Evolution - A serious question.

[Craig K. Manscill]

But if man DID descend from apes, how is Adam the first man then, and where does he fit in within history? Was the part in Genesis that he was the first man, created from dust... all just a lie? Everything, eating apples to the snake being punished to be a snake? All lies?

See, what I think is that Genesis makes more sense than evolution, so I'm more inclined to believe in that.

- Craig

 

[AtheistPreacher]

Of course, religion is the only reason this is even debated as hotly as it is. Though I wonder why other scientific concepts don't cause controversy. I mentioned continental drift earlier, and no hardcore religious people complain about that, even though continental clearly shows the earth to be a LOT more than 6000 years old.

Would people off hand dismiss the comparison of evolution of today being hated by the masses as much as the masses 2000 years ago hating the concept that the earth isn't the center of the universe?

I've made that same comparison myself. They can dismiss it all they like, but it's an accurate analogy. And forget 2000 years, of course... the whole Galileo thing pretty dramatically demonstrated this point, and this only about 400 years ago, with the Church persecuting the guy because his scientific findings didn't conform with the way they thought the world worked. It's the exact same situation: people with religious beliefs making dogmatic assertions while people with those pesky facts to the contrary are ignored (or worse).

 

[PearlWatson]

Can only really speak about the quadrupedal to bipedal change. For the human line, it was long believed that it was an evolutionary reaction to the lost forests and being able to see better over the resulting savannah. New discoveries in the past couple of years suggest that human's ancestors became bipedal before the loss of forestry. Suggestions have included the freeing up of hands for gathering (making bipedal mates more attractive than quadrupeds).

If mutations are reactionary they certainly ain't random like Darwin's theory proposes.
For a single celled organism to change into anything else it would have to do so completely by accident...randomly...in order to support Darwin's theory.

 

[PearlWatson]

The people who claim not to believe in evolution... well, unless you're a biologist and have some compelling evidence for me, I'm not terribly inclined to listen to you, because 95% of the relevant experts are telling me something differently.

I would think of all people that you wouldn't believe something on faith. I would think you would want to be shown the evidence by these so called "relevant" experts...would want to SEE it with your own eyes.

Is a biochemist a "relevant" expert?

 

[Darkwing Duck]

If mutations are reactionary they certainly ain't random like Darwin's theory proposes.
For a single celled organism to change into anything else it would have to do so completely by accident...randomly...in order to support Darwin's theory.

Sigh.

Always being argumentative to try to win points with the jury.

Mutations ARE random. Most DO nothing. Few cause any noticeable differences to the phenotype. Most of those kill the host of the mutation. Some don't kill the host, but either don't help the organism live to breed or makes it less likely. A minute amount of mutations end up being helpful for the physical and social environment that the organism lives in, and those that have that trait will more likely survive and breed.

Only looking in retrospect, which, uncannily, looking at anything historical or prehistorical has one doing, is the resulting change in the gene pool an evolutionary reaction.

Now, I assume your next post will be about my use of "uncannily," rather than the actual concept of evolution.

 

[PearlWatson]

Sigh.

Always being argumentative to try to win points with the jury.

Mutations ARE random. Most DO nothing. Few cause any noticeable differences to the phenotype. Most of those kill the host of the mutation. Some don't kill the host, but either don't help the organism live to breed or makes it less likely. A minute amount of mutations end up being helpful for the physical and social environment that the organism lives in, and those that have that trait will more likely survive and breed.

Only looking in retrospect, which, uncannily, looking at anything historical or prehistorical has one doing, is the resulting change in the gene pool an evolutionary reaction.

Now, I assume your next post will be about my use of "uncannily," rather than the actual concept of evolution.

Sorry you don't like your beliefs questioned in a forum.

If the mutations that led to new functional attributes and to new species are random what is the evidence that they are?
As you say, the progression from simple organism to more complex organisms look like a deliberate/reactionary progress, so what evidence leads you to believe it isn't?

 

[pickledXgrandma]

this is all the proof i need

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Sorry you don't like your beliefs questioned in a forum.

If the mutations that led to new functional attributes and to new species are random what is the evidence that they are?
As you say, the progression from simple organism to more complex organisms look like a planned deliberate progress, so what evidence leads you to believe it isn't?

Lol. Why aren't you questioning my "beliefs" on snow? Or "beliefs" on gravity? Logic does not equal beliefs. Scientific speculation does not equal beliefs. Scientific theories do not equal beliefs. Faith equals beliefs. Science is not based on faith.


"[T]he progression from simple organism to more complex organisms look like a planned deliberate progress." Where did you get that from? Even a blind squirrel finds a nut. Let's use that saying as an analogy. If you only knew that in the end, that particular blind squirrel did find a nut, would you say the squirrel found it randomly or that it was a deliberate process to find it? The squirrel went from not having it to having it. You're asking for evidence that the squirrel hunted and took time to find it, and when I can't, you make the conclusion that the squirrel went straight for the nut, that God told him where it was.

As for evidence, in science, you use the evidence to corroborate or falsify the negative statement, known as the null hypothesis. In this case, either null will do. Evolution is not deliberate, or evolution is not random. Observable evolution states the former has not been falsified, and the latter has been. Maladaptive evolutionary traits are observable. Mutations in general can be documented as random. Mutations happen all the time. There is no rhyme or reason to mutations.

 

[Deleted member 365]

I truly wonder about the Genesis stuff. So much of it can be symbolical or somewhat poetic. I struggle to take much of what the bible has as literal.

Otherwise, we'd still be stuck believing that the earth was only a few thousand years old, that the sun really was stopped so that the Israelites could fight, and that we should all be eating flesh to remember the savior.

Being a religious person myself, I tend to lean on certain religious aspects. Having hope in a brighter tomorrow, forgiveness for past transgressions, feeling good about treating others with respect and honesty.
However, when it comes to arguing about things like evolution, I lose the "anger" that so many of the religious right seems to have. I don't consider Darwin the AntiChrist. He was a scientist coming up with theories. They seem reasonable to me. Much more reasonable than believing in the literal translations of the Bible.

 

[PearlWatson]

I struggle to take much of what the bible has as literal.
Otherwise, we'd still be stuck believing that the earth was only a few thousand years old,

Where does it say in the bible that the earth is a "few thousand years old?"

 

[moevillini]

...Scientific theories do not equal beliefs. Faith equals beliefs. Science is not based on faith...

actually, I see it a little differently - - science is very much based on faith, such as the faith that if you get the same result after 100 trials, you'll get the same result on the 101st - - or maybe my definition of faith is a little different from yours?

 

[PearlWatson]

Lol. Why aren't you questioning my "beliefs" on snow? Or "beliefs" on gravity? Logic does not equal beliefs. Scientific speculation does not equal beliefs. Scientific theories do not equal beliefs. Faith equals beliefs. Science is not based on faith.

Snow and gravity ain't speculative like Darwinism is.

"[T]he progression from simple organism to more complex organisms look like a planned deliberate progress." Where did you get that from? Even a blind squirrel finds a nut. Let's use that saying as an analogy. If you only knew that in the end, that particular blind squirrel did find a nut, would you say the squirrel found it randomly or that it was a deliberate process to find it? The squirrel went from not having it to having it. You're asking for evidence that the squirrel hunted and took time to find it, and when I can't, you make the conclusion that the squirrel went straight for the nut, that God told him where it was.

The conclusion I make when you can't show me evidence of random mutation leading to a new species is that you don't have the evidence to support your theory.

As for evidence, in science, you use the evidence to corroborate or falsify the negative statement, known as the null hypothesis. In this case, either null will do. Evolution is not deliberate, or evolution is not random. Observable evolution states the former has not been falsified, and the latter has been. Maladaptive evolutionary traits are observable. Mutations in general can be documented as random. Mutations happen all the time. There is no rhyme or reason to mutations.

How do you document a mutation as random?