Total Posts:66|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What is the evidence for evolution?

Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2012 9:38:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
That is my question for evolutionists on this forum. I have noticed that many evolutionists here are terrible at actually responding to creationists, so I want to see which among you are legit. I also want to see if I am legit. I know that many of you will ask you whether a post really belongs in the science forum. But the creation evolution debate does involve religion because creationist belief is almost always rooted in some theology.

Plus there are only two posts in the science forum that have to responded to within the last 12 hours last I checked, compared to 21 in this forum.

So give me your best shot.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2012 9:46:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/16/2012 9:38:49 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
That is my question for evolutionists on this forum. I have noticed that many evolutionists here are terrible at actually responding to creationists, so I want to see which among you are legit. I also want to see if I am legit. I know that many of you will ask you whether a post really belongs in the science forum. But the creation evolution debate does involve religion because creationist belief is almost always rooted in some theology.

Plus there are only two posts in the science forum that have to responded to within the last 12 hours last I checked, compared to 21 in this forum.

So give me your best shot.

DNA, fossils, Darwin's research.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2012 10:00:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/16/2012 9:46:49 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 11/16/2012 9:38:49 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
That is my question for evolutionists on this forum. I have noticed that many evolutionists here are terrible at actually responding to creationists, so I want to see which among you are legit. I also want to see if I am legit. I know that many of you will ask you whether a post really belongs in the science forum. But the creation evolution debate does involve religion because creationist belief is almost always rooted in some theology.

Plus there are only two posts in the science forum that have to responded to within the last 12 hours last I checked, compared to 21 in this forum.

So give me your best shot.

DNA, fossils, Darwin's research.

Lacks specificity.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2012 10:01:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/16/2012 9:57:28 PM, Enji wrote:
What would constitute evolution, according to you?

We both know what the theory of evolution is. Do you have any evidence?
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2012 10:03:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/16/2012 10:01:13 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 11/16/2012 9:57:28 PM, Enji wrote:
What would constitute evolution, according to you?

We both know what the theory of evolution is. Do you have any evidence?

But if I provide evidence for evolution, are you going to go all creationist on me and say "that's not evolution, that's microevolution!"?
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2012 10:13:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/16/2012 10:03:31 PM, Enji wrote:
At 11/16/2012 10:01:13 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 11/16/2012 9:57:28 PM, Enji wrote:
What would constitute evolution, according to you?

We both know what the theory of evolution is. Do you have any evidence?

But if I provide evidence for evolution, are you going to go all creationist on me and say "that's not evolution, that's microevolution!"?

The creationists might be right about the evolution thing. A lot of the so-called evidence for evolution is really just evidence for evolution within a species. If that is all the evidence you have, then this debate will be very short.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2012 11:09:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/16/2012 10:13:40 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 11/16/2012 10:03:31 PM, Enji wrote:

But if I provide evidence for evolution, are you going to go all creationist on me and say "that's not evolution, that's microevolution!"?

The creationists might be right about the evolution thing. A lot of the so-called evidence for evolution is really just evidence for evolution within a species. If that is all the evidence you have, then this debate will be very short.

I will respond under the presumption that, like most creationists, you accept change within species (adaptation) as fact. If you wish for evidence on this, experiments involving flies have shown genetic changes over successful generations. Also mutations of viruses, and speciation of plants has also been observed. Darwin's finches are another example of speciation. These instances of what creationists call micro-evolution show that the mechanism of evolution, genetic variation (mutations) and natural selection, exists and can account for evolution (on the species level).

This divergent speciation can be seen in ring species, where a population of a species spread apart and diverged into subspecies and spread apart and diverged more until you get to a point where the end subspecies, while being able to interbreed with the intermediary ones, are unable to reproduce with each other because of their genetic differences (which would make them different species from each other but the same species as the species both can interbreed with according to traditional classification). An example of this are Larus gulls, where the species at the "end" of the ring are unable to interbreed with each other while they are both able to interbreed with the species in the middle of the ring. Ring species show that there is no difference between genetically insignificant changes and genetically significant changes other than time; small changes may build up to the point where a species can be considered genetically distinct from another based on ability to reproduce while also not being distinct from a third species that all can reproduce with. As species diverge, there is nothing stopping them from diverging further to the point of being what a creationist would consider macro-evolution. Thus, the mechanism of evolution allowing for common descent has been proven to exist and it is able to account for genetically significant changes.

According to evolution animals and plants would have transitioned over time to their current forms. Thus, we would expect to find evidence of species transitioning over time - this is exactly what the fossil record shows us. Although you can't tell just by looking at a fossil that it had kids or that another fossil 50 million years later is descended from it, if you have fossil evidence showing a creature with some set of traits and fossil evidence showing a similar animal with similar traits that are different and you find intermediary forms as the original trait transitions to the end trait and they are dated consistently so that the transitory fossils most similar to the original trait are older than the transitory fossils most similar to the end trait, then you can conclude that the creature with the end trait is descended from the one with the original trait. The evidence for species transitioning over time, as evolution would predict, exists. Creationism makes no such prediction. This is further reinforced by DNA evidence which shows that creatures that have a closer evolutionary ancestor have more similar DNA than those with a further removed ancestor which is what evolution would suggest whereas creationism does not suggest a relationship between similarity of DNA and how closely two species are related. Thus, the evidence unequivocally supports the truth of evolution.
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2012 11:26:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
that ring species bit is no obliteration of the creationist view. it's just to set a pretty decent foundation for evolution in what we can see in animals around us today.

the fossil record is where it's at as regards definitiveness, and that dna bit sounds rather promising too.
signature
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2012 11:29:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
One word: Fossils.

They single handedly confirm the evolutionary theory of change through time.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2012 11:38:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
You look like a pretty good debater, however there are some holes in your arguments.

At 11/16/2012 11:09:06 PM, Enji wrote:
At 11/16/2012 10:13:40 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 11/16/2012 10:03:31 PM, Enji wrote:

But if I provide evidence for evolution, are you going to go all creationist on me and say "that's not evolution, that's microevolution!"?

The creationists might be right about the evolution thing. A lot of the so-called evidence for evolution is really just evidence for evolution within a species. If that is all the evidence you have, then this debate will be very short.

Darwin's finches are another example of speciation.

Can the different species interbreed?

This divergent speciation can be seen in ring species, where a population of a species spread apart and diverged into subspecies and spread apart and diverged more until you get to a point where the end subspecies, while being able to interbreed with the intermediary ones, are unable to reproduce with each other because of their genetic differences (which would make them different species from each other but the same species as the species both can interbreed with according to traditional classification). An example of this are Larus gulls, where the species at the "end" of the ring are unable to interbreed with each other while they are both able to interbreed with the species in the middle of the ring. Ring species show that there is no difference between genetically insignificant changes and genetically significant changes other than time; small changes may build up to the point where a species can be considered genetically distinct from another based on ability to reproduce while also not being distinct from a third species that all can reproduce with. As species diverge, there is nothing stopping them from diverging further to the point of being what a creationist would consider macro-evolution. Thus, the mechanism of evolution allowing for common descent has been proven to exist and it is able to account for genetically significant changes.

I looked up your example in wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Under the section about the gulls, it discusses the ring of gull species but about the last two species that supposedly cannot procreate:
"The Lesser Black-backed Gulls and Herring Gulls are sufficiently different that they do not normally hybridize; thus the group of gulls forms a continuum except where the two lineages meet in Europe."

So they do not normally procreate. This means that they sometimes do. So why don't they often procreate? Is it physically impossible for them, or are they not attracted to each other? If it is because they are not normally attracted to each other, then the speciation is just superficial.

In the below article:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
It says: "However, a recent genetic study has shown that this example is far more complicated than presented here, and probably does not constitute a true ring species (Liebers et al., 2004)."

According to evolution animals and plants would have transitioned over time to their current forms. Thus, we would expect to find evidence of species transitioning over time - this is exactly what the fossil record shows us. Although you can't tell just by looking at a fossil that it had kids or that another fossil 50 million years later is descended from it, if you have fossil evidence showing a creature with some set of traits and fossil evidence showing a similar animal with similar traits that are different and you find intermediary forms as the original trait transitions to the end trait and they are dated consistently so that the transitory fossils most similar to the original trait are older than the transitory fossils most similar to the end trait, then you can conclude that the creature with the end trait is descended from the one with the original trait. The evidence for species transitioning over time, as evolution would predict, exists. Creationism makes no such prediction. This is further reinforced by DNA evidence which shows that creatures that have a closer evolutionary ancestor have more similar DNA than those with a further removed ancestor which is what evolution would suggest whereas creationism does not suggest a relationship between similarity of DNA and how closely two species are related. Thus, the evidence unequivocally supports the truth of evolution.

If creationism is true, and if many species that lived are extinct, it is conceivable that many of them might have traits that make them seemingly transitional between modern groups just because of the wide variety of species that lived back then.

For example, if the platypus had gone extinct, and scientists found a platypus fossil, he might have concluded that it is transitional between mammals and birds.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2012 11:39:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/16/2012 11:29:35 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
One word: Fossils.

They single handedly confirm the evolutionary theory of change through time.

The word fossils doesn't show anything true.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2012 11:41:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/16/2012 11:26:56 PM, badger wrote:
that ring species bit is no obliteration of the creationist view. it's just to set a pretty decent foundation for evolution in what we can see in animals around us today.

the fossil record is where it's at as regards definitiveness, and that dna bit sounds rather promising too.

Could you go into more detail?
VainApocalypse
Posts: 74
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2012 11:41:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/16/2012 10:13:40 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 11/16/2012 10:03:31 PM, Enji wrote:
At 11/16/2012 10:01:13 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 11/16/2012 9:57:28 PM, Enji wrote:
What would constitute evolution, according to you?

We both know what the theory of evolution is. Do you have any evidence?

But if I provide evidence for evolution, are you going to go all creationist on me and say "that's not evolution, that's microevolution!"?

The creationists might be right about the evolution thing. A lot of the so-called evidence for evolution is really just evidence for evolution within a species. If that is all the evidence you have, then this debate will be very short.

Mechanically, there is no difference between evolution on a small or large scale.

If you concede that genetic changes accumulate within a species over successive generations, would you also concede then that the accumulation of genetic changes may be so great as to render the mutated progeny sexually incompatible with an ancestor?
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2012 11:42:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/16/2012 11:39:57 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 11/16/2012 11:29:35 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
One word: Fossils.

They single handedly confirm the evolutionary theory of change through time.

The word fossils doesn't show anything true.

How?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Koopin
Posts: 12,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2012 11:49:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
A major problem evolutionist have is explaining. Why? I have no idea. Maybe because they were taught "this is a fact, if you question it your an idiot and we will make jokes about you." It's hard to win people over when your asked for proof and say "DNA" then leave.

Explanation is key. It just like when Christians say "Well, because the bible says so."
kfc
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2012 11:51:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/16/2012 11:49:47 PM, Koopin wrote:
A major problem evolutionist have is explaining. Why? I have no idea. Maybe because they were taught "this is a fact, if you question it your an idiot and we will make jokes about you." It's hard to win people over when your asked for proof and say "DNA" then leave.

Explanation is key. It just like when Christians say "Well, because the bible says so."

Why? Because of a natural selection, genetic drift, gene flow, mutation, and assortative mating.

Anyways, it's not as if evolutionists on this website really care too much about the subject except when pressed. In the next century, all of these fascists will be dead and more scientifically literate people will be born.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2012 11:55:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/16/2012 11:41:24 PM, VainApocalypse wrote:
At 11/16/2012 10:13:40 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 11/16/2012 10:03:31 PM, Enji wrote:
At 11/16/2012 10:01:13 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 11/16/2012 9:57:28 PM, Enji wrote:
What would constitute evolution, according to you?

We both know what the theory of evolution is. Do you have any evidence?

But if I provide evidence for evolution, are you going to go all creationist on me and say "that's not evolution, that's microevolution!"?

The creationists might be right about the evolution thing. A lot of the so-called evidence for evolution is really just evidence for evolution within a species. If that is all the evidence you have, then this debate will be very short.

Mechanically, there is no difference between evolution on a small or large scale.

If you concede that genetic changes accumulate within a species over successive generations, would you also concede then that the accumulation of genetic changes may be so great as to render the mutated progeny sexually incompatible with an ancestor?

I am not so sure. Simply having genetic differences is not enough. They must not be able to reproduce. So genetic chances must be made in the progeny so that sex with the ancestral species fails to produce children. I see no evidence that such changes are not harmful.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2012 11:56:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/16/2012 11:42:28 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 11/16/2012 11:39:57 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 11/16/2012 11:29:35 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
One word: Fossils.

They single handedly confirm the evolutionary theory of change through time.

The word fossils doesn't show anything true.

How?

How does the word fossil show evolution to be true?
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2012 12:09:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/16/2012 11:56:06 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 11/16/2012 11:42:28 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 11/16/2012 11:39:57 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 11/16/2012 11:29:35 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
One word: Fossils.

They single handedly confirm the evolutionary theory of change through time.

The word fossils doesn't show anything true.

How?

How does the word fossil show evolution to be true?

The definition of evolution is that it's change of species through time. The Fossil Record shows us continuing evolution of organisms from the earliest Cyanobacteria 3.5 billion years ago preserved in their own cytoplasm to the fossilization of animals about 570 million years ago. If evolution isn't true, then how is it so that there is a progression of complexity from single celled organisms to special multicellular machines?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2012 12:27:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/17/2012 12:09:05 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 11/16/2012 11:56:06 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 11/16/2012 11:42:28 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 11/16/2012 11:39:57 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 11/16/2012 11:29:35 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
One word: Fossils.

They single handedly confirm the evolutionary theory of change through time.

The word fossils doesn't show anything true.

How?

How does the word fossil show evolution to be true?

The definition of evolution is that it's change of species through time. The Fossil Record shows us continuing evolution of organisms from the earliest Cyanobacteria 3.5 billion years ago preserved in their own cytoplasm to the fossilization of animals about 570 million years ago. If evolution isn't true, then how is it so that there is a progression of complexity from single celled organisms to special multicellular machines?

I don't see any evidence the fossil record shows any evolution. I don't see why you think the fossil record shows the kind of progression of complexity you are talking about.
VainApocalypse
Posts: 74
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2012 1:28:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/16/2012 11:55:24 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 11/16/2012 11:41:24 PM, VainApocalypse wrote:
At 11/16/2012 10:13:40 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 11/16/2012 10:03:31 PM, Enji wrote:
At 11/16/2012 10:01:13 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 11/16/2012 9:57:28 PM, Enji wrote:
What would constitute evolution, according to you?

We both know what the theory of evolution is. Do you have any evidence?

But if I provide evidence for evolution, are you going to go all creationist on me and say "that's not evolution, that's microevolution!"?

The creationists might be right about the evolution thing. A lot of the so-called evidence for evolution is really just evidence for evolution within a species. If that is all the evidence you have, then this debate will be very short.

Mechanically, there is no difference between evolution on a small or large scale.

If you concede that genetic changes accumulate within a species over successive generations, would you also concede then that the accumulation of genetic changes may be so great as to render the mutated progeny sexually incompatible with an ancestor?

I am not so sure. Simply having genetic differences is not enough. They must not be able to reproduce. So genetic chances must be made in the progeny so that sex with the ancestral species fails to produce children. I see no evidence that such changes are not harmful.

Yes, not being able to reproduce is the criteria for having two distinct species, but genetic changes are sufficient to produce that -- and enough of a change necessarily will.

As for "such changes being harmful," mutations have regularly been induced in the laboratory (specifically polyploidy) that produce viable offspring that are genetically incompatible with the unmutated variety. Would we agree then that speciating mutations have the potential to be viable?
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2012 1:32:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/17/2012 1:28:02 AM, VainApocalypse wrote:
At 11/16/2012 11:55:24 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 11/16/2012 11:41:24 PM, VainApocalypse wrote:
At 11/16/2012 10:13:40 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 11/16/2012 10:03:31 PM, Enji wrote:
At 11/16/2012 10:01:13 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 11/16/2012 9:57:28 PM, Enji wrote:
What would constitute evolution, according to you?

We both know what the theory of evolution is. Do you have any evidence?

But if I provide evidence for evolution, are you going to go all creationist on me and say "that's not evolution, that's microevolution!"?

The creationists might be right about the evolution thing. A lot of the so-called evidence for evolution is really just evidence for evolution within a species. If that is all the evidence you have, then this debate will be very short.

Mechanically, there is no difference between evolution on a small or large scale.

If you concede that genetic changes accumulate within a species over successive generations, would you also concede then that the accumulation of genetic changes may be so great as to render the mutated progeny sexually incompatible with an ancestor?

I am not so sure. Simply having genetic differences is not enough. They must not be able to reproduce. So genetic chances must be made in the progeny so that sex with the ancestral species fails to produce children. I see no evidence that such changes are not harmful.

Yes, not being able to reproduce is the criteria for having two distinct species, but genetic changes are sufficient to produce that -- and enough of a change necessarily will.

As for "such changes being harmful," mutations have regularly been induced in the laboratory (specifically polyploidy) that produce viable offspring that are genetically incompatible with the unmutated variety. Would we agree then that speciating mutations have the potential to be viable?

If you can give me an example of such mutations being induced in the lab, then I will believe you and admit that mutations can produce different species.
VainApocalypse
Posts: 74
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2012 4:27:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/17/2012 1:32:34 AM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 11/17/2012 1:28:02 AM, VainApocalypse wrote:
At 11/16/2012 11:55:24 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 11/16/2012 11:41:24 PM, VainApocalypse wrote:
At 11/16/2012 10:13:40 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 11/16/2012 10:03:31 PM, Enji wrote:
At 11/16/2012 10:01:13 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 11/16/2012 9:57:28 PM, Enji wrote:
What would constitute evolution, according to you?

We both know what the theory of evolution is. Do you have any evidence?

But if I provide evidence for evolution, are you going to go all creationist on me and say "that's not evolution, that's microevolution!"?

The creationists might be right about the evolution thing. A lot of the so-called evidence for evolution is really just evidence for evolution within a species. If that is all the evidence you have, then this debate will be very short.

Mechanically, there is no difference between evolution on a small or large scale.

If you concede that genetic changes accumulate within a species over successive generations, would you also concede then that the accumulation of genetic changes may be so great as to render the mutated progeny sexually incompatible with an ancestor?

I am not so sure. Simply having genetic differences is not enough. They must not be able to reproduce. So genetic chances must be made in the progeny so that sex with the ancestral species fails to produce children. I see no evidence that such changes are not harmful.

Yes, not being able to reproduce is the criteria for having two distinct species, but genetic changes are sufficient to produce that -- and enough of a change necessarily will.

As for "such changes being harmful," mutations have regularly been induced in the laboratory (specifically polyploidy) that produce viable offspring that are genetically incompatible with the unmutated variety. Would we agree then that speciating mutations have the potential to be viable?

If you can give me an example of such mutations being induced in the lab, then I will believe you and admit that mutations can produce different species.

Traditionally speciation is thought to only occur with reproductive isolation and a gradual divergence of genes, but speciation can occur via chromosome doubling in a single mutation, and that's much easier to reproduce within the lifespan of a research grant.

When crossing closely related but incompatible species, normally the offspring would be sterile due to unpaired chromosomes, but if a mutation occurs that prevents chromosomes from separating in meiosis, its sex cells will have double the chromosomes, enabling them to pair, and that makes the hybrid fertile. In the lab, we can simulate this mutation with colchicine. It prevents the separation of chromosomes in cell division without we having to wait for a random mutation.

The resulting hybrid will be be fertile for other fertile hybrids but will produce sterile offspring if bred with its ancestors. Being reproductively isolated, it can only become progressively less and less like the ancestors as more subtle mutations accumulate.

I found dozens of publications on this, but a couple include oysters
http://www.patentstorm.us...

and primroses
http://link.springer.com...

Searching speciation by polyploidy will return more.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2012 8:06:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/16/2012 9:38:49 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
That is my question for evolutionists on this forum. I have noticed that many evolutionists here are terrible at actually responding to creationists, so I want to see which among you are legit. I also want to see if I am legit. I know that many of you will ask you whether a post really belongs in the science forum. But the creation evolution debate does involve religion because creationist belief is almost always rooted in some theology.

Plus there are only two posts in the science forum that have to responded to within the last 12 hours last I checked, compared to 21 in this forum.

So give me your best shot.

OK, as a Christian AND an "evolutionist", here is my best shot.

First of all, because science is inductive, there is no such thing as "proof" of a scientific theory, especially a retrodictive theory like evolution, a theory"s veracity lies in how well it organizes and explicates the observational evidence. Consequently, my test of whether you are legit comes down to whether or not you are looking for "proof" or not, you haven"t used the word yet, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

As a Christian, I do not see a conflict between the Biblical Genesis account and the theory of evolution, on the contrary, I find the two accounts complimentary and mutually reinforcing. Consequently, what I reject is that there is a contrived conflict between the two, and would be inclined to debate both creationism and evolution on their own terms. In my opinion, both sides of this debate are not true to their respective positions.

That said, I will present what I see as the evidence for evolution, followed by why I see creationism as a problem on it"s own terms, and then I will briefly present the basis upon which I see the two accounts as mutually reinforcing accounts of two aspects of one and the same reality.

First a quick word about the fossil record discussion, there is a vast amount of fossil evidence that when dated and organized in time, clearly demonstrates a developmental sequence that is consistent with the theory of evolution.

Now I will present the evidence for evolution on its own scientific terms. Rejection of the theory of evolution requires a direct refutation of the most general principles of most of our physical and biological sciences. As a unifying theory of biology, evolution holds true, it provides an organizing principle that stabilized almost all of the available data. Its mechanisms are by no means completely understood and it does not in any way eliminate the mystery of life, question the existence of God, or bring into doubt any of the basic tenets of Christianity, but it is absolutely central to science.

The theory of evolution is the great unifying principle of biology, as powerful a model to biology as Newton"s model was to physics. The conceptual framework of the theory of evolution makes sense of a profoundly wide range of scientific facts and it does it in a magnificent and comprehensive way. It provides a principle of unity, a framework by which science can attempt to explain, to unify, and to order, a vast amount of disparate data into a consistent whole providing tremendous coherence and clarity. To deny evolution you must bring into question the entire interwoven fabric of scientific research.

The denial of the theory of evolution requires the concomitant denial of an astounding range of scientific disciplines, not just the disciplines of geology, paleontology, archeology, radiometric dating, genetics, and zoology, but also such fundamental disciplines as physics, astronomy, astrophysics, chemistry, biochemistry, geophysics, biology, botany, microbiology, and meteorology, and many others. Because of the interrelated aspect of the sciences you can"t really deny evolution without being fundamentally anti-scientific. If you could in fact, deny evolution, it would in effect, unravel the world of science.

And I just don"t see why anyone would want to do that. I simply do not see evolution challenging any of the basic tenets of Christianity; unfortunately, I can"t say the same thing about belief in a conflicting creationist theory. In order to deny evolution and support the belief in an idolatrous literal translation of Genesis, you accordingly have to postulate a deceptive God. You would need to put forth a belief in a God who would create Man with a rational mind, a sense of wonder, and seeking intellect, while creating a universe with the false appearance of tremendous age. This concept of a deceptive God is very hard to accept, it strikes me as a much greater challenge to Christianity than any damage the concept of evolution could ever hope to do.

As I implied in my initial statements here, it is not reasonable to apply the frame of reference of one mode of thinking (science) to the transcendent mode of thinking (faith), and I do not think the creationist "either/or" conclusion is in any way Biblically supportable. The Bible tells us that Christianity is a ministry of reconciliation, the creationist account is based on a conflicting account that attempts to turn the Bible into a scientific text, which robs the Bible of its beauty and contemporary significance, it makes it about something the authors never intended for it to be about, and in the end, it denigrates the Bible. I believe the creationist account turns the Bible into a pretentious idol, a barrier to creative and personal thought, and a myth. I do not accept the Biblical myth that the creationist account tries to impose on me, I do accept the Bible as a profound work of both historical and current significance, and for me, the myth of the Bible is nothing compared to the reality. For me, it is the truth that "is within" that the Bible speaks of and to.

The creationist account denies the transcendent nature of the Biblical text when it tries to apply a scientific treatment to it. Religious narratives achieve greatness because of their power to generate meanings, not because of their value as an historical scientific record. The presumption of a scientifically referential interpretation of Genesis is a crucial mistake made by both Theists and Atheists alike, it is an attempt at reinterpretation of the transcendent dimension in the Genesis narrative that defines it as religious in the first place by assuming that the Genesis "narrative" is nothing but a record of detached scientific facts, which of course it isn't. Forcing such a referential interpretation onto Genesis presumes an alien intention it was never designed to serve, it opens it to scrutiny that only sharpens doctrinal debate and results in divisiveness, the text is completely negated because it can no longer foster religious awareness.

Science tests rather than testifies, the Genesis narrative "images" reality in a relational way, it is designed to bear witness to what is fundamental about experience, not to be a historical record of scientific facts. It is an "inner" rather than an "outer" chart of reality; its intent was to provide an "image" reality, and "relate" the individual to the whole, to help the individual understand where they fit in.

I believe the ministry of reconciliation that the Bible mandates, is a reconciliation of inner and outer reality into individual wholeness. As a Christian I see science as the study of the harmony in nature and I consider nature to be an expression of both spirit and matter. Consequently, I believe the Biblical truth that makes us free is a transcendent truth that unites religion and science into a liberating synthesis of mind, body, and soul.

Continued...
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2012 8:08:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
"Continued

Consequently, I will contend that there is a more Christian way of interpreting the theory of Evolution than the conflict of creationism which lies in the essential nature of what Darwin did. At a point in time when Science was at its peak of materialistic and deterministic hubris, Darwin applied the scientific method to life...and this is what he found.

1) That life was contingent. Contingent upon the rest of creation, its growth and development was a mysterious interplay between nature and nurture, between the individual and the environment, between the part and the whole. He proclaimed all of life to be a unity and stated that in time and space we are all interconnected to each other and to everything.

2) That life was probabilistic; consequently, it was not deterministic. Darwinian evolution has no predictive quality, it"s only half of a physical scientific theory, that"s why it was referred to as natural history rather than science by Darwin. His theory stated that life is open ended, with infinite possibility, and its evolutionary history shows endless variety.

3) That all of life is one life. He demonstrated that all life is interconnected; all life is related to each other and to the rest of the world. In time, he demonstrated that all life had descended (ascended would have been a better word) from one initial instance of life, in effect, all life is one life.

Darwin, by applying the scientific method, rigorously and in a comprehensive way, to life, determined that life was contingent, probabilistic, and constitutes a unity. He put science to Genesis, in no way contradicting it in word or in spirit. He correlated the facts of science to the overriding image provided by theology.

Recognize that this was at the peak of Science's deterministic and materialistic arrogance, and in one fell swoop he turned science around, he changed the direction of Science's journey so to speak. Somewhere along the line, the prodigal son of Science had diverged and now, with centuries of new knowledge and experiences under its belt, it had turned back around and begun a journey down a path that would someday intersect and converge with the original path. This creationist idea that science and religion are opposed is a Sacred Cow that doesn't exist, I think it's time to slaughter that fatted calf and celebrate.

In the words of TS Eliot:

We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2012 10:37:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/16/2012 10:00:24 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 11/16/2012 9:46:49 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 11/16/2012 9:38:49 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
That is my question for evolutionists on this forum. I have noticed that many evolutionists here are terrible at actually responding to creationists, so I want to see which among you are legit. I also want to see if I am legit. I know that many of you will ask you whether a post really belongs in the science forum. But the creation evolution debate does involve religion because creationist belief is almost always rooted in some theology.

Plus there are only two posts in the science forum that have to responded to within the last 12 hours last I checked, compared to 21 in this forum.

So give me your best shot.

DNA, fossils, Darwin's research.

Lacks specificity.

Micro-evolution, a small change over a small time, is observed. So macro-evolution, a large change over a large time, is possible, since lots of micro=macro, and micro is observed.

Now, did macro happen? DNA evidence shows that all species share DNA in a way that is consistent with evolution. Also, fossil evidence confirms this. So, DNA and fossils show that species have been slowly changing over time. We know that this change is possible, so we use evolution to explain it.

So, if you have a better explanation let me know.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2012 12:22:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/17/2012 12:27:16 AM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 11/17/2012 12:09:05 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 11/16/2012 11:56:06 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 11/16/2012 11:42:28 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 11/16/2012 11:39:57 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 11/16/2012 11:29:35 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
One word: Fossils.

They single handedly confirm the evolutionary theory of change through time.

The word fossils doesn't show anything true.

How?

How does the word fossil show evolution to be true?

The definition of evolution is that it's change of species through time. The Fossil Record shows us continuing evolution of organisms from the earliest Cyanobacteria 3.5 billion years ago preserved in their own cytoplasm to the fossilization of animals about 570 million years ago. If evolution isn't true, then how is it so that there is a progression of complexity from single celled organisms to special multicellular machines?

I don't see any evidence the fossil record shows any evolution. I don't see why you think the fossil record shows the kind of progression of complexity you are talking about.

Wow... you are retarded. What you "see" is irrelevant. I don't give a fvck about what you care or what you see. I don't care what happens to you or whether you die tomorrow. I care about what is fact, and fact is not open up to subjectivity. It's a fact that evolution is true. Whether you accept it or not is irrelevant, because the scientifically illiterate types as you will soon die off and with schools actually teaching real science to the children, a new generations of non- Christian fascists will prosper.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2012 12:33:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/16/2012 11:29:35 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
One word: Fossils.

They single handedly confirm the evolutionary theory of change through time.

How can you tell from looking at 2 sets of bones that one organism descended from the other?? All you can say is that there are similarities, you can't show any proof of any kind of connection between the two.