Key points of Evolution

New guy, first post."The evolution has been observed, both in the changes in traits from generation to generation, and in the separation of subpopulations where gene mixing ceases, and in the different results in different ecologies. In this regard we have factual evidence that all these processes of evolution have occurred and will continue to occur. We also see exactly the same trends in the fossil record. We also see exactly the same trends in relationships between different populations of organisms in the fossil record and in the genetic record, thus confirming the relationships of organisms to common ancestor populations.We can say that evolution is a fact of life, and that as a result, diversity is inevitable." This is a quotation from a previous post. I don't know how to get it into a box. Can someone help me out with this?There are a couple of problems with your summation of evolution. One is that you are confusing evolution with natural selection. Natural selection, the selecting out or selecting for certain traits is observable. This is like a dog breeding program. It is not evolution. Evolution is an increase in complexity and organization through incremental change leading from one species to another. The evidence for this is substantially weaker.
The second is your reference to factual evidence. There are no facts in science. We form a hypothesis based on empirical evidence with the understanding that it may need to be changed if additional evidence comes forward. The closest thing to a fact in science is a reasonable probability. Claiming evolution as a fact is misleading and harmful to the reputation of science.

Here is the dictionary definition;
"A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form."Natural selection is not evolution. Natural selection cannot lead from single cell organisms to humans. Natural selection does not lead to an increase in complexity. The industrial revolution caused soot on trees that made white butterflies more visible and therefore easier prey. Their population decreased but there was no increase in the complexity of the genetic code of the darker coloured butterflies to create a more advanced organism.

So if hypothetically evolution is proven wrong as is possible, does that mean it was never a fact or that facts are not actually facts and can change?

I think we're worrying too much about the semantics here. I think that nagging question behind the verbal volleyball is; Did the progression from a one-celled organism to an extremely complex multi-celled organism happen with the help of a creator or not? A precussor to this question is; Did the nucleic acids together with their phosphates and sugars along with the very specific enzymes, the ATP molecules, and intact semi-permeable membrane (which are ALL necessary for life according to experience so far) come together as freak chance or did a creator set them up? Looking at valiant efforts of evolutionists trying to reproduce the first cell and the second law of thermodynamics where in an open or closed system, all things tend toward entropy, not increasing complexity, I'd say it is more probable that a creator was involved.

Is this typical of athiest discussion points? If you are trying to win your way into my heart, logic, data, and chocolate work better. I have been avoiding creationist websites up to this point in my search fearing, perhaps unjustly, that they would be entrenched in their views and not open for honest discussion. The science in me would like to see some data rather than just taking your word for it. In simple terms, all things tend toward disorder. As I said in my previous post, the theory of evolution claims that in this situation, life became more and more ordered. If you are driving down the highway and you see white stones that spell out the words, "Welcome to Timmins", is your immediate thought;
a) Isn't that interesting that all those white stones rolled down the hill and stopped in exactly the right spot to spell out those words.
or
b) Someone put the stones there?

I've been trying for the last couple of months to get a handle on the issue. I been reading some books, thinking, and visiting evolution and ID sites and am right now tending toward the existence of a creator as more probable than complete chance. There are many reasons that I am tending this way but my thought process concerning the "beginning" question went like this. The universe couldn't have existed forever since, if it had, heat and energy would be evenly dispersed throughout the universe. The other option is that it was created. That it was created from nothing doesn't make scientific sense. That a being who theoretically existed forever created it doesn't make scientific sense. A being, however, holds a slight logical advantage in that a solely physical universe couldn't create itself. I've even considered aliens or virtual reality. It makes the science in me cringe but I'm trying to be as open minded about this as possible and therefore trying not to rule out any possiblities. What's your opinion on the original creation?

I would love to discuss this more with you. I tried to start a post and the administrator put me in the Great Debate section with an individual named subbie. I'm going to try and hash things out with him/her/it(could be a robot). I reread your post and realize I misinterpreted. My excuse is ....um, can't think of one right now but I apologise. Can we reconnect after my date with subbie?Let me ask you about what you mean by If it's not complete chance, then the inference is that there was some guidance. What other options are there?

And individuals who have lost a leg report feeling pain as real as when it was present. One hundred years ago there was 350 km of paved road in North America. Cars and planes were in their infancy. Image what the technology will be like in another 1000 years. There are solar systems that are far older than ours and so if there is life in other solar systems, the technology to completely fool us could easily exist.Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.

I have found out that the dictionary definition of evolution is quite different than the atheist's. I have found out that a lot of the discussion is about semantics. I have found out that evolution is not a huge determining factor in the points for or against a creator. I have found out that a center of the fight is not for or against evolution but between atheists and fundamentalist Christians. I've found out that the fight is largely a political one. And I've found out that I rather enjoy the intellectual stimulation. Now a bad harvest for two months of thinking.

Merriam-Webster’s - "a theory that the various kinds of plants and animals are descended from other kinds that lived in earlier times and that the differences are due to inherited changes that took place over many generations."I get the sense that when atheists talk about evolution, they are defining it basically as change. I wasn't talking about the definition of evolution when I said "complete chance." During one of my graduate courses in microbiology we went through an university level biology textbook with our supervisor specifically to evaluate it for errors. You would not believe.... I know that's really not on the point but let me get back to what I said originally .... a lot of it is about semantics. Could you eleborate? Do you mean non-fundamentalists in other religions? Are you including atheism as a religion? I have not seen a lot of the bile of atheists directed at other religons. That is likely because this is an American site (isn't it?) and other religions are in the minority. I wonder if there are the same intense discussions in countries where other religions predominate. Anyone know? I have found some interesting but rarely stimulating. I'll have to think about that one.

I'll bet your great as a meeting chairperson.I tend to see everything in probabilities and therefore have no absolute answers in my head but here is what I am thinking at this point.1) It is highly probable that early life was simple and as time went on, it became more complex. I'm not so sure about the tree part. With DNA segments appearing in different branches of plants and animals but not in their ancestors (HGT) I'm tending more toward the web model as more probable than the tree but haven't made up my mind yet. It is highly probable that living things are interconnected (ADD kicking in) although I'm wondering why the DNA code itself never evolved. It's not the most efficient system. Any ideas?
2. Highly probable although I'm still not sure as to whether the changes were limited to natural selection or included evolution.Second Section
1)Yes, BUT with the inclusion of the point that the ideas in science are theories and are open to be evaluated and changed if necessary. I think that we are doing science a disservice by preaching the "atheistic evolution is the one true way and there are no others" doctorine. I include the word atheistic because I haven't heard of a curriculum in public schools that include a creator based evolution. This issue is a case in point. Each side's websites look convincing. A cursory glance could convince a casual reader either way. In my opinion it is critical that we teach analysis, logical thinking, and evalutation. Look at the case of the former Soviet Union. For 70 years the communists were in power. They demanded that atheistic evolution be taught in every institution with techniques that bordered on brainwashing. I googled a couple of surveys and the self-proclaimed non-believers in a creator currently stands at around 17 % in that country. This says to me that pushing a theory as the only true way backfires. We should be pushing thinking skills. Critical thinking is far more important. The internet, etc. is full of hoaxes and scams. An individual unprepared is a mark. (Getting down from the podium)
2. I'm not an expert on the Bible and therefore cannot reply to this with certainty but it seems to me that it would be in conflict with the literalists.As to your other questions, I have a very methodical mind and am proceeding through this in an orderly fashion. I am at the state now where I feel, for a wide variety of reasons, that it is more probable that a creator (alien, god, God, gods, I'm not sure) had some involvement in the universe somewhere along the line. As to what kind of creator this may be, I'm still working on that. Again, I'm not an expert on the Bible but I could see a non-literalist believing in "God of the Bible" and still able to accept the first two assertions.What's your opinion? Or did you post it somewhere. I haven't read through all the pages.Edited by alaninnont, : No reason given.

By including these in the same category you are saying that there is a significant controversy over these ideas and that alternative explanations exist.

You missed my point. You are right. Evolution is not atheistic. There are some who believe that evolution happened with the aid of a creator and some who believe that it happened without. As far as I am aware, the evolution that is taught in school is without, atheistic evolution.