Does the Theory of Evolution Win Hands Down?

[thomas t]

 

Look, if you actually do find X, you can't exclude any kind of theistic intervention, I think. You would have needed to prove that God isn't able to present X or let appear X while the available data remain in place....

 

 

Very true.  That could apply to anything (not just evolution).  To reiterate:  It could very well be that God is directing all or part of the evolutionary process, just like it could be that God is personally assembling every single atom in the universe.  But I would question the efficiency of that sort of thing.

 

And that makes me wonder...Do you believe God is behind every event in the universe, or do some things happen on their own?

 

 

Hi Gerald,

in my opinion, God does not necessarily have to assemble personally everything to bring the theory of evolution down. If God had intervened just once in only one step during the process of the development of the species, he would have sufficiently refuted the theory, already.

I believe that God sometimes initiates processes that are guided somehow through autopilot systems. Look at this verse from the Bible (suited to our topic):

 

Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. Gen 1:11

 

... the phrase "according to their various kinds" makes me think of autopiloting.

As a matter of clarification: I don't believe that God's creation always followed or follows the pattern of production layed out in this verse.

have a good day

Thomas

Edited August 1, 2013 by thomas t

[thomas t]

 

At the very least, the fact that all life on earth is made up of chemicals and cells definitely supports the theory [of evolution].  

 

Life is made up of something. You are explicit about it and cite chemicals and cells. However, you haven't told us so far why you think that it definitely supported the theory of evolution. Isn't it that you rather feel that it might suit that theory well? To me, the fact that humans and animals are made up of more or less the same materials they are surrounded by, reveals an intelligent trait of design. What do you think?

Thomas

Edited August 1, 2013 by thomas t

[MarkNigro]

 

 

At the very least, the fact that all life on earth is made up of chemicals and cells definitely supports the theory [of evolution].  

 

 

The fact that such a non-fact reply by was posted shows that there are NO FACTS, which are not based on a religious assumption, for their theories. 

[Guest man]

 

To you, this looks very nice, and everything seems to make sense to you through the interpretation given by the ToE. However, this is just one interpretation highly popular with today's world, I think. In my opinion, it can't by shown like other scientific theories can be.

 

 

 

So in your opinion, what bit of evidence is lacking that would convince you?

 

 

 

Where's the evidence of transition? If "A" evolved into "B", where's the fossil evidence of that slow physical transformation from one form to the next? Evolution is a process of slow gradual change. Where's the fossil evidence of that process?

[thomas t]

 

in my opinion, God does not necessarily have to assemble personally everything to bring the theory of evolution down. If God had intervened just once in only one step during the process of the development of the species, he would have sufficiently refuted the theory, already.

 

(1) Sorry, but I wasn't talking about what would be required to "bring the theory of evolution down".  My question is more about what you believe.  

 

I believe that God sometimes initiates processes that are guided somehow through autopilot systems.

 

 

(2) So God kinda sets up the rules and then lets the process run on its own?

 

 Life is made up of something. You are explicit about it and cite chemicals and cells. However, you haven't told us so far why you think that it definitely supported the theory of evolution. Isn't it that you rather feel that it might suit that theory well? To me, the fact that humans and animals are made up of more or less the same materials they are surrounded by, reveals an intelligent trait of design. What do you think?

 

(3) My noting that all life is made up of chemicals and cells was in response to Mark's assertion that there were "no facts...supporting the theory that everything evolved from chemicals into a cell into all the life forms".  If life arose via some other means (non-chemistry), then shouldn't we see something else besides chemistry going on in all life forms?

For reasons of simplicity, I added numbers to your comments.

 

(1) I understood your reasoning as to say that I maybe thought that God personally assembles every single atom of the universe just because I think that the ToE cannot be proven. That's why I wrote about the one interaction from God making the whole of the theory an assembly of lies... Anyway, feel free to ask your questions, please.

 

(2) This one is a bit tricky to answer. The only possibility to do it, in my opinion, is to read the Bible closely. The verse I cited referred to the production of plants only. What was true for that, might be wrong for anything else. Moreover, the verse does not cite God being lazy all the time after he set up the process. Maybe he surveilled afterwards how things were going and just didn't tell us...

 

(3) you're implicitely telling me that the fact that scientists at present don't detect any non-chemical traces maybe hint to the chemistry of the cells supporting evolution. I don't buy it. I mean, maybe God left non-chemical traces behind, and scientists just don't know yet, maybe he did not. Anything is possible for the Almighty.

 

On the other hand, traces humans leave behind in nature are sometimes so ugly, I'm sure you know about it, that God maybe takes it as an incentive to act in opposition to that, not leaving behind anything scientifically detectable .... who knows? (that was an off-topic remark)

 

Have a good day

Thomas

[Guest man]

Man,

 

Before I answer that, can you clarify what you mean by "form" (as in " from one form to the next")?

 

 

 

 

 

In between each of those images a transformation is taking place. Where's the fossil evidence of that transformation?

[Guest man]

 

 

Man,

 

Before I answer that, can you clarify what you mean by "form" (as in " from one form to the next")?

 

 

 

 

 

In between each of those images a transformation is taking place. Where's the fossil evidence of that transformation?

 

 

That doesn't really help me answer your question.  You asked about the evolution of one "form" to another.  Are "forms" species?  Something else?

 

 

"Forms" is physical appearance and body structure. 

 

When I say "from one form to another", I'm referencing the physical change that is taking place in the evolutionary process. 

 

If "A" evolves into "B", "A" starts out in the form of an "A" and ends in the form of a "B". "A" didn't become "B" overnight. According to the theory of evolution, there is a slow gradual change. Physical changes are taking place. Bone structures are changing. "A" cannot evolve into "B" without changing it's physical appearance.

 

My question is, "Where's the fossil evidence of that slow gradual physical change"?

[thomas t]

 

I understood your reasoning as to say that I maybe thought that God personally assembles every single atom of the universe just because I think that the ToE cannot be proven. That's why I wrote about the one interaction from God making the whole of the theory an assembly of lies... Anyway, feel free to ask your questions, please.

 

(1) Sorry, I didn't make it clear.  My question related to what you expressed earlier, i.e. that no matter what we find, it could always be that God is doing it or making it appear that way.

 

That reasoning can be applied to anything.  We see atoms bond and form molecules, but it could be that God is assembling them Himself.  You think you're typing right now, but it could be that God is actually doing it.  

 

This one is a bit tricky to answer. The only possibility to do it, in my opinion, is to read the Bible closely. The verse I cited referred to the production of plants only. What was true for that, might be wrong for anything else. Moreover, the verse does not cite God being lazy all the time after he set up the process. Maybe he surveilled afterwards how things were going and just didn't tell us...

 

(2) Which do you think is a better design, one that requires constant oversight and tinkering, or one that can run on its own? 

 

you're implicitely telling me that the fact that scientists at present don't detect any non-chemical traces maybe hint to the chemistry of the cells supporting evolution. I don't buy it. I mean, maybe God left non-chemical traces behind, and scientists just don't know yet, maybe he did not. Anything is possible for the Almighty.

 

(3) Mark claimed that there was absolutely no evidence supporting the idea that all life arose from chemicals/chemistry.  My observation that all life forms are made up of chemicals and operate via chemistry was in response to that.  Of course there are lots of other data supporting universal common descent, but all I had to do was point to one data point that's consistent with the concept to refute his claim.  That's all.

 

And sure, "anything is possible".  Maybe one day we'll find out that there are microscopic elves moving things around inside our cells.  But until we see that, I'm not going to worry about it.  

 

(1) Thank you, I understand you better now. And my point was that the Theory of Evolution needed only one of these direct divine interventions you are mentioning to be turned into a lie. You agree with me that divine intervetions are possible in any field. However, single divine interventions in other fields would not turn other theories into lies. Let me give you an example out of the field of macroeconomics to get my point across better.

 

Now, if God came down to earth and brought along an object, say a new camera, he would certainly have contributed to the wealth of the nation. But that does not hinder any growth model from being true. It's just one object.

This, in my opinion, stands in sharp contrast to what would happen to the theory of evolution, if God produced just one animal via direct creation.

 

(2) the second.

 

(3) yeah, but you didn't make clear why that was a support for common descent in your opinion. So you didn't write why just pointing to one data point, that in your opinion is in line with the concept, was sufficient to refute his claim, as I read your point.

 

Thomas

[Guest man]

Man,

 

I'm sorry, but I'm still not clear on what you're asking for.  If I'm taller than both my parents, that's a "physical change taking place".  Am I a different "form"?

 

Is a fruit fly a different "form" than a house fly?  Are chimpanzees and bonobos different "forms"?  

 

Please don't take this as me challenging you or anything.  I'm really trying to narrow this down so I can help.

 

 

 

 

The skull on the left is a Neandertal.      The skull on the right is a Modern Human.      See the difference?

 

 

In order for a neandertal to become a modern human, physical changes had to take place. Where is the fossil evidence of that slow gradual change?

[Guest man]

Man,

 

So to be clear, you're talking about the evolution of new species (Neanderthals and humans are in the same genus, but are different species).  Correct?