can believers accept evolution?

[HumbleThinker]

 

The definition of evolution is any process of formation or growth; development:

 

My question: So why do people still kill, steal and destroy if we've grown and evolved so much.

Evolution describes a process by which species come to be. It has nothing to do with 'moral development' or 'perfection' or 'creating harmony' or any other such nonsense.

 

Just a bit of a nitpick. Evolution is the change in allele frequencies within a population over time, and the ToE is the theorized mechanisms by which this happens. This can occur without a population evolving into another species, such as a population of bears evolving a higher frequency of white fur vs. brown fur over multiple generations for various reasons. Speciation is more like a result of this action, usually over geologic time, but varies depending on the mutation rate and generation time. You are correct though that evolution has not been shown to apply to changes in such things, though the usage of morality itself could have evolved. I'm not familiar with what the current proposal for that is.

[Guest DRS81]

 

 

The definition of evolution is any process of formation or growth; development:

 

My question: So why do people still kill, steal and destroy if we've grown and evolved so much.

Evolution describes a process by which species come to be. It has nothing to do with 'moral development' or 'perfection' or 'creating harmony' or any other such nonsense.

 

Just a bit of a nitpick. Evolution is the change in allele frequencies within a population over time, and the ToE is the theorized mechanisms by which this happens. This can occur without a population evolving into another species, such as a population of bears evolving a higher frequency of white fur vs. brown fur over multiple generations for various reasons. Speciation is more like a result of this action, usually over geologic time, but varies depending on the mutation rate and generation time. You are correct though that evolution has not been shown to apply to changes in such things, though the usage of morality itself could have evolved. I'm not familiar with what the current proposal for that is.

 

 

Alpha, it's not nonsense if growth and development are words inside the definition of evolution. Evolution: man-made word/man-made definition/man-made website..http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Evolution?s=t - Again, why do people still kill, steal and destroy if we've grown and evolved so much.

[HumbleThinker]

 

 

The definition of evolution is any process of formation or growth; development:

 

My question: So why do people still kill, steal and destroy if we've grown and evolved so much.

Evolution describes a process by which species come to be. It has nothing to do with 'moral development' or 'perfection' or 'creating harmony' or any other such nonsense.

 

Do you believe that a monkey changed forms over the years and became a human being? 

 

Another nitpick, but this isn't actually what evolution predicts would happen, so if he did believe this he would not be believing in evolution. First, if by monkey you mean ape, then this hypothetical ape did not change into anything but an ape because humans are by definition apes. Second, individuals do not evolve, they only mutate and then have the potential to spread this mutation through the population if they reproduce. Third, speciation does not occur through mutation, which is what I am presuming you mean through the usage of "change" (forgive me if I am mistaken). If we're going to talk about evolution, I think we should go to great lengths to be sure we are speaking of it correctly. If we are just talking about strawmen, then we won't be talking about reality and thus not have a very meaningful discussion.

[HumbleThinker]

I understand that there are things in our DNA that are in common with animals, but couldn't that just be because we have the same creator, and he made those slight changes when he fashioned us into the beings we are? 

 

But it's more specific than that. It's not even so much the amount of things in our DNA that we share with other animals such as ERVs and sequences though this is of course important, but the ratio of what we share and what we don't share aligns with other independent lines of evidence that tell us how much we're related to other animals and the predictions of evolutionary theory made by scientists. When all this is considered, it becomes a matter of probability and parsimony; we reflect on which is more likely and more parsimonious: that God created unique kinds of animals with patterns of DNA and other apsects that form nested hierarchies among themselves, or that the animals themselves are related via heredity?

[alphaparticle]

 

 

The definition of evolution is any process of formation or growth; development:

 

My question: So why do people still kill, steal and destroy if we've grown and evolved so much.

Evolution describes a process by which species come to be. It has nothing to do with 'moral development' or 'perfection' or 'creating harmony' or any other such nonsense.

 

Just a bit of a nitpick. Evolution is the change in allele frequencies within a population over time, and the ToE is the theorized mechanisms by which this happens. This can occur without a population evolving into another species, such as a population of bears evolving a higher frequency of white fur vs. brown fur over multiple generations for various reasons. Speciation is more like a result of this action, usually over geologic time, but varies depending on the mutation rate and generation time. You are correct though that evolution has not been shown to apply to changes in such things, though the usage of morality itself could have evolved. I'm not familiar with what the current proposal for that is.

 

No, only if you agree to allow morality to be reduced to physical properties. Why would you give that ground?

[alphaparticle]

 

 

 

The definition of evolution is any process of formation or growth; development:

 

My question: So why do people still kill, steal and destroy if we've grown and evolved so much.

Evolution describes a process by which species come to be. It has nothing to do with 'moral development' or 'perfection' or 'creating harmony' or any other such nonsense.

 

Just a bit of a nitpick. Evolution is the change in allele frequencies within a population over time, and the ToE is the theorized mechanisms by which this happens. This can occur without a population evolving into another species, such as a population of bears evolving a higher frequency of white fur vs. brown fur over multiple generations for various reasons. Speciation is more like a result of this action, usually over geologic time, but varies depending on the mutation rate and generation time. You are correct though that evolution has not been shown to apply to changes in such things, though the usage of morality itself could have evolved. I'm not familiar with what the current proposal for that is.

 

 

Alpha, it's not nonsense if growth and development are words inside the definition of evolution. Evolution: man-made word/man-made definition/man-made website..http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Evolution?s=t - Again, why do people still kill, steal and destroy if we've grown and evolved so much.

 

it's nonsense. Evolution as a physical process has no sense of promoting 'moral excellence' or 'wellbeing'. It's simply that organisms that survive long enough to reproduce have genetic material that continues on in the population.

[alphaparticle]

 

 

 

The definition of evolution is any process of formation or growth; development:

 

My question: So why do people still kill, steal and destroy if we've grown and evolved so much.

Evolution describes a process by which species come to be. It has nothing to do with 'moral development' or 'perfection' or 'creating harmony' or any other such nonsense.

 

Do you believe that a monkey changed forms over the years and became a human being? 

 

Another nitpick, but this isn't actually what evolution predicts would happen, so if he did believe this he would not be believing in evolution. First, if by monkey you mean ape, then this hypothetical ape did not change into anything but an ape because humans are by definition apes. Second, individuals do not evolve, they only mutate and then have the potential to spread this mutation through the population if they reproduce. Third, speciation does not occur through mutation, which is what I am presuming you mean through the usage of "change" (forgive me if I am mistaken). If we're going to talk about evolution, I think we should go to great lengths to be sure we are speaking of it correctly. If we are just talking about strawmen, then we won't be talking about reality and thus not have a very meaningful discussion.

 

I somehow missed the question from butero.

 

Butero- I think monkeys and humans share a common ancestor. Monkeys that inhabit the earth now are just as modern as humans are.

[HumbleThinker]

 

 

 

The definition of evolution is any process of formation or growth; development:

 

My question: So why do people still kill, steal and destroy if we've grown and evolved so much.

Evolution describes a process by which species come to be. It has nothing to do with 'moral development' or 'perfection' or 'creating harmony' or any other such nonsense.

 

Just a bit of a nitpick. Evolution is the change in allele frequencies within a population over time, and the ToE is the theorized mechanisms by which this happens. This can occur without a population evolving into another species, such as a population of bears evolving a higher frequency of white fur vs. brown fur over multiple generations for various reasons. Speciation is more like a result of this action, usually over geologic time, but varies depending on the mutation rate and generation time. You are correct though that evolution has not been shown to apply to changes in such things, though the usage of morality itself could have evolved. I'm not familiar with what the current proposal for that is.

 

No, only if you agree to allow morality to be reduced to physical properties. Why would you give that ground?

 

Giving or taking ground doesn't factor into my decision, so I'm not particularly sure how to answer that question. Personally, I just want to be accurate. We do have ethology, which is the study of animal behavior, and we have a strong basis for more than a few of our instinctual behaviors being evolutionary holdovers from our ancestors (think all of baby's instinctual behaviors/reflexes, fight or flight response, etc.). And we know that more animals than just us are social creatures with social norms, so if we look at morality from the perspective of societally handed down rules of behavior, it's not unthinkable to say that morality itself as a construct evolved even if our specific behaviors or specific morals fall outside the realm of evolution. But if morality did evolve, it certainly is a lot less clear cut than if we're talking about antibiotic resistance or limb evolution.

Edited December 2, 2013 by HumbleThinker

[alphaparticle]

 

 

 

 

The definition of evolution is any process of formation or growth; development:

 

My question: So why do people still kill, steal and destroy if we've grown and evolved so much.

Evolution describes a process by which species come to be. It has nothing to do with 'moral development' or 'perfection' or 'creating harmony' or any other such nonsense.

 

Just a bit of a nitpick. Evolution is the change in allele frequencies within a population over time, and the ToE is the theorized mechanisms by which this happens. This can occur without a population evolving into another species, such as a population of bears evolving a higher frequency of white fur vs. brown fur over multiple generations for various reasons. Speciation is more like a result of this action, usually over geologic time, but varies depending on the mutation rate and generation time. You are correct though that evolution has not been shown to apply to changes in such things, though the usage of morality itself could have evolved. I'm not familiar with what the current proposal for that is.

 

No, only if you agree to allow morality to be reduced to physical properties. Why would you give that ground?

 

Giving or taking ground doesn't factor into my decision, so I'm not particularly sure how to answer that question. Personally, I just want to be accurate. We do have ethology, which is the study of animal behavior, and we have a strong basis for more than a few of our instinctual behaviors being evolutionary holdovers from our ancestors (think all of baby's instinctual behaviors/reflexes, fight or flight response, etc.). And we know that more animals than just us are social creatures with social norms, so if we look at morality from the perspective of societally handed down rules of behavior, it's not unthinkable to say that morality itself as a construct evolved even if our specific behaviors or specific morals fall outside the realm of evolution. But if morality did evolve, it certainly is a lot less clear cut than if we're talking about antibiotic resistance or limb evolution.

 

I might suggest that you've given over too much ground to the materialists unwittingly  here. That we share some common behaviors with animals doesn't seem to have much to do with what actually is right and wrong, good and bad. Categories seem to be a bit confused here, here the simple distinction between looking at what is, descriptive, and what ought to be, normative.

[gray wolf]

Yes, one can be saved and believe in evolution.  One does not have to believe every detail of macro evolution, but I think natural selection is a fact.  Please be gentle with me, lol!

Edited December 2, 2013 by gray wolf