|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Key points of Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi molbiogirl,
molbiogirl writes: It's hard to see how creos could brush off evolution of a new body part as "micro". I don't see the pictures or the gut that did not have the cecal valve. But to quote your article:
Still just a lizard, I know. That is not a new creature just a new species of lizard if his ancestors did not have the cecal valve. God Bless, Edited by ICANT, : correct spelling "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2669 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
Should you wish to carry on this discussion, we should retire here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2505 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
antiLIE writes: bluegenes writes:
This is decietful. Only Microevolution can be observed. I do not deny that. Biological evolution is a phenomenon that can be observed Microevolution is biological evolution. My statement was not "all biological evolution can be directly observed."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2505 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
seekingthetruth writes: bluegenes writes: Not really. Biological evolution is a phenomenon that can be observed, as I've pointed out to you on another thread. No-one has ever observed Allah or any other supernatural being creating anything. You seem to want to deceive yourself about this. Why? Surely being "antiLIE" implies a distaste for lying to yourself, as well as to others. Just as no one was there to witness the creation of the universe, or the first lifeforms on the planet. Just because something is not witnessed does not mean it is not there. I would cite gravity and oxygen as examples. We cannot see them but we know they are there. I seem to be having communication problems with, not one, but two lovers of truth from Austin, Texas, both on the same day. Let me try and clarify. My statement was that biological evolution can be observed. I did not specify "directly observed", but on a small scale, it can be directly observed. You give examples of two things, an element and a force, the existence of which can be indirectly observed. Historical happenings can also be indirectly observed, or, to put it another way, deduced from direct observations made in the present. None of the creation mythologies believed in around the world are supported by either direct or indirect observations. All this is rather off topic, I suppose, so if anyone wants to continue a discussion on what can be observed about biological evolution, I'd be happy to join in on a relevant thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Deftil Member (Idle past 4483 days) Posts: 128 From: Virginia, USA Joined: |
I agree that:
1) One Family Tree unites all of life and 2) Species change through time and place I also agree that:1) These two ideas must be taught in every science curriculum. However:2) Neither of these ideas are directly in conflict with the Bible. is pretty questionable. It depends on how one interprets the Bible as far as that goes. The number of different ways the Bible can be interpreted is evidenced by how much debate goes on about the meaning of words that are normally simple but get fuzzy in the content of the passages.Many creationists seem to think evolution is in conflict with the Bible, and many evolutionists seem to think the same. Telling people that the key points of evolution are not in conflict with the Bible is to tell them that a particular way of inerpreting the Bible is correct, namely, the way that doesn't directly conflict with evolution. So it's almost like telling people how to interpret the Bible instead of making a blanket statement that everyone can agree on, even the Christians that were previously hostile towards evolution because they didn't realize that it didn't conflict with their beliefs. If they believe that evolution is in conflict with their beliefs, than it's probably going to be pretty difficult to get them to believe otherwise. Edited by Deftil, : accidently put "the way that doesn't directly conflict with the Bible" instead of "with evolution"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2505 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Deftil writes: Telling people that the key points of evolution are not in conflict with the Bible is to tell them that a particular way of inerpreting the Bible is correct, namely, the way that doesn't directly conflict with the Bible. I think you might have meant "science" instead of "Bible" in that last word. If so, I'm inclined to agree. That there are interpretations of Christianity that don't conflict directly with scientific knowledge is true. But whether or not they have greater theological validity than anti-science interpretations is questionable. I don't actually think that any religions sit very well with the kind of thinking that drives science. The stronger an individual's respect for evidence is, the less likely they are to hold strong beliefs that require blind faith. Welcome to EvC.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Deftil Member (Idle past 4483 days) Posts: 128 From: Virginia, USA Joined: |
bluegenes writes: I think you might have meant "science" instead of "Bible" in that last word. Yes, you are correct. thank you
bluegenes writes: Welcome to EvC. thanks again
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
platypus Member (Idle past 5781 days) Posts: 139 Joined: |
Hello Deftil,
Welcome to EvC, and thank you for reponding directly to the topic.
Telling people that the key points of evolution are not in conflict with the Bible is to tell them that a particular way of inerpreting the Bible is correct, namely, the way that doesn't directly conflict with evolution. Actually, I would rephrase this slightly differently. I am not telling them that they must accept a particular interpreting, I am just telling them that there are certain interpretations that they cannot accept. They can choose from any number of possible interpretations except for the few that contradict evolution. Or they can choose an interpretation that contradicts evolution with the understanding that it is not factually true. As an example interpretation which makes bluegenes point, let's say we interpret the genesis story not as historically true, but as a story that contains moral truths. This is the same way we would interpret aesop's fables for instance. Even though the factual nature of a fable contains falshoods (wolves talking), the moral nature of the story does contain truth in a way (don't cry wolf). God may not have created the world in exactly the order presented in genesis, but he did create humans after most other things, when he could dedicate to them great care and love. This interpretation actually has more power and meaning than a historically factual one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
platypus Member (Idle past 5781 days) Posts: 139 Joined: |
Randman,
Please be more specific. What definition of evolution did you use, and why were you told it was wrong?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
platypus Member (Idle past 5781 days) Posts: 139 Joined: |
Seeking,
I know things got sidetracked, any chance I can hear your response to my Message 23? I'm interested to hear your response. You hear evolutionist says we are descedant from apes and monkees. Sure, but that's not the point. All of life is related, not just human's with monkees. If you hug a tree, you're hugging a relative, a very distant relative, but a relative nonetheless." Dr. Joan Roughgarden in Evolution and Christian Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4927 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
I like like your definition just fine. I think it's very clear when people debate evolution, they are referring to universal common descent via NeoDarwinism, and not just heritable change.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Welcome to the fray antiLie.
[my last post on this thread] Therefore I won't reply to you expecting an answer, but just to straighten out several misconceptions for other readers that happen by.
I shouldn't even be on this thread. This is why; I do not even agree that evolution is scientifically possible. Fortunately nature is not inhibited in any way by what you believe is possible, it just keeps doing what comes naturally. This is the general problem when dealing with truths: they are true whether you believe them or not, they are independent of belief.
This is decietful. Only Microevolution can be observed. I do not deny that. There is nothing deceitful about saying that evolution has been observed: evolution at it's simplest is the change in hereditary traits in a population from generation to generation -- and there is no population where this is not observed. If you want to wrangle about terminology, then I can suggest several threads that deal with microevolution versus macroevolution -- the critical element being actually defining what macroevolution is:
MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it? "Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism? Can Domestic Selection cause Macroevolution? When does microevolution turn into macroevolution? How different is macro/micro evolution and one that has already been suggested:
Dogs will be Dogs wil be ??? As you can see, there has been discussion about this before. Unfortunately it seems that no creationist has really answered the question of what macroevolution IS before declaring that it can't happen.
Message 33 we have, One Family Tree unites all of life and Species change through time and place what else? But the first is not necessary for evolution to be true. If only microevolution has happened since T=0 then evolution is still true. For one, the change has to be hereditary for it to be evolution, for another it has to cause a differential advantage for survival or breeding for selection to operate. Change for change sake is not evolution.
You saying that evolution is a fact, is the same as myself saying creation is a fact. No, the difference is that evolution has been observed, and that is why it is a fact and not just an assertion.
...calling evolution a fact, is not a keypoint to the theory Correct, because that would be confusing the evidence that forms the basis for making the theory, the factual process of evolution -- the observed change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation -- with the theory of evolution -- the theory that this process is sufficient to explain the diversity of life we know on earth. All scientific theories are based on known evidence, and then they make predictions of what you will find if the theory is true. The better the theory is, the better it explains all the current evidence and makes new predictions that can be tested.
you are saying that fossils, geology, cosmology, microbiology, and biology are not key points of evolution... wow This has been answered adequately by PaulK in Message 31, however this shows that you are confused about what is and what is not evolution. Couple this with your assertion (see above) that evolution is not scientifically possible, really means that you don't really know what you believe. This is not uncommon. An easy resolution is to learn what evolution is really about, not what creationists - and other non-biologists - tell you. Now we get to your response to my simple post, Message 22:
even if you say it over and over you can not make it true. What makes it true is the testing of concepts against the evidence of reality. Note that I said several testable things:
Key points of Evolution; - There are fossils, geology, cosmology, microbiology, and biology Do not confuse evolution with the natural history of what has happened. Fossils are evidence of past life, evidence that we can use to test the theory of evolution, but they themselves do not evolve.
- To deny this, you are saying that Evolution is only biology. As pointed out above evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation -- as such it is necessarily a part of biology, and is NOT part of astronomy or geology.
- I have college "Biology" text books that teach paleontology, geology and cosmology to push the principals of evolution theory. So quote what they say. Do they teach them as essential elements of the theory or do they state that these are additional areas of vast amounts of evidence for what has happened that just happen to corroborate the evidence for evolution. I believe you are still confusing the evidence of the natural history of life, earth and the universe with the biological concept of evolution.
Evolution has to have vast amounts of time to work according to naturalists. Nope. Evolution occurs from generation to generation, and it can be -- and has been -- studied from generation to generation.
So they have to involve these other scientific fields in order to have evolution. False again. Note what I have said previously: evolution is simply the change in hereditary traits from generation to generation, the theory of evolution is that this process is sufficient to explain the diversity of life we know on earth, the fossil record is a test of that theory. The fact is that the age of the earth is irrelevant to evolution, however, the fact that it IS OLD is evidence that evolution CAN explain the diversity of life. It is not required that the evidence support the theory, it is just another one of the many ways the theory is corroborated.
- What is funny, is that every ones eyes are different. The evidence you have for evolution you are seeing through evolution colored glasses. The same evidence proves creation when viewed by creationists. However I realize that this never matters to either side. The individual is always right, from a certain point of view. (obi-wan kenobi logic) And now we come to one of the pet excuses for creationists -- it sure sounds convincing, but I have yet to see any substantiation of this claim. Not one. I've seen whole threads with creationist dancing around the issue but never really addressing what those different eyes see. Let me quote from message 50 of the "So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work?" thread (you can substitute "creationist" for "ID"):
Science presupposes that there is a single objective reality. The alternative is to suppose that there is no single objective reality, that nothing is real -- is this the ID position? Should that position be taught in science class? Science presupposes that the objective evidence we observe\experience\witness truly represents that reality. The alternative is to suppose that evidence is false -- is this the ID position? Should that position be taught in science class? Science presupposes we need to test our concepts against the evidence of reality to weed out falsehood and fantasy. The alternative is to suppose that we don't need to test concepts to weed out falsehood and fantasy -- is this the ID position? Should it be taught in school? Science presupposes that any invalidated theories are false and no longer relevant to understanding reality. The alternative is to suppose that we need to consider every theory that has ever been proposed as still possibly as true as any other -- it this the ID position? Should it be taught in school? So when it comes to alternative explanations -- what are they? Real explanations deal with all the evidence, not just the evidence that is convenient. Enjoy. by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Deftil Member (Idle past 4483 days) Posts: 128 From: Virginia, USA Joined: |
Actually, I would rephrase this slightly differently. I am not telling them that they must accept a particular interpreting, I am just telling them that there are certain interpretations that they cannot accept. They can choose from any number of possible interpretations except for the few that contradict evolution. Or they can choose an interpretation that contradicts evolution with the understanding that it is not factually true. I understand, but I think the result is the same. For those people that insist on a literal interpretation of the Bible, well, you're kind of telling them that their interpretation is wrong.Now if sending this kind of message has the effect of causing fewer Christians to insist on taking the Bible literally while allowing them to accept evolution, then I'm all for it. But personally, I'm not a Christian, so I don't necessarily feel it's appropriate for me to tell Christians which ways they can and can't interpret the Bible. If I was a Christian however, I would likely be campaigning for others to subscribe to my type of biblical intepretation which would allow for the acceptance of evolution, but like I've said, I'm not sure if I feel right, as a non-Christian, doing that kind of thing. Perhaps I should rethink my stance on this. Maybe I should be doing whatever I can to open people's minds to the truth. There could be a lot of Christians out there who don't believe in evolution because they don't realize it can be compatible with their beliefs. Maybe those people are being swayed by the more fundametalist of the Christians that speak out loudly against believing in evolution, and therefore end up having an anti-science viewpoint, that includes supporting teaching ID in school science classes. If we could get to these people before the anti-science sentiments are cemented in their minds, perhaps we could end up with a larger group of Christians who are accepting of evolution, and understanding of science in general. I'm not entirely sure how many people of that type are out there though, and I'm still really not too sure how comfortable I feel with explaining to people ways they can interpret their religion, when I, myself don't subscribe to that religion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wumpini Member (Idle past 5791 days) Posts: 229 From: Ghana West Africa Joined: |
If I understand correctly, this thread is dealing with what should be taught in schools regarding the subject of evolution. It seems that it is being promoted that evolution can be taught in such a way that it will not be offensive to those who believe in creation.
Since I am interested in the "Theory of Evolution," and I am also interested in the welfare of children in the United States of America, I think I will attempt to participate in this discussion. It seems that Razd is saying there is a factual process that can be observed directly at the present time which supports the theory of biological evolution. Razd says:
the factual process of evolution -- the observed change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation I agree that this process is supported by evidence which can be observed in the present, and therefore should be taught as fact in schools. Razd then says:
the theory of evolution -- the theory that this process is sufficient to explain the diversity of life we know on earth. That is quite a leap (you might even say a leap of faith). How can we say that observing small changes in the hereditary traits of populations is sufficient to explain the diversity of life we know on earth. There appear to be way too many unknowns to promote this as an acceptable theory. I really have a problem with the word sufficient. We should teach that hereditary change occurs in population over time. That is a fact. We should teach that it is a theory that these changes may result in the population changing to the extent that a parent population can give rise to two separate populations that are considered different species. They no longer have the ability to interact in such a way to produce offspring. This is a theory, and should be taught as such. However, to make the statement that these hereditary changes are sufficient to explain all of the diversity in life on the earth today does not even appear to be close to a supportable theory. This should not be taught as a theory that is supportable by the evidence. It should not be taught in such a way that students would get the impression that it is a scientific fact. It could be taught that some scientists promote the idea that these changes that we see in organisms could explain the diversity in life that we see on this planet. It could also be taught that others promote the view that the diversity we see in life is due to supernatural causes that are no longer taking place on the earth today. How can we teach that our observations are sufficient to support this theory of evolution. Scientifically, we do not even have a solid theory for the origin of life. After its origin there does not seem to be solid theories to explain many of the changes that would have to take place from a single cell asexual organism to the diversity of life that we see on this planet at the present time. Would it not be more reasonable to teach the facts as we know them. This would encourage children to have the desire to seek out the truth. Scientifically we have no reasonable explanation for the origin of life, or the diversity we see here on earth. We have a theory that explains change in organisms. It is hoped that this theory will be developed in the future to sufficiently explain the diversity of life on earth. However, this theory is not sufficient at the present time to explain many of the changes that would have needed to take place for the diversity and complexity of life that we see today. Should biological evolution be taught in schools? Yes Should the theory of evolution be taught in such a way that it is understood to be sufficient to explain the diversity of life on earth today? No Should students be taught that there are various views related to the diversity of life that have not been scientifically proven including some that suppose that supernatural events took place? Yes This would give the student the same opportunity that you and I have. To seek out the truth! Thanks "There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wumpini Member (Idle past 5791 days) Posts: 229 From: Ghana West Africa Joined: |
Hi platypus,
I am sorry but I have not read the book so I am not qualified to respond on whether it is promoting evolution in a manner that is Christian friendly. I do believe that a theory of evolution could be taught in a manner that is not in contradiction to the Bible (not the theory that I have read on this thread). I do not believe that the theory of evolution will be taught in a manner that is in agreement with the Bible by most scientists. A scientist who understands and believes in the Bible, and who is willing to teach the truth under the threat of censorship by his peers could accomplish this task. It is not likely to happen very often! Thanks "There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024