Key points of Evolution

I have recently been reading a book written by Dr. Joan Roughgarden. (Page not found : Stanford University) What I would like to focus on are some comments made by Joan in her recent book "Evolution and Christian Faith." (Amazon.com)This book is all about presenting Evolution in a Christian friendly manner. Joan breaks down Evolution into two key ideas that need to be taught as an integral part of Biology (p.24):1) One Family Tree unites all of life and
2) Species change through time and placeOn the first point, she says the following:

quote:

---

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.

---

Maybe nothing new to the debate added there, but a nice source of imagery.Of these two points of evolution, Dr. Roughgarden makes two claims.1) These two ideas must be taught in every science curriculum.
2) Neither of these ideas are directly in conflict with the Bible.I tend to agree with this sentiment. Any objectors?Not sure where this should go, as this could be taken in any of several directions depending on where people disagree.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

I would be very careful about putting any store in some one who claims that 'evolutionists' would agree with the statement: This is simply not true.But if you believe that the xian god set the whole of reality in motion billions of years ago then the concepts you put forwards have no conflict. If however, you argue for the literal interpretaion of the bible then any form of science is in conflict with the literal interpretation as you need magic to get all the miracles to work the way they are presented.

Well, it's a semantic question.One might reasonably argue for any of the following statements:* Humans have common ancestry with apes;* Humans are descended from apes;* Humans are apes;--- while meaning exactly the same thing.I'd go for "humans are apes". (My reasoning: the term "ape" should refer to a clade, this clade includes chimps and gorillas, hence this clade includes us.) But this choice is a decision about the best way to use language, not an opinion about the facts as such.

You are right in part. I read apes (for that is what we are really I agree) as chimps; and got on my high horse.

It strikes me as sad that anyone has to set themselves a task like this: No one has to present the theory of plate tectonics in a Hindu-friendly manner or the theory of the expanding universe in a Buddhist-friendly manner. The faith of so many professing Christians, though, seems to be made of more fragile stuff.If Dr Roughgarden can speak to the fragile people in a way that helps them past their fear, more power to her. Darwin's theory has proven itself for 150 years. It's past time the shock was absorbed so society can move on.___

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

I'd like to agree with you on this statement, it is sad that we have to appeal to the Christian faith. Yet at the same time, our public educator Richard Dawkin's shock tactics seem to have been less than successful.

I would like to first admit I have neither heard of, or read the book in question. Therefore, I will limit my
responses to the statements made about the book. Evolution in and of itself is very anti "christian". The bible clearly states that "GOD" created the heavens
and the Earth. Evolution states that "nothing" exploded billions and billions of years ago. That is what
ultimately created the heavens and the earth. Evolution tends the completly take God of the equation. I don't see
how anyone could expect a God fearing christian to believe "nothing" took the place of "God" creating the universe.I don't know how Hindus belive, but I bet if you told them their god didn't create the universe they would be pretty
upset as well. How exactly am I related to a tree? The bible states God created plants first, then animals, then Man. Nowhere in
there does it state we all came from some type of primordial good that miracously transmuted into trees, monkees
and then man. If you ask me, evolution takes a whole lot more faith to believe in than the bible. I have just one question to this statement. Where is the proof? If evolution and science is all about proof, where
is it? There is nothing you or anyone can produce showing a genetic link between a man and a tree. There is nothing
out there proving we all came from "nothing". If we are going to expect our children to believe in this there
should at the very least be some type of proof to back it up. Seriously? Do I really need to say anything?

seekingthetruth writes

quote:

---

Evolution in and of itself is very anti "christian". The bible clearly states that "GOD" created the heavens
and the Earth. Evolution states that "nothing" exploded billions and billions of years ago. That is what
ultimately created the heavens and the earth. Evolution tends the completly take God of the equation. I don't see
how anyone could expect a God fearing christian to believe "nothing" took the place of "God" creating the universe.

---

For someone that claims to be seeking the truth, you sure have a lot of falsehoods about evolution. Apparently, you also can't use the keyboard properly.

quote:

---

How exactly am I related to a tree? The bible states God created plants first, then animals, then Man. Nowhere in
there does it state we all came from some type of primordial good that miracously transmuted into trees, monkees
and then man. If you ask me, evolution takes a whole lot more faith to believe in than the bible.

---

At this point, I would like to ask for your credentials in biological science. After all, in order to claim that evolution takes a lot of faith, you must have studied it rigorously, correct? Coiuld you give us an insight into your years of hardwork in biological research programs?

quote:

---

I have just one question to this statement. Where is the proof? If evolution and science is all about proof, where
is it? There is nothing you or anyone can produce showing a genetic link between a man and a tree. There is nothing
out there proving we all came from "nothing". If we are going to expect our children to believe in this there
should at the very least be some type of proof to back it up.

---

For someone that claims a lot of non-facts, you sure have a lot of strawman arguments to make.

quote:

---

Seriously? Do I really need to say anything?

---

Actually, yes you do need to say something.

No it does not. Great stuff starting out with a typical strawman.

Evolution is allele frequency change over time in living populations. It's a mechanism. It makes no statement regarding an intelligent force guiding the process (though it does not require one, either, and parsimony takes care of the rest), and it certainly makes no statements regarding the "heavens and the Earth." Evolution says nothing of the sort. You're confusing a strawman version of Big Bang cosmology for evolution. The two are not related except that they are both highly accurate scientific models. As does the Theory of Gravity, but very few Christians have a problem leaving god out of gravitational attraction. Those Christians who accept evolution see evolution as the process by which god did his creating. The two are not mutually exclusive except when one insists on taking the entire Bible literally...which is a fools errand for a multitude of reasons in itself. Science does not say that any god did or did not create the Universe. It remaine mute on the subject becasue it cannot be tested. Unfalsifiable possibilities like god, gods, ghosts, fairies, and other things people truly believe in but for which there is no objective evidence are not the purview of science. Science is the study of the observable Universe; if we cannot observe it, it has nothing to do with science. You both utilize genetic information and are based on a system of cells that have significant similarities. Biologically, you are very distantly related to plants, though the degree of seperation is greater than your relation to any animal. That's not what the Theory of Evolution states, though. Evolution is not based on faith at all. It's based on observable evidence, and its predictions have been rigorously tested and shown to be highly accurate. Evolution takes no fith whatsoever to believe - it takes education. But learning involves effort, so it's "easier" to say "goddidit."Of course, "goddidit" explains absolutely nothing, which is why scientific inquiry exists in the first place. Are you serious? There is roughly as much evidence in favor of evolution as there is for the Theory of Gravity, including direct observation of the process in action. They both use deoxyribonucleic acid to store inheritable traits, as opposed to alternatives like RNA. They both consist of cells, which have similar organnelles (as well as many different ones). There are far more similarities than you seem to think. Both humans and all species of plants have a common ancestor in the incredibly distant past. Nobody ever said we did. The Big Bang theory does not state "nothing" exploded. If you'd like to discuss the Big Bang theory, we have a few open threads on the subject, and it would seem you have some serious misconceptions about what it does and does not state. Perhaps you should try doing some research yourself. There is more than ample evidence for evolution and the Big Bang model, and there is promising research going on even now regarding abiogenesis. But from your comments here it is quite plain that you don't know what the Theory of Evolution states, you don't know what the Big bang theory states, and you seem to believe that what you see on TV in dumbed-down "science" documentaries somehow actually represents the real scientific theories that require years of study to properly comprehend. You're right only if you insist that the Bible is 100% literally true. This is, of course, demonstrably false, so I hope you don't really believe that.

lol... like that matters, you all try to hide behind empty credentials and self absorbed titles. They mean nothing. Trying to tear down a person does not prove your point.. stay on topic please.

---

Agent antiLIE of the AGDT
7x153=1071 [ IIX:XXIV]
I klinamaksa exei afypnistei

Welcome to EvC, seeking. The moderators on this board try to keep the threads focused on the topic of the opening post. I think that whether or not the theory of evolution is in conflict with Christian beliefs would be on topic. Questions about whether the theory of evolution is or is not accurate wouldn't be on topic, but since some of those questions might be interesting, I'm going to try to direct you to other threads.- Big Bang doesn't say anything about an explosion. Here is a link to a thread to discuss problems with the Big Bang theory. (Added by edit: This thread might be a better venue for a discussion on Big Bang; it already has a bit of information that might be interesting.)- To be more precise, science is all about constructing explanatory theories for observed phenomena, and then testing those theories by looking for phenomena that the theory says we should observe but haven't yet.My favorite evidence for the theory of evolution is the pattern of nested hierarchies that we see in taxonomy. We also have a thread to discuss that as well.-This thread is concerned with whether evolution conflicts with Christian beliefs. Not being a Christian myself, I'm not particularly interested in this. I do hope to see you in some of the science threads, though.Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.

---

Speaking personally, I find few things more awesome than contemplating this vast and majestic process of evolution, the ebb and flow of successive biotas through geological time. Creationists and others who cannot for ideological or religious reasons accept the fact of evolution miss out a great deal, and are left with a claustrophobic little universe in which nothing happens and nothing changes.
-- M. Alan Kazlev

The credentials are not the point. The time spent researching the topic of discussion is, and the credentials directly signify that at least some amount of research was done.I'm not a PhD. I don't even have a Bachelor's degree. I have spent time learning about evolution and science, so I don't make the same strawman remarks our Creationist posters tend to. Nobody ever asks me for my credentials.Nobody is hiding behind anything. What is being said is that those who are completely ignorant of a topic cannot effectively make statements regarding that topic with any degree of accuracy. Those who say "there is no evidence for evolution" are quite obviously arguing from positions of total ignorance.

Nice. Could you possibly be anymore immature than that? I don't need a doctorate and years of study to know that humans and trees did not come from the same material. If you
have proof to the contrary please let us know. Really? Show me one piece of evidence that supports the claim made in this book and I will shutup.