Evolution is a Religious Issue

quote:

---

"Anyone who doubts this is a religious issue need only spend a little time here watching the less experienced Creationists talk about God and the Bible in threads that are strictly about science."

​

This is the real crux of the debate. It is a God issue.

​

Evolution requires a staggering amount of faith, moreso than creationism in my opinion,

---

Actually, it requires no faith at all. We see it happening before our eyes, both in the lab and in the field, and the fossil, geologic, and genetic evidence all support the ToE.There is no blind belief, only voluminous evidence and thousands and thousands of borne-out preditions.

quote:

---

and since God alone, or nobody if you are an atheist, was present "in the beginning," neither side will be able to "scientifically" prove their assertion.

---

So, do you dismiss the investigative field of forensics?If we walk into our house after a long day at work, and we see that the door lock was jimmied, all the jewelry and electronics are missing, can we conclude that we were burgled, even though we didn't see it? And, when the crime scene is processed, can we not gather evidence such as fingerprints, tire tracks, footprints, and other evidence left behind by the perpetrator that you would accept as inferred evidence of who did the crime, and perhaps other crimes, if they could be matched?The scientific study of past events is very similar.

quote:

---

I imagine that I will be criticized for the following unsupported statements, but please permit me a few cursory observations regarding this site:

​

1. Horizontal variation within a genotype is quite a different thing than vertical evolution.

---

Please define "vertical evolution".

quote:

---

Genetic mutation leading to increasingly complex processes/organizations is illogical and "unscientific." While being overly simplistic, reading about the assertion that taking 200 steps backward (negative result of a mutation/Devolution) and one step forward (some perceived "beneficial" mutation/evolution) has resulted in intelligent life from a primordial soup is outright comical, except for the fact that it has so many proselytes.

---

What you are saying above is "I can't believe it happened that way, so it didn't". Unfortunately, this is a logical fallacy called the "Argument from Incredulity".Other than your personal incredulity, do you have any specific arguments regarding specific scientific evidence or any other evidence-based examples to support your dismissal of the field of Biology?For example, perhaps you can describe how mutation combined with natural selection is "unscientific"?

quote:

---

2. When you boil evolution down to its quintessence, all you really have is spontaneous generation

---

Perhaps you are referring to Abiogenesis, the idea that life first arose from non-life? "Spontaneous Generation" usually refers to the idea of things like maggots and flies springing forth from non-living things like rotting food or dust.Anyway, the Theory of Evolution does not address where the first life came from at all. It deals with what has happened to life once it got here. God could have poofed that first life into existence, it could have been seeded from another place, but how it got here has no effect upon the Theory at all.So, your argument is a strawman.

quote:

---

standing upon some magical amount of time that is "theorized" to overturn everything that current, repeatable, observable, scientific inquiry tells us - life does not come from non-life,

---

That is inaccurate. We have not observed it yet, but this is not the same as stating that life does not come from non-life. We do have some observations which show that organic molecules can be formed from inorganic molecules with electricity.Anyway, were you planning on addressing the Theory of Evolution any time soon? Why are you talking so much about other things?

quote:

---

or for that matter something from nothing, which would by definition speak of a First Cause, but I digress.

---

You certainly do.

quote:

---

3. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. It's a bit late, so I'm not going to elaborate. A rudimentary understanding of physics, I hope, will render this citation self-evident.

---

Does the 2nd law apply to open or closed systems?Is the Earth a closed or an open system?

Brad is our beloved resident John Nash; possibly brilliant but nobody can quite tell.

quote:

---

But care to prove the following?

---

Sure.Every time we dig up some new fossil bed, we pretty much never find fossils out of order. We never find jurassic mammals in Cambrian layers, for example.Each and every one of those many, many thousands of fossils, each found in the layer that the Theory of Evolution predicts they should be in, is a borne out prediction and potential falsification of the Theory.

quote:

---

If it's real science, then let's don't deal in exegerration, propoganda, etc

---

But it's not an exaggeration. It is literally true.

Randman, do you accept DNA paternity tests as accurate?

quote:

---

For example, if one accepts the anthropomorphic principle as valid, then that would make one an IDer and not a materialist evolutionist because there would be a goal intended prior to the development and evolution of species.

---

The Anthropic Principle has no effect upon the validity of the Biological Theory of Evolution as far as I am aware.Perhaps you can explain more about how you think it does.

You made the claim that the YEC model is one of the more testable modles out there, so you must have some specific examples in mind of how it is testable.Please provide them or retract the claim.

quote:

---

You cannot claim speciation is proof of common descent when it could just as easily be proof of YEC. If you want to say YEC is wrong because the earth is old, fine, but the whole argument that speciation proves common descent is totally specious on the face of it, and one reason I have to laugh.

​

Maybe the fundies are winning over large segments of the population not because they are brainwashing them but because the methods and approach and claims of evolutionists in arguing for evolution are unsound, illogical, and are based on wild overstatements!

---

Randman, do you accept DNA paternity testing as accurate?

quote:

---

You cannot claim speciation is proof of common descent when it could just as easily be proof of YEC. If you want to say YEC is wrong because the earth is old, fine, but the whole argument that speciation proves common descent is totally specious on the face of it, and one reason I have to laugh.

​

Maybe the fundies are winning over large segments of the population not because they are brainwashing them but because the methods and approach and claims of evolutionists in arguing for evolution are unsound, illogical, and are based on wild overstatements!

---

You mentioned evidence of common descent in the above post, did you not? And you are appearing to doubt that evidence for common descent is reliable or strong, correct?By asking if you accept the accuracy of DNA paternity testing, I am attempting to learn if you generally accept the technology and Evolutionary theory used to determine genetic similarity and disimilarity in individuals.My next question, if you had answered in the affirmative, was to ask if you knew of any reason the same theory and technology couldn't be applied to the species level....and if it can be applied to the species level, it can be applied to the genus level....and if it can be applied to the genus level, it can be applied to the family level, and so on through suborder, order, and phylum.So, do you accept the accuracy of DNA paternity tests?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 05-31-2005 08:23 AM

quote:

---

Schraf, genetic research certainly is finally some stronger evidence for evolution,

---

Genetics is the field which basically solidified the Theory of Evolution as the dominant theory which describes origin of species on Earth.Specifically, that genetic trees of life matched, very accurately, the morphological trees of life that had been developed before DNA was ever discovered.

quote:

---

but the fact that evolutionists claimed it was virtually proven prior to that does not help your case, and this is the problem, evolutionists are always overstating the evidence.

---

But, what evidence counted against evolutionary theory in any meaningful way, even before the discovery of DNA?

quote:

---

You are probably familiar with some arguments countering what you are suggesting. In the case of a paternity suit, we have an observable process that DNA studies sheds light on.

---

Right.

quote:

---

But in the case of linking all of life back together, there are problems with that since there could well be alternative explanations for the genetic similarities. For example, one could claim that the similarities are due to similar authorship and not evolution.

---

So, at what point along the genetic line can you point to and tell me when the evolutionary process wasn't or couldn't be the source of the genetic pattern we see?Presumably your "author" made copying mistakes like evolution did, and produced mutations that led to deformity and disease, and created many, many species only to become extinct.

quote:

---

Take the works of a painter. His work seems to evolve over time, and you can see distinct patterns, colors, brush-strokes, subject matter, etc,....evolve over time, and you tend to see that works usually closer together in time appear to be more similar.

​

But we know the paintings themselves do not evolve one from another, but exhibit similar traits (similar DNA forming those traits) because we have observed the process of creation in paintings. Same authorship thus explains the similarities, not evolution, for the paintings. Thus, genetic similarities can also just be evidence for monotheism or a single Creator instead of a multiple of gods.

---

Um.Paintings do not sexually reproduce all on their own, do they?

quote:

---

Another aspect to the DNA argument you put forth is whether genetic research shows the number, frequency, type, etc,...of mutations sufficient to produce, along with natural selection, the evolution of all of life, including in such degrees as to create seemingly irreducibly complex systems without some other force or unknown acting on the biological system to assist that development.

---

This is just an arguemnt from incredulity; "because I cannot imagine how X could have arisen naturally, God must have done it."Just because we do not currently understand something does not mean that it does not have a naturalistic explanation.It just means that we do not currently know.Have you ever seen one of those amazing rock formations in the desert in the shape of a stone arch?That's an irreducably complex thing that was produced by erosion. It needed no supernatural intervention to form.

quote:

---

I have read that the available data does not indicate that observable mutations are sufficient for this, but then again, I am not actually educated sufficiently in the field of genetics to be able to independently determine who is right in their claims here.

---

I know of no such data. Please provide.What the ID people seem to believe about evolution of IC systems is that biological systems MUST evolve in a linear fashion, adding one crucial component to a system at a time. This is, of course, not true. There are an unlimited number of possible evolutionary paths to any particular state.The "Argument from IC" assumes that to reach the state A+B+C+E, one must go through this - and ONLY this - evolutionary path:A
A+B
A+B+C
A+B+C+EOf course, that's not the only path. It could have happened like this:A
A+B
A+B+C
A+B+C+D
A+B+C+D+E
A+B+C+E (loss of a part)Or this:A
A+B
A+B+C
A+B+C+D
A+B+C+E (substitution of a part)or any of literally infinite other possibilities.So while A+B+C+E may not be available through a simple linear path, evolution isn't limited to simple, linear paths.

quote:

---

My weight goes to the IDers, in part, because of the way I see evolutionists make claims in areas I do think I am able to assess. I have already made my observations known, but evolutionism seems to depend on indoctrination, from what I can tell.

---

By "already made my observations known", I can only guess you mean "I have repeatedly declared my claim that evolutionists overstate their case, without actually showing much understanding of the empirical case for evolution."

quote:

---

So Shraf, your argument is to attack "my author." Wow, that's persuasive.

---

I said: Please explain how this is an "attack". I am merely stating fact.Do we not see copying mistakes in genes which lead to deformity and disease?Have not most of the species ever to have lived on the planet gone extinct?I find it very telling that you consider the stating of reality as an "attack" of some kind.What, do you think that the Grand Designer (painter?) is somehow not also responsible for genetic disease and extinction? You can't have things both ways, you know.

quote:

---

I have given you a valid explanation for how similarities in DNA can arise without universal common descent.

---

No, you haven't.

quote:

---

You can think the explanation is not valid because, hey, paintings do not sexually reproduce,

---

Yes, EXACTLY because paintings do not sexually reproduce all on their own.That is precisely where your analogy breaks down. Inanimate objects such as paintings do not sexually reproduce and produce offspring all on their own like living things do.

quote:

---

but in the end of the day, you are making a claim that cannot be proven.

---

No, but it can be, and is, extremely well supported by the evidence.Can you tell me where along the line of a given genetic lineage that naturalistic Evolutionary processes weren't or couldn't be responsible for the genetic pattern that is observed?

quote:

---

You are saying that universal common descent has to be true because of reproduction and speciation, but ultimately, you have an unprovable assertion.

---

No, I have lots and lots of evidence from multiple fields and lines of evidence, all pointing to the same thing.Please explain how we cannot use DNA testing to determine relatedness between all organisms.Can you tell me where along the line of a given genetic lineage that naturalistic Evolutionary processes weren't or couldn't be responsible for the genetic pattern that is observed?

quote:

---

The same things we see could occur from multiple descent or even special creation.

---

What specific evidence implies multiple descent or specific creation?I notice that you completely ignore the most detailed and specific part of my post regarding the evolution of Irreducably Complex systems.You seem to be reduced to the typical Creationist retreat; making absolute statements about "You evolutionists will never have absolute proof!" instead of actually addressing the evidence when presented to you.

Please explain why we cannot use DNA testing to determine relatedness between all organisms.Can you tell me where along the line of a given genetic lineage that naturalistic Evolutionary processes weren't or couldn't be responsible for the genetic pattern that is observed?

quote:

---

I still think a monkey wouldn't leave it's tree/niche.

---

So, would an iguana leave it's niche, like this one?:

Please explain why we cannot use DNA testing to determine relatedness between all organisms.Can you tell me where along the line of a given genetic lineage that naturalistic Evolutionary processes weren't or couldn't be responsible for the genetic pattern that is observed?

quote:

---

Schraf, are you claiming DNA evidence can show when a species evolved with accuracy in the geologic time-scale, and what species it evolved from, and what species they evolved from.

---

We have only known about the existence of DNA since the 1920's, and didn't even begin to understand the molecular structure of DNA until the late 40's or early 50's, and have only been able to map entire genomes in the last few years.So no, the field is far too young to have all the information you are demanding.However, we have mapped portions of the genomes of many different organisms and we find, generally, that all life shares basic genetic similarity to a greater or lesser extent.Additionally, very nearly always, we find similar broken genes in species we considered to be closely related prior to the discovery of DNA.I find it interesting that someone such as yourself, who seems to be so familiar with the relevant research regarding Evolution that he feels comfortable rejecting all of it, wouldn't have brought any of this up already.The thing is, though, we are mapping new genomes all the time and are making more and more connections between organisms which point to common descent with modification.And anyway, you didn't answer my question:Please explain why we cannot use DNA testing to determine relatedness between all organisms.

quote:

---

If DNA evidence is so accurate and powerful, why is there debate, for example, when humans left Africa suppossedly?

---

Because we don't have perfect information, especially in historical sciences, and especially in historical sciences that deal with events many millions of years ago.Tell me, why is it important to know exactly when humans left Africa?

quote:

---

Why does the archealogical evidence not always match the genetic "evidence", dating/relatives technique?

---

For example?

quote:

---

Could it be that it is wee bit harder to determine these things from current genetic research and knowledge than determing whom the father is?

---

Sure, it's harder.But do you deny that it is possible?If you allow that we can can determine the liklihood of "who the father is", what is to stop us from using the process to determine the the extent to which we are related to any other organism on the planet?If you agree that the similarity or disimilarity of one's genetic code indicates relatedness to others, how many "steps removed" from one's father will you allow us to go before you say "genetics alone will not allow this next step and God must be invoked to explain it."?

Mammuthus' reply to you was excellent, so I will await your response to his post rather than say the same thing here.