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

originally posted by: Barcs

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.

After all these posts from Warmindy, it's obvious that she doesn't understand evolution or the term "worldview". Nothing we can say individually or collectively will change that.

originally posted by: WarminIndy

If they have all be answered to your satisfaction, why are you still compelled to come here and attempt to prove me wrong?

But you failed to see that the answers have not be proven. And that has since been acknowledged, not by me though.
But hey, ATS gets to be the place where you get to share your worldview, debating is what you like to do, because it is part of the ATS culture.

Cogito, as you think, so you will do.

The wording of your post seems consistent with an overall religious based view of science in general (expecting that science "proves" things) and is largely a mistaken one. As to why participate...apart from not agreeing, it is less out of an evolutionary science interest and more of a sociological one.

That a particular group of people in the modern world still cling to archaic myths and prop them up with pseudo science doesn't seem as important (like all religions before it, it will eventually go the way of the Dodo) as understanding why they do (and the resulting impact it has on their society and culture).

How can people who, in a singular sense, appear genuine, intelligent even warm and devoted...when taken en masse equate to societal problems completely at odds with this?

Religious devotion, in the broader sense, is commensurate with unhealthy societal conditions. This is not so much an opportunist way of being condescending, as it is an observable fact.

The prevailing view is that religion proliferates because of poor societal conditions. Yet what keeps this view from being wholly accepted, are the obvious instances where religious views do most definitely appear to be the cause of such conditions.

The wonderful charitable work of people and shelters with mottoes such as "Caritas Christi Urget Nos" (the love of Christ impels us) who no doubt do selfless and admirable work. None of them seem to have any interest in why they are so necessary to begin with nor what part their religious society plays in this. Nor do they seem to care.

It is paradoxical that societies built around notions of "Fides Spes et Caritas" (faith, hope and charity) are able to offer so little of any of these things to their population, re their day to day living conditions...particularly charity (outlined in the "good book" as being the greatest of these virtues)... compared to secular societies...

So instead of the profiteering of charlatans, the promotion of pseudo science, the proselytising and singing of psalms, what seems more necessary is for some of these people to actually wonder about these things themselves. If they care at all about being institutions that contribute to the health of their populations and that everyone could look to as being worthy and valuable.

Instead we usually get various renditions of the "no true Christian" fallacy.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
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.

Darwinism no longer exists. If you wish to talk about Darwin's original theory, then you are barking up the wrong tree. Modern synthesis does not suggest they either go extinct or go on to higher orders. Some groups of species do not change much at all (ie white shark predates dinosaurs and hasn't changed all that much)

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.

There are actually numerous ways this can happen. You seem to have the idea that genetic mutations are the only mechanism involved. Natural selection plays a much bigger role. Take the peacock, for example.

Male peacocks don't have the big feathery tails for fun. When they want to attract females, they display their feathers and the females select the males with the "prettiest" feathers. In this scenario, one male may mate with dozens of females, who in turn lay several eggs. This could lead to hundreds of babies that share the same genes within just a few generations. Depending on the offspring, 2 can become 8, that become 32, etc etc. This is why over time the male peacock's tail has gotten bigger and fancier. Every now and then a male peacock will have a mutation that makes its tail bigger or brighter. In return, they get all the chicks.

That is sexual selection in a nutshell. The trait variations may originate in one individual, but if it gives them an advantage over others in attracting mates, self defense or getting food, they will be way more likely to pass those genes down more often and eventually the trait becomes dominant in the species.

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.

Macro-evolution simply means evolution over millions of years, and evolution is driven by natural selection, not random mutations. The entire group might not necessarily evolve together. When a genetic mutation gives a creature an advantage, they pass down more genes as I showed you above. Sometimes the advantage is very small and you will have only a small percentage of the group that carries it. But then, something in the environment will change that turns the small advantage into a BIG advantage. At this point, the minority of the species survive while the rest either die out or relocate. Then the process begins again and keeps repeating.

To tie this in with what I said above, this is another way that genetic diversity can increase to multiple groups of species. The creatures that don't die out relocate to another environment. Now you have 2 separate groups of the same species with slightly different traits, living in slightly different environments. They could be separate for tens of thousands of years and then one day something changes again and the 2 groups come back together. 10,000 years may sound like a lot but on an evolutionary scale it is rather small so the 2 groups haven't diverged all that much from one another. They are still capable of breeding, and they do exactly that. Now the gene pools get mixed together and the diversity in the genes increases. This is but one tiny step in a huge process that takes millions of years. Events like the sequence above would need to happen hundreds to thousands of times before a new species emerges.

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.

I don't see how you can possibly reach this conclusion from your argument above. The concepts you used aren't even close to related. Scientists have been working for a long time to figure out the origin of life. They haven't done it yet. Scientists by nature question everything, so of course they will question an unconfirmed hypothesis like abiogenesis, however abiogenesis has absolutely nothing to do with evolution and I've never heard that phrase in my life.

And it's evolutionary biologist. Not evolutionist. The term evolutionist is insulting to scientists. You keep using irrelevant or outdated terminology like "Darwinism" "evolutionist" or "macro evolution". Somebody's been reading creationist propaganda. Long term evolution is witnessed in the fossil record. It takes millions of years, and humans live around 75 on average in well developed countries, so you can't witness that, as it's impossible. But you CAN witness speciation in species that have very short lifespans like the fruit fly or ecoli bacteria. If speciation can happen, as proven in the multiple lab experiments, then there's no reason to think it can't happen numerous times or that the changes do not add up over time. If you have scientifically valid reason as to why this cannot happen, I'd love to hear it.

So far "from goo" has been thrust out the window, but yet it is the basis for macro evolution.

This is a complete lie. Abiogenesis is not the basis for "macro evolution". That statement doesn't even make sense. Please review my responses above this one, there seems to be a lot about evolution that you are misinformed about.

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.

The theory of modern evolutionary synthesis is a scientific theory based on FACT. You are misusing scientific terminology in an attempt to undermine your straw man definition of evolution (that some how includes goo). There are tons of pieces of evidence for evolution. TONS. I should have read the bottom section of your post before responding because I may have just wasted my time. You do not seem like you are here on a quest for knowledge, despite masquerading that in the OP. You are simply here to deny evolution and promote your religion.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
Prompted by a rabid youtube watcher who loves to scream at people who believe in Intelligent Design, I will ask the same question here and perhaps it can be answered by someone.

Questions:

1: Does every individual of any group of species mutate at the same rate as all members?
2: If the definition of species is "members of a group who are capable of interbreeding" and species first began in a singular biome, then if there is another biome in which a species population resides, did the species in the biomes mutate at the same rate?
3: Given that biomes are environments and mutations occur because of environmental reasons, then how are Africans and Inuits the same species?
4: As mutations lead to changes species-wide, so that a population in a biome becomes a different species, then the mutations in DNA that lead to different haplotypes, then are we all different species from each other?
5: As mutations are designed for adaptation for survival within a biome or moving to a new biome, the first species of life had no predatory reasons to adapt for survival within the biome, then did original mutations occur solely within the original biome?
6: As Natural Selection is the adaptation, then why do those who adapt, then go back to the state before adaptation?
7: How many individual species were in the original biome?


I may come up with other questions, but these seem pertinent to me at the present. And please, I would like real answers and not assumptions. Don't tell me "we think" or "scientists suppose", because those are assumptions.

no.

but the longer the post the less substance it has.

just an observation.

oops, not you! lol!

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Well, that's your definition of what religion does, but I can tell you that for my life I can see also the damage that the lack of religion has in the lives of people.

Maybe you are like Clarence Darrow in his book Crime Its Cause and Treatment that things are not to be considered a crime if it is no longer illegal. We have seen this same concept in the religious treatment, or views of what is moral or not and if something is immoral to no longer have an underlying basis of morality, then it is no longer immoral.

It is apparent that a thing is not necessarily bad because it is forbidden by the law. Legislators are forever repealing and abolishing criminal statutes, and organized society is constantly ignoring laws, until they fall into disuse and die. The laws against witchcraft, the long line of "blue laws," the laws affecting religious beliefs and many social customs, are well-known examples of legal and innocent acts which legislatures and courts have once made criminal. Not only are criminal statutes always dying by repeal or repeated violation, but every time a legislature meets, it changes penalties for existing crimes and makes criminal certain acts that were not forbidden before.

As society changed definitions of what is right or wrong, based on the tastes of society, then how can society push itself forward when even terrible acts done can be redefined?

The origin of conscience is easily understood. One's conscience is formed as his habits are formed—by the time and place in which he lives; it grows with his teachings, his habits and beliefs. With most people it takes on the color of the community where they live. With some people the eating of pork would hurt their conscience; with others the eating of any meat; with some the eating of meat on Friday, and with others the playing of any game of chance for money, or the playing of any game on Sunday, or the drinking of intoxicating liquors. Conscience is purely a matter of environment, education and temperament, and is no more infallible than any habit or belief. Whether one should always follow his own conscience is another question, and cannot be confounded with the question as to whether conscience is an infallible guide to conduct.

As you claim I don't understand either, let me see whether or not that I do. What is called worldview today was once called paradigm. This above statement by Darrow was made early on. He was a criminal trial lawyer that defended Leopold and Loeb

For over twelve hours Darrow reminded Judge Caverly of the defendants' youth, genetic inheritance, surging sexual impulses, and the many external influences that had led them to the commission of their crime. Never before or since the Leopold and Loeb trial has the deterministic universe, this life of "a series of infinite chances", been so clearly made the basis of a criminal defense.

Darrow argued your case long before you came to ATS to share with us your dislike of religious governance and the notion that evolution leads to your worldviews. He argued that Leopold and Loeb were simply products of their evolution and that's why this should not be viewed as a crime. I think you should thank Darrow for this current dislike of religion.

a reply to: Barcs

Then you should probably tell that to the very non-scientific people who still believe in Darwinism, because several of them argued that on this thread.

If you say Darwinism is dead, the students on your side didn't get the memo.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: Barcs

Then you should probably tell that to the very non-scientific people who still believe in Darwinism, because several of them argued that on this thread.

If you say Darwinism is dead, the students on your side didn't get the memo.

in 300 hundred years, no one will care what memo they did or didnt get. science will go on, but we will not.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Really? Can you find me a non-creationist on here referring to evolution as "Darwinism"? Because I only ever hear it from creationists who, unsurprisingly, haven't got a clue what they're talking about.

a reply to: WarminIndy

I don't think you're quite getting it. Darwinism was the first major step in exploring evolution, of that there is no doubt. But its been over 150 years since he published On the origin of species by means of natural selection and around 175 years since his voyage on The Beagle that was the basis for his later written work. The only other hominid known for certain at the time of publication of On Origin of Species was Neanderthal and that was only 3 years old at that point. The body of evidence in the fossil record combined the genetic information that has strengthened and reinforced earlier knowledge is staggering at this point, especially when you compare it to what Darwin was postulating and the limited basis he was working with in comparison to what we can say for certain in this day and age. What we know now compared to just 20 years ago is astounding. Since I was a kid, Clovis First was the main hypothesis for habitation of the Americas and is now an anachronism because we don't stop trying to learn about the past and our own history. Its now understood that there were multiple migrations into the Americas for tens of thousands of years and new data coming in from Patagonia could push back human habitation of South America even farther. The bottom line is that the average person attributes evolutionary studies to Darwin. The concept of Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, presented in that context isn't something most people are aware of or differentiate from Darwinism because its the more recognized connotation unless you specifically study these areas and depending on where you go to school, it might not be presented as such until you start graduate level studies. If you can't make every interaction a learning experience then why bother? Isn't that what most of us come to ATS for? An exchange of ideas and knowledge to broaden our own knowledge and experiences?

a reply to: peter vlar

On this I have to disagree with some of your points. It has been directly posted by several members that they do still hold to Darwinist evolution. Those are not the religious people, so if the general public still believes that Darwinist evolution is what is true, then the general public should be taught better, including the many atheist websites. Remember, not one single link to a site about evolution that I have quoted from was a Creationist nor Intelligent Design proponent.

I built this argument from scientific websites that had absolutely nothing to do with Creation or Intelligent Design, so the information contained herein, are from your side, not mine. If the information on those websites are not correct to use, then perhaps they should be removed, because it is from those institutions that people on your side are reading and believing. I linked and quoted from Berkeley University on more than one occasion on this thread.

I challenged for the evidence, and what I was told was "it's over there, go look over there". So I go look over there and there's a guy saying that there is no evidence there either and it is all assumed and supposed.

I get the idea that over time science modifies the interpretations, that is only reasonable to do over time. But if one is building a case in which is proclaims as direct evidence but it is inferred evidence, then everything about evolution should be taught that it is inferred and not direct.

That's the problem. Even if it is circumstantial, even that evidence which is allowed in a court, which many people on the atheist and evolution side tells us that this is compared to a court, and we offer circumstantial, it gets thrown out of that same court room in which it was permitted in the first place. And so, now it seems that evolution itself is based on circumstantial evidence as well, so why not allow our circumstantial in the same trial?

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: WarminIndy

Really? Can you find me a non-creationist on here referring to evolution as "Darwinism"? Because I only ever hear it from creationists who, unsurprisingly, haven't got a clue what they're talking about.

Please read the post from the guy who believes abiogenesis.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Who? I've searched the entire thread and the only person bringing up "Darwinism" is you. All other mentions of the term have been other people correcting you about it.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: WarminIndy

Who? I've searched the entire thread and the only person bringing up "Darwinism" is you. All other mentions of the term have been other people correcting you about it.

Please, you apparently skipped over the posts of those who still believe in abiogenesis and alien seeding.

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: WarminIndy

Who? I've searched the entire thread and the only person bringing up "Darwinism" is you. All other mentions of the term have been other people correcting you about it.

Please, you apparently skipped over the posts of those who still believe in abiogenesis and alien seeding.

What does that have to do with Darwinism?

a reply to: WarminIndy

...neither of which have anything to do with "Darwinism", further solidifying the fact you haven't got half a clue what you're talking about.

a reply to: WarminIndy

I, and others, have gotten the impression that you don't really understand what evolution, Darwinism, and the scientific method mean. Of course I could be mistaken. Please settle it once and for all by very briefly (a sentence or two each) completing the following. If you do understand what those terms mean, it should be very easy to do.

Evolution is (fill in the blank).

Darwinism is (fill in the blank).

The scientific method involves (fill in the blank).

a reply to: tsingtao


Tell me, is there substance in the nothing?

As one believes in nothing, or that one believes in THAT nothing, that there is nothing in the gaps but then desire substance to be presented in a forum thread. What is substance?

We have a verse in our Bible, "faith is the substance of all things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" and that is exactly what I have seen demonstrated over and over by those who claim they do not believe in God because there is no substance for them to believe it.

As one begins to have hope that substance will one day be found, that evidence of what is not seen will one day be revealed, then the hope is in substance. So you could say that the substance is in nature, that same nature that has gaps in the evidence. But there is still hope and if there is hope then there is faith.

I hear the discussions from atheists and agnostics about the lack of faith as though faith arises from a religious blind hypnotic brainwashing from a superstitious priest or institution, and yet not knowing that a believer believes yet because our hope is reconciled in the very fact that we don't see the substance in all, because there are things not seen. I have read it over and over that we are all brainwashed, and yet not all Christians were born into Christian families, not all Christians grew up in Christian churches. We must remove that strawman, and yet the strawman is bandied around until he has no more straw and crows are picking at the substance of nature.

Yet, the strawman was made by an intelligent being. The Scotsman is Scot because he was truly born of that place and time. We have heard illogical fallacies on every side and yet never must the true Scotsman hang that strawman into the assuming substance.

And that one verse remains...faith is the substance of all things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. The writer knew the intellectual quandry of man's desire to know what is out there, that man seeks for an answer to define their own intelligence. "Where does my own intelligence arise from?" As intelligence is never seen empirically, it is measured and one accepts the intelligence that they can't touch, see or hear, they can only experience that in the expression of intelligence.

Yes, intelligence can be measured, but it is never held in the hand. No man digs it out of the ground and brushes the dust off it. But yet there is substance in intelligence. The evidence of something not seen. It would be fair for me to say to someone "I cannot see or hold your intelligence in my hand, but I can measure the expression of your intelligence". And yet I see you as a person who has intelligence, you are a natural being of substance, but I cannot see your intelligence.

And then people want a God of substance and yet never consider that God transcends the substance and dwells in what is not seen, but can be measured. That we believe this universe and the processes in nature are an expression and we measure that expression. I know, you must have compelling evidence for the existence of God before you believe. Where in the substance will you desire this be at?

Does your hope within you arise from the substance of your body? You have hope, you hope in something. You hope your car will start, because you have knowledge that if all things are functioning in your car, that it will start. Then your hope arose in the knowledge, which is never seen or held, it is expressed, and therefore your knowledge is expressed. Faith is never blind and no Christian encourages anyone to have that blind faith. Jews don't ask that of people either.

But the person who identifies as atheist still has no substance for their disbelief. Their disbelief is measured, expressed, and yet dwells in the things not seen. But they still hope for something.

From T.S. Eliot

“I said to my soul, be still and wait without hope, for hope would be hope for the wrong thing; wait without love, for love would be love of the wrong thing; there is yet faith, but the faith and the love are all in the waiting. Wait without thought, for you are not ready for thought: So the darkness shall be the light, and the stillness the dancing.”

When there is no substance, hope is still hope, love is still love, and yet there is still faith, because faith is in the waiting. Are you waiting for evidence in the substance? Then you have faith that it will happen.

a reply to: WarminIndy

And that one verse remains...faith is the substance of all things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

And then people want a God of substance and yet never consider that God transcends the substance and dwells in what is not seen, but can be measured. That we believe this universe and the processes in nature are an expression and we measure that expression. I know, you must have compelling evidence for the existence of God before you believe. Where in the substance will you desire this be at?

when this god comes to us as proof of its existence and submits itself for examination. the same process that leads us to accept evolution as it currently stands.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: WarminIndy

And then people want a God of substance and yet never consider that God transcends the substance and dwells in what is not seen, but can be measured. That we believe this universe and the processes in nature are an expression and we measure that expression. I know, you must have compelling evidence for the existence of God before you believe. Where in the substance will you desire this be at?

when this god comes to us as proof of its existence and submits itself for examination. the same process that leads us to accept evolution as it currently stands.

That would be a presumptive statement.

You presume that God can be measured and experimented on and you presume that man is capable of doing this, when man can't even find the evidence in the gaps.

I thought of something, you know, when a couple find out they are having a baby, they hope the baby will turn out well, but there is no evidence that it will. They have no substantive proof or evidence that the baby will one day be a great scientist, great leader or perhaps a serial killer. But they hope in something they don't see.

Yes, one day the baby will grow up, but it will be expressed as a product of its environment or the teaching of the parents, hopefully.

There is another verse in our Bible, we have no promise of tomorrow. We can all embrace this truth because we don't have foresight into tomorrow or the day after. We simply do not know. Yet we all still live as if tomorrow will come, except those who commit suicide. They want the end today. So then, there is still no promise for tomorrow.

But we have hope there will be a tomorrow because we structure our lives around that. We have hope and faith. Again, faith becomes substance because our life tomorrow is the expression of what we do today.

As atheism is a disbelief that leads to rejection, then both of those are action verbs, meaning that both become expressions and manifested in how one determines to live according to that.

Richard Dawkins says there is nothing, but yet makes moral statements within a moral framework. Can we discuss his moral worldview?

Dawkins tweets that it is immoral not to abort babies with Down's Syndrome. If there is nothing, then there is no moral standard and therefore he defeats his own argument that we evolve with kindness and compassion as he said in The Selfish Gene

“Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish. Let us understand what our own selfish genes are up to, because we may then at least have the chance to upset their designs, something that no other species has ever aspired to do.”
― Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene

But yet I hear atheists say there is a moral instrinsicness built within their evolutionary makeup, that we evolve compassion. This man says we do not. I was told to attack the man's argument, so I am, and this is not quote mining or cherry picking as we often get accused of. It highlights the various arguments I have heard over the years.

No other species has ever aspired to? Is this a true statement with evidence?

What is the competing theory for Evolution? If not evolution, then what?