Simple Questions For Those Who Believe That Evolution Is The Answer For Everything

a reply to: hydeman11

This is a longer version of what I said on page 11 about atheism and atheistic world views. Well said

a reply to: Aural

The end of all of this is what? According to Darwinism, every species group either goes extinct or certain groups go on to higher orders.

If it is true that variety among species is evident, then how does a species group change if it occurs to individuals, and yet the species is listed as a group.

So if all members of a group (population) in any given biome (environment) are classified as species, then certain individuals are no longer part of the same species. It no longer means that variety is what classifies them. Macroevolution means that an entire group of species evolved together, so therefore the mutations should occur among all members of the group at the same rate.

It does not, therefore macroevolution cannot be an answer, macroevolution is supposed to be driven by microevolution. And microevolution is supposed to be driven by random mutations, which is not answered at all because we have seen the lack of evidence to support it.

That is why the old phrase "from goo to you by way of the zoo" is questioned, not only by Creationists, Intelligent Design proponents, but by evolutionists themselves, because there is no real observed evidence that macrevolution has occurred.

So far "from goo" has been thrust out the window, but yet it is the basis for macro evolution. So if the goo is no longer reliable enough, then what is the next step? "By way of the zoo"...well, if macro evolution determines that you and a donkey have a common ancestor, because you are both of the animal kingdom, and all animals came from a common ancestor, then there should be some indication that you can trace the "random" mutations that led to you and the donkey.

So either there is no common ancestor, because all animals were supposed to come from lower organisms, then where is the evidence that led to you and the donkey, or there is no common ancestor from the lower organisms.

This is a quandry, because macroevolution is a theory, and one not supported with evidence. In order for it to qualify as a factual statement, there needs to be evidence supporting that. It has not been found at all in the 150 years of Darwinism.

You could say that bacteria mutates, but where is the evidence that bacteria becomes a higher order organism? OK, you could say transitional species, but what we have seen is transitional within the species itself and only for that species group.

According to Berkeley,

Hippos likely evolved from a group of anthracotheres about 15 million years ago, the first whales evolved over 50 million years ago, and the ancestor of both these groups was terrestrial.

It says likely, which means there is no direct evidence that it did. If there is no direct evidence, then it can't be stated that it did, which then nullifies it as a factual truth. Are those really hind legs on those whales, or would you like to think they are? Alligators also have hind legs, but are they related to whales? Whales are mammals but alligators are reptiles, the manatee also is a mammal but the characteristics of these are that they are aquatic.

But there is no evidence that mammals and reptiles evolved from a common ancestor.
FromBiology.edu

The Principle of Parsimony is employed when using homologies to make a phylogeny. This principle favors the hypothesis that requires the fewest or simplest assumptions to explain an observation. In phylogenetics, the principle of parsimony invokes the minimal number of evolutionary changes to infer phylogenetic relationships. For example, it is more parsimonious to infer that a vertebral column evolved only once in a common ancestor of all living vertebrates than to infer that it evolved multiple times, once for fish, once for amphibians, etc. The first option requires fewer evolutionary changes.

If a species then must have thousands of mutations, then it does not follow the Principal of Parsimony.

And from Berkeley again Berkeley

Systematics, then, is the study of the pattern of relationships among taxa; it is no less than understanding the history of all life. But history is not something we can see. It has happened once and leaves only clues as to the actual events. Biologists in general and systematists in particular use these clues to build hypotheses or models of the history. We hope to convince you that only with a hypothesis of history can we truly discuss evolution.

But, before we begin this journey, hear this warning in the everlasting words of Father Jacobus (from Hesse's Magister Ludi):

To study history one must know in advance that one is attempting something fundamentally impossible, yet necessary and highly important. To study history means submitting to chaos and nevertheless retaining faith in order and meaning. It is a very serious task, young man, and possibly a tragic one.

History is not something you see, so you have to go on faith that it happened. Even Berkeley concedes this.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: hydeman11

This is a longer version of what I said on page 11 about atheism and atheistic world views. Well said

So you have a worldview yourself?

That is what I was saying and nothing more was meant by that. Everyone has a worldview, including you. There is nothing wrong with that and I certainly did not say the atheist worldview was negative. But then someone chose to imply negativity about the Christian worldview.

I said nothing negative about worldviews, only that people have one.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Of course I have a world view. I never denied I did. My world view is more agnostic. I also never implied that any world view is negative, so I'm not sure what you are getting at. If "someone" chose to imply that about Christian world view, then speak to them about it. I certainly didn't do it. I think it's hogwash, but I certainly won't look down on you for believing it.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: WarminIndy

Of course I have a world view. I never denied I did. My world view is more agnostic. I also never implied that any world view is negative, so I'm not sure what you are getting at. If "someone" chose to imply that about Christian world view, then speak to them about it. I certainly didn't do it. I think it's hogwash, but I certainly won't look down on you for believing it.

LOL, well see the problem that has arisen since my original post comment?

My first statement was regarding the lowering levels of intellect and education, because I said "some guy who is atheist says he has no worldview", then I went on to say that he did. Then the argument ensued because people thought I was trying to say that atheists have a religious worldview, which I did not do.

I might not be a psychologist or sociologist with that degree, but as a filmmaker and writer and one who has written published articles about film, these are things I must understand about my chosen career path. I have to understand the psychology and sociology contained in films. So this is something I do study. I don't study it to try to debunk atheism, but as part of what I do, it needs to be understood by me.

When looking at films to review or to teach about, I have to address how film relates psychologically and sociologically. This video is of my first short film in which we had to do a psychological thriller. The parameters were that we could not include dialogue (MOS, mitt out sound, from Erick Von Stroheim) and that it was exterior.



When we first sat down to discuss what constitutes a psychological thriller, our team explored what would be terrifying in this day and age. As I was the only woman, I mentioned things that would be horrifying to me, so we built the story around this, and the meaning was that through misplaced trust and non-involvement with surroundings can place us in a dangerous position.

What I learned from this is what the people who were watching us film this, the comments they made were strikingly terrifying in a way because there were some people who believed we were filming a real event, that the security guard was real, the hobo was real and that the victim was random. The people saw the lights, the cameras and all that we were doing, and yet they still believed it was real. There was even a man who stopped the "security guard' and asked him questions, and called him "security guard". There were people who were commenting that the homeless guy deserved to be forcibly removed from the premises.

Then when we showed this at the film festival it won the award at, people were shaken by it and one man told me a year later that he did not like my film because he had seen his own wife in that film and it made him afraid for her.

After all of this, it made me sit and think about the psychology and sociology in film and how our worldviews interpret what we see around us. Our worldview perceives authority, but for some it is distressing to consider that authority might not be what we thought it was and there is no security in that authority.

So I step back and look at the whole picture of what is going on around me and am able to relate to that in films, because film has the ability to address our worldviews and the preconceived ideas about the world around us. As a filmmaker, I should be able to make you think about your worldview or I could change your worldview. I do not wish to change your worldview, but I would darn sure like to make you think about it.

Just months after making this short film, a friend of mine was kidnapped from her own house and her body was not found for another two years. She had misplaced trust, because she trusted a person that she let into her home who then killed her. I do understand, that is why I am so firm in wanting people to think on their own, don't just believe because you were told to believe, don't just do because you are told to do, always question authority and never fully trust anyone, because it has an effect on society.

When people don't question authority when it comes to evolution, then that's the same as not questioning the religious authorities. You simply have to question everything.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Because its a big family over many generations. With enough generations there is enough mutation that they at some point become less related so its not exactly inbreeding.

You are also selectively cherry picking species where their ancestor is not known and ignoring ones that are.

If you really want answers you should ask a biologist, not people on a forum.

originally posted by: Aural
a reply to: WarminIndy

Because its a big family over many generations. With enough generations there is enough mutation that they at some point become less related so its not exactly inbreeding.

You are also selectively cherry picking species where their ancestor is not known and ignoring ones that are.

If you really want answers you should ask a biologist, not people on a forum.

Can we agree that we don't have enough time and space to mention every species?

That's not cherry picking, and the website itself only used a few also. There are scientists on this thread also. But the idea that it takes that many generations is an assumption because there can be no definite number for the question of how many generations. You could say many, but that is a relative term. 50,000 generations is not the same as 250,000. One is much higher, but how many does it take?

And the reason I can ask these questions is because this is a forum called Origins and Creationism.

a reply to: WarminIndy

When people don't question authority when it comes to evolution, then that's the same as not questioning the religious authorities. You simply have to question everything.

i agree. science only works when you are willing to question everything. my question is whether you are questioning what science tells us about evolution, or just flat out refusing to accept it no matter what we discover through science.

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: TzarChasm
I'd like to take a moment to point out that evolution is not the answer to everything, its the best current answer to how life developed to be what it is today. I sensed possible confusion from the wording, so I felt I sshould set the record straight on that.

There are some people who think it does and believe it so militaristically that that will demand you believe or else.

That's kind of like the Middle Ages, I think. Believe or else.

I do think selective breeding does occur, because we do it all the time. We do it to horses, dogs, cats, slaves...you name it. People even do it in bars, on the beach, at home, in no-tell motels...

Selective breeding is intentional in humans and by humans. So they kind of prove that point.

Animals do it too, and they don't even realize it. There are alpha males in the animal kingdom, if you didn't know. Even they have a sexual hierarchy.

Also, did you know that women are more likely to cheat when they are ovulating? Not only that, but they are more likely to cheat with a male who has higher testosterone than their current partner. This is proof that even humans have a subconscious selective breeding pattern and have an urge to mix only with those who have superior DNA. We exhibit animal behavior, because we are essentially just animals with more advanced brains.

I'm not saying this is a good or bad thing. There is no 'good/bad' dichotomy when it comes to evolution. It's just that whatever happens to benefit the species is what survives. It is something to be thankful for in some ways I guess. If we didn't have selective breeding wired into our brains we would all be disgusting troglodytes with more health problems than you can shake a stick at. Same goes for animals.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: WarminIndy

When people don't question authority when it comes to evolution, then that's the same as not questioning the religious authorities. You simply have to question everything.

i agree. science only works when you are willing to question everything. my question is whether you are questioning what science tells us about evolution, or just flat out refusing to accept it no matter what we discover through science.

I will agree that apples fall because of gravity. But I also am amazed at how helium balloons float. I know why they do, but it still amazes me.

I have flown many times and know that aerodynamics makes the plane fly, but it amazes me so much that when I am in that airplane I always look at the clouds and say "God, this is amazing what you have done". Is there anything wrong with acknowledging to the Creator that I appreciate His handiwork?

When I look on nature, I see God's work in it. Is there anything wrong with that?

I know God didn't make the airplane, man did. But man didn't make the aerodynamic principles.

originally posted by: Xaphan

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: TzarChasm
I'd like to take a moment to point out that evolution is not the answer to everything, its the best current answer to how life developed to be what it is today. I sensed possible confusion from the wording, so I felt I sshould set the record straight on that.

There are some people who think it does and believe it so militaristically that that will demand you believe or else.

That's kind of like the Middle Ages, I think. Believe or else.

I do think selective breeding does occur, because we do it all the time. We do it to horses, dogs, cats, slaves...you name it. People even do it in bars, on the beach, at home, in no-tell motels...

Selective breeding is intentional in humans and by humans. So they kind of prove that point.

Animals do it too, and they don't even realize it. There are alpha males in the animal kingdom, if you didn't know. Even they have a sexual hierarchy.

Also, did you know that women are more likely to cheat when they are ovulating? Not only that, but they are more likely to cheat with a male who has higher testosterone than their current partner. This is proof that even humans have a subconscious selective breeding pattern and have an urge to mix only with those who have superior DNA. We exhibit animal behavior, because we are essentially just animals with more advanced brains.

I'm not saying this is a good or bad thing. There is no 'good/bad' dichotomy when it comes to evolution. It's just that whatever happens to benefit the species is what survives. It is something to be thankful for in some ways I guess. If we didn't have selective breeding wired into our brains we would all be disgusting troglodytes with more health problems than you can shake a stick at. Same goes for animals.

Um, I don't know, there are many people married for a long time who don't cheat on their spouses. I am not sure that can be a factor in the discussion, but since you believe it is relevant, then I assume you are leading to the idea that because people evolved and there is no good or bad in evolution, then there ultimately is no good or bad with cheating, because that's what people will do if they are evolved.

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: WarminIndy

When people don't question authority when it comes to evolution, then that's the same as not questioning the religious authorities. You simply have to question everything.

i agree. science only works when you are willing to question everything. my question is whether you are questioning what science tells us about evolution, or just flat out refusing to accept it no matter what we discover through science.

I will agree that apples fall because of gravity. But I also am amazed at how helium balloons float. I know why they do, but it still amazes me.

I have flown many times and know that aerodynamics makes the plane fly, but it amazes me so much that when I am in that airplane I always look at the clouds and say "God, this is amazing what you have done". Is there anything wrong with acknowledging to the Creator that I appreciate His handiwork?

When I look on nature, I see God's work in it. Is there anything wrong with that?

I know God didn't make the airplane, man did. But man didn't make the aerodynamic principles.

you can thank the fundamental forces for those principles. but i wasnt aware that the fundamental forces of the universe could be considered intelligent, or had been determined to be the product of an intelligence.

a reply to: WarminIndy

If I am correct here. Your OP at the base root is asking a series of questions.
But these questions can not be answered without having "faith" in science.

Are you trying to point out that people of science also employ Faith?

I think science and religion have more in common that they are both willing to admit.

Much of science is taking the words written by men by using tools to measure their surroundings. Others take their word on faith.

Much of religion is taking the words written by men by using tools to control their surroundings. Others take their words on Faith too.

See a parallel here?
The only difference is with science, one can find the same tools used, and check those facts, and sources. Its on the personal person to do the research.
Yet with religion, we are only left with faith. As religious tools are less tangible than a man of sciences tool kit.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: WarminIndy

When people don't question authority when it comes to evolution, then that's the same as not questioning the religious authorities. You simply have to question everything.

i agree. science only works when you are willing to question everything. my question is whether you are questioning what science tells us about evolution, or just flat out refusing to accept it no matter what we discover through science.

Well now, back to the faith and religious question.



I will agree that apples fall because of gravity. But I also am amazed at how helium balloons float. I know why they do, but it still amazes me.

I have flown many times and know that aerodynamics makes the plane fly, but it amazes me so much that when I am in that airplane I always look at the clouds and say "God, this is amazing what you have done". Is there anything wrong with acknowledging to the Creator that I appreciate His handiwork?

When I look on nature, I see God's work in it. Is there anything wrong with that?

I know God didn't make the airplane, man did. But man didn't make the aerodynamic principles.

you can thank the fundamental forces for those principles. but i wasnt aware that the fundamental forces of the universe could be considered intelligent, or had been determined to be the product of an intelligence.

a reply to: zysin5

The only parallel is that both are invented by man. Science and religious faith are literally orthogonal to each other.

originally posted by: Xaphan

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: TzarChasm
I'd like to take a moment to point out that evolution is not the answer to everything, its the best current answer to how life developed to be what it is today. I sensed possible confusion from the wording, so I felt I sshould set the record straight on that.

There are some people who think it does and believe it so militaristically that that will demand you believe or else.

That's kind of like the Middle Ages, I think. Believe or else.

I do think selective breeding does occur, because we do it all the time. We do it to horses, dogs, cats, slaves...you name it. People even do it in bars, on the beach, at home, in no-tell motels...

Selective breeding is intentional in humans and by humans. So they kind of prove that point.

Animals do it too, and they don't even realize it. There are alpha males in the animal kingdom, if you didn't know. Even they have a sexual hierarchy.

Also, did you know that women are more likely to cheat when they are ovulating? Not only that, but they are more likely to cheat with a male who has higher testosterone than their current partner. This is proof that even humans have a subconscious selective breeding pattern and have an urge to mix only with those who have superior DNA. We exhibit animal behavior, because we are essentially just animals with more advanced brains.

I'm not saying this is a good or bad thing. There is no 'good/bad' dichotomy when it comes to evolution. It's just that whatever happens to benefit the species is what survives. It is something to be thankful for in some ways I guess. If we didn't have selective breeding wired into our brains we would all be disgusting troglodytes with more health problems than you can shake a stick at. Same goes for animals.

Higher testosterone does not necessarily equal superior DNA. There have been animal studies that show that a lower ranking animal who suddenly rises to high-ranking status through the death of the previous alpha suddenly produces much higher testosterone than he did when he was low-ranking. HIgh testosterone levels lead to aggression which places one at higher risk of injury and death. The female's attraction to males with high rank is probably related to seeking a healthy mate (alphas wouldn't rise to alpha rank if they weren't healthy--even though they might not last long once there) and someone who can provide protection. I'm unaware of any human studies that show that human females cheat with men with higher testosterone levels than their mates--not that I doubt it because those with higher testosterone are more likely to engage in risky behaviors. Are you sure that assumption wasn't extrapolated from non-human animal studies?

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
It seems all of your original questions have been answered. Though unlikely to your satisfaction unless they mention god and some are seemingly ridiculous enough to only require a one word answer (such as wondering if there are 6-7 billion different species of hominid on the planet at the moment).

The genetic mutation waffle is also answered, random or not, they are considered random with respect to evolution at this stage.

It also shows that, despite claims to the contrary, science realises there is a lot yet to learn and is open to whatever it finds on this subject and is looking.

The rest is simply hot air.

There is nothing inherently wrong in believing in a higher power in a personal sense (who knows?), but when it conflicts with observable reality to the extent it argues that a specific belief is a fact...then is backed up only with ignorance/pseudo science, waffle and more belief....then it's a delusion.

Well said.

a reply to: WarminIndy

I never gave a specific number and im just reciting something i vaguely remember hearing about.

Im just saying you can get better answers from someone who actually works as a biologist who specializes in evolution. They will be the best at explaining things. Not everyone here has all the answers.

originally posted by: Aural
a reply to: WarminIndy

I never gave a specific number and im just reciting something i vaguely remember hearing about.

Im just saying you can get better answers from someone who actually works as a biologist who specializes in evolution. They will be the best at explaining things. Not everyone here has all the answers.

There are three people on this thread who are scientists. I'm not going to point them out, you can go through the thread to discover them.

Two of them are agnostic, but present their arguments for evolution. They don't have to show us their credentials on a public forum thread, because ATS is designed for anyone to discuss anything. One of them who posted on this thread has posted elsewhere and this particular scientists also did studies on Australopithecus. I would assume this person has studied and understands their field.

They answered on this thread already. I acknowledged that they were here. But this is a public forum, we can ask and discuss and answer whatever the topic is about, that makes this the beauty of our modern culture, the sharing of information in a free manner. Not one scientist that has responded on this thread has told me that I can't ask. They might not like that I have the right to disagree, but it doesn't matter because this is still a public forum.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
OK, you are agnostic, which means in your worldview it has room for such a possibility. Evolution is a worldview because it make accommodation for no such possibility. Therefore it is a worldview according to the definition.

Atheism simply means that one does not believe in God, therefore no room for such a possibility.

That is completely wrong. How does evolution mean that a god or creator is not possible? I'm not following your logic at all here. I technically do not believe in god, and won't until I see direct evidence. So one could say I'm an atheist despite being open to the idea that a god/creator may exist. You are veering away from the main points in my posts each time you respond. I've noticed this with a large portion of your posts in this thread. You aren't directly addressing any points. I'll go into detail in the next post.