded compliment

)

You bring up some very valid points. Seriously. And I am all for evolution and against the religious agenda.

The only thing I can offer you is if evolution is instant. A tiny DNA change could bring out the exact changes - no middle ground. Just a thought.

Also - as said before here on ATS, Religion (Christianity) and evolution can coexist. There is a war between the two ideas...but for the religious people, I would only think it would be most logical to accept both?

Regardless of your comments, evolution still has a LOT of proof behind it

Yes, it has a lot of proof, just not enough to be considered fact.

Originally posted by Studenofhistory
reply to post by vcwxvwligen

 

I actually agree with you that the science of genetics is not absolute and therefore genetics can't be used to declare evolution to be a FACT. Theory yes, but a theory full of holes, mysteries and inconsistencies.

I believe that evolution is possible, but simians evolving into humans is just ridiculous. No species has made that jump

reply to post by vcwxvwligen


vcw....oh, dear, oh dear!

Simians did NOT evolve into Humans!!!!!

We share a common ancestor.....from millions and millions of years ago.

heck, I just saw another post that pointed out there are 30 to 40 different species of dolphins, for gosh sake!

Think of a tree...and branches.....every twig is it's own species. BUT they all branch out from the same tree!!!

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
reply to post by B.A.C.

 

Carbon dating is not observable in a lab either, nor are estimates about the age of the Earth and the universe

WHAT????

seriously.....get some education.

Carbon dating is well-established science, not EVEN theoritical!!!

Lots of established science out there, if you open your mind to it!!

Doppler....ever heard of him? Not only in sound, but light, did his work help to achieve better understanding of the Universe we live in. Doppler, and astronomy, came together to help guage the age of the Universe....look it up, if you dare!

Carbon Dating has some very unfortunate limits and inaccuracies. It cannot be applied with any certainty for exactness in many cases. OK for general use though.

ZG

Evolution and religion are nothing more than mere speculation regardless of the considered evidence. Evolution is more scientific but with no transitional fossils available it is not yet fact.

Religion is unprovable as well. What one considers proof for religion or Christ is also opinion only as there is a huge lack of proof. A lack of real proof not opinion.

There has long been a rift between science and religion but science takes the more intelligent realistic approach and can truly explain what has been thought to be unexplainable usually. Man continues to search for the greatest mystery of all. The answers to our creation.

I think their is a creator but our lack of knowledge does not permit us to give it a definition such as Christ or Evolution.

Whether we are genetic offspring of a higher civilization I don't currently know but what I do know is that we don't know where we came from and might not for a long time so why attempt to explain something we don't know until we receive the necessary knowledge to back up our claims. And I mean real tangible explainable evidence which is not evolution and is not religion....... Lets accept the "facts" and not twist things because we don't want to accept the truth which is sometimes we just don't know. We need to accept that we might just not know as much as we think we do and learn to live with it.

Now for the flames. MWAHAHAHAA!!!

[edit on 2-3-2009 by N3krostatic]

[edit on 2-3-2009 by N3krostatic]