Does the Theory of Evolution Win Hands Down?

[~candice~]

Thomas do you believe in evolution?

How does it follow that if god intervenes that the TOE is disproven?

[Guest man]

Man,

 

The evolution of new species has been repeatedly observed, both in the lab and in the wild.

 

Fruit Flies:  CLICK HERE (in the wild); CLICK HERE (in the lab)

 

Lizards: CLICK HERE (in the lab)

 

Insects: CLICK HERE (in the wild)

 

Plants: CLICK HERE (in the wild)

 

Birds: CLICK HERE (in the wild)

 

So now that we've clarified that when you asked for "evidence of transition from one form to another" and that by "form" you mean "species", we can definitively say that the evolution of one form to another is a directly observed fact.

 

 

You actually missed the entire point.

 

Oh well, never mind.

[MarkNigro]

 

Man,

 

The evolution of new species has been repeatedly observed, both in the lab and in the wild.

 

Fruit Flies:  CLICK HERE (in the wild); CLICK HERE (in the lab)

 

Lizards: CLICK HERE (in the lab)

 

Insects: CLICK HERE (in the wild)

 

Plants: CLICK HERE (in the wild)

 

Birds: CLICK HERE (in the wild)

 

So now that we've clarified that when you asked for "evidence of transition from one form to another" and that by "form" you mean "species", we can definitively say that the evolution of one form to another is a directly observed fact.

 

 

You actually missed the entire point.

 

Oh well, never mind.

 

UPWARD EVOLUTION WITH NEW ORGANS AND FUNCTIONALITY? or just small changes within created kinds?

[thomas t]

 

Maybe now would be a good time for you to clarify something for me.  What do you mean by "the theory of evolution"? 

 

[...]

 

Do you then believe God designed the process of evolution and then let it run on its own?

 

[...]

 

Fair enough.  Sorry 'bout that.

 

 

Good day Gerald,

no problem.

I understand the theory of evolution as the evolution of the species only. The so-called chemical evolution, in contrast, I don't count among the theory of evolution itself.

Have a good day, the second question, I'd like to answer along with this.

 

Thomas do you believe in evolution?

How does it follow that if god intervenes that the TOE is disproven?

 

Good day candice,

 

actually, I don't. Man (I don't mean poster Man here but rather humans in general) was directly created, I believe. The Theory of Evolution claims common descendancy and, to my knowledge, is very clear about how many common ancestors there were: only one. The moment Adam was made by God in direct assembly, as the Bible teaches, we have at the very least two common anscestors of creatures.

 

Let me evoke another field to get my point across. The theory of plate tectonics. If God decided to lift up one rock and have its location relative to a fix constant over time, the theory would still be ok. The reason is, in my view, that it speaks on the macrolevel only. The theory of evolution is, in my opinion, different, as it declares that every single animal comes from the same ancestor.

 

Have a good day, you too

Thomas

[~candice~]

OK Tom - thanks . That clears that up.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

UPWARD EVOLUTION WITH NEW ORGANS AND FUNCTIONALITY? or just small changes within created kinds?

 

 

If you read the papers, new "functionality" is part of the results.  And I'm sorry, I don't know what a "created kind" is.

 

He is referring to blblical terminology, where God created every creature after its own kind.  "Kind" might be sort of like saying "family."

[thomas t]

 

So rather than the theory "becoming a lie" as you suggested, it would simply be modified.  Of course this is all speculation as there's currently no scientific reason to do so.

 

 

 

Ok, Gerald, it's nice that you understood me better.

But, is there really no scientific reason? I'm not thinking of any possibly missed scientific hint to a creator. I simply rely on what descent scientists keep telling me. I'm thinking of science telling me that it does not answer any sort of question which relates to the supernatural. Science, as I understand it, claims to be neutral against the supernatural. However, if science offers us a theory in which any sort of direct divine intervention is fully excluded - isn't this taking sides in favor of an unguided process, in which God cannot occupy any better place than outside of thewhole process? I would answer with a "yes, it is" and I wonder why science can't just formulate their theory for the development of the species in a more neutral manner, so it would be open to a creator?

 

Finally, I'm curious as to our 2nd point of discussion.  If a design that runs on its own is superior to one that requires constant tinkering and maintenance, which one of those do you think God is more likely to have created?

 

I would answer with a "yes and no". When man was created, there was a paradigm shift, if I understand the Bible right. First, animals developed according to their kind...

 

And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. Gen 1:24

 

... but man was created in another kind:

 

Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,1 and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” Gen 1:26-28

 

In a new approach towards creation God apparently made use of a new way of production, I think.

 

Thomas

Edited August 2, 2013 by thomas t

[MarkNigro]

 

UPWARD EVOLUTION WITH NEW ORGANS AND FUNCTIONALITY? or just small changes within created kinds?

 

 

If you read the papers, new "functionality" is part of the results.  And I'm sorry, I don't know what a "created kind" is.

 

One example. It is absolutely impossible for upward evolution from just atoms and molecules to a first cell or first living creature or any first thing whether made of proteins, RNA, or DNA. A simple study of the odds shows that if the universe were 1 trillion times a trillion years old, it would never happen.

 

Also a fish is not my ancestor. The same odds destroy a fish becoming a mammal, 

 

Now some believe that God designed the process. At least they may have a belief in a Creator. But this is just an admission that without God the upward evolution from atoms and molecules to mankind would be impossible without God.

 

But what God used the long process of evolution?

 

The God of the Holy Bible certainly did not. You cannot contort the Holy Bible to allow for that. But the Holy Bible must be the word of God by simple logic. So God was not only an eyewitness, He did it. 

 

Why would God have multitudes of animals suffer death and disease for those many millions of years just to get 2 people to sin in a garden. That is a cruel God and not the God of the Holy Bible.

 

If you believe that God used evolution over eons, you are being deceived by Satan who came up with that theory. The people you are unwittingly in league with teach no God and convince children of that. Later they will worship Satan as God because being not saved they will be deceived.

 

In love, in Christ, in meekness,

Mark

[thomas t]

 

But, is there really no scientific reason? I'm not thinking of any possibly missed scientific hint to a creator. I simply rely on what descent scientists keep telling me.

 

No.  There's no scientific reason to alter the fundamental aspects of evolutionary theory.  There is all sorts of work being done and arguments being made about relatively minor aspects of it (selection vs. drift, epigenetic factors, specific relationships between taxa).

 

I'm thinking of science telling me that it does not answer any sort of question which relates to the supernatural. Science, as I understand it, claims to be neutral against the supernatural. However, if science offers us a theory in which any sort of direct divine intervention is fully excluded - isn't this taking sides in favor of an unguided process, in which God cannot occupy any better place than outside of thewhole process?

 

 

No.  All science is neutral when it comes to God, including evolutionary biology.  There's no difference between (using your example) plate tectonics describing the formation of mountain ranges and evolutionary theory explaining the formation of fingers.  Neither mentions God one way or the other, and that is true for all of science.

 

I would answer with a "yes, it is" and I wonder why science can't just formulate their theory for the development of the species in a more neutral manner, so it would be open to a creator?

 

 

It is neutral.  I've not seen any published paper on evolutionary biology that mentions God.  As far as the role of a supernatural creator, the problem is such a thing is completely untestable.  You cannot test for, or conduct tests on, God. 

 

I would answer with a "yes and no". When man was created, there was a paradigm shift, if I understand the Bible right. First, animals developed according to their kind...

 

And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. Gen 1:24

 

... but man was created in another kind:

 

Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,1 and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” Gen 1:26-28

 

In a new approach towards creation God apparently made use of a new way of production, I think.

 

 

That still doesn't get the point I'm raising.  We both agree that a design that requires tinkering and manipulation is inferior to one that runs on its own.  So why would a God who is perfect create an inferior design?

 

 

This time I don't give numbers to your different comments, I answer it one by one.

 

* Look, my point was not to alter the fundamental aspects of your theory when it comes to natural selection, genetic drift, or common descendancy. My point was only about how evolutionionary scientists bring their fundamental points across.

 

* my point was not that science should mention God directly. My point was rather that, in contrast to the theory of eveolution, the theory of plate tectonics is somehow open to a direct intervention from God on the microlevel, I think. This is because such an intervention would leave/ leaves the truth value of that theory unchanged, in my opinion. The theory of evolution, in contrast, would be in need of some adjustment if science would ever find out that God intervened just on one single occasion on the microlevel.

 

To put it again, my critique was solely that the theory of evolution in its current shape is not open for any intervention of God, be it on the microlevel only. As you said, some modification would be needed the moment it turns out to scientists that God did intervene. And this is, as mentioned before, in sharp contrast to other theories, I think. Other theories would stay unchanged, in case God intervened on the microlevel. Do you see my point? It's not to talk openly about God.

 

* my point was not to lament about science not containing the explicit notion of God, neither did I want to see scientific testing for God. My point was ... see above. 

 

* Last, you wrote that I agreed with you that a process requiring further work was inferior to a process able to run of its own. I only did agree with you on that in regard to the producion of plants, I should have made this clearer, perhaps. When it comes to the creation of man, the process of creation was under a different paradigm, as the Bible shows us, so I don't agree with you on that it would have been better to have a process just running of its own. The aim for the creation of man was to create something of divine kind, "of our likes", as it says in the Bible. However, that was the first time, when the Bible mentions a creation with such an aim. That's why I think that a new aim may justify a new manner of creation.

How would a mere earthly process - even if initiated by God, himself - have produced something "of our likes", as the Bible tells, when there haven't been anything similar around on earth, before? I have no answer to this, of course. 

 

Thomas

[MarkNigro]

 

* Look, my point was not to alter the fundamental aspects of your theory when it comes to natural selection, genetic drift, or common descendancy. My point was only about how evolutionionary scientists bring their fundamental points across.

 

That's different than the theory itself.  I agree that some scientists use evolutionary theory to justify their atheism, but by the same token there are scientists who justify their faith in God via their understanding of evolution (e.g. Francis Collins, Ken Miller).

 

* my point was not that science should mention God directly. My point was rather that, in contrast to the theory of eveolution, the theory of plate tectonics is somehow open to a direct intervention from God on the microlevel, I think. This is because such an intervention would leave/ leaves the truth value of that theory unchanged, in my opinion. The theory of evolution, in contrast, would be in need of some adjustment if science would ever find out that God intervened just on one single occasion on the microlevel.

 

To put it again, my critique was solely that the theory of evolution in its current shape is not open for any intervention of God, be it on the microlevel only. As you said, some modification would be needed the moment it turns out to scientists that God did intervene. And this is, as mentioned before, in sharp contrast to other theories, I think. Other theories would stay unchanged, in case God intervened on the microlevel. Do you see my point? It's not to talk openly about God.

 

But there's no difference in how evolutionary theory would change if it was discovered that God created a species and how plate tectonics would change if it was discovered that God created a mountain range.

 

Plate tectonics would be (simplistically speaking) : The movement of tectonic plates creates mountains, except for this range which was created by God.

 

Evolutionary common descent would be: All life on earth shares a common evolutionary past, except for this species which was created by God.

 

The same could be said for any scientific explanation.

 

* Last, you wrote that I agreed with you that a process requiring further work was inferior to a process able to run of its own. I only did agree with you on that in regard to the producion of plants, I should have made this clearer, perhaps. When it comes to the creation of man, the process of creation was under a different paradigm, as the Bible shows us, so I don't agree with you on that it would have been better to have a process just running of its own. The aim for the creation of man was to create something of divine kind, "of our likes", as it says in the Bible. However, that was the first time, when the Bible mentions a creation with such an aim. That's why I think that a new aim may justify a new manner of creation.

 

 

I didn't see you mention plants before, so that's new to me.  But Genesis also says God created plants as well, even specifying fruit trees.

 

How would a mere earthly process - even if initiated by God, himself - have produced something "of our likes", as the Bible tells, when there haven't been anything similar around on earth, before? I have no answer to this, of course. 

 

Well, from a scientific perspective there was "something similar" before H. sapiens.  There were actually several hominid species running around!

 

But I understand that for most folks here, the scientific perspective is largely irrelevant.

 

If we stick to facts, you cannot say that there were several H. sapien species before. That is an interpretation based a religious assumption.

 

Mankind lived almost 1000 years before the flood.

Mankind was living almost 1000 years around the time of the flood.

Mankind's lifetime moves quickly to be limited to 120 years about the time of Moses.

Similar changes occurred to all animal species during these years due to the curse from the fall in the garden and the changes from the flood.

 

Now all species have variance in them. There are also young developing individuals and mature individuals.

 

There is no way that you can surmise from a few bone fragments, based on the information above, what species were running. around.

 

Your false religious assumption is causing you to err on your conclusions.

Was