Is macroevolution true?

[bob b]

I am really enjoying the pathetic attempts of unbelievers to "figure me out".

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Apparently they have given up arguing with me about the evidence against their precious theories, and yes, I really do take sadistic pleasure in teasing some about "theories".

Talk about swallowing a camel and choking on a gnat.

 

[noguru]

I am really enjoying the pathetic attempts of unbelievers to "figure me out".

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Apparently they have given up arguing with me about the evidence against their precious theories, and yes, I really do take sadistic pleasure in teasing some about "theories".

Talk about swallowing a camel and choking on a gnat.

It is enlightening, isn't it?

Arguing with you about evidence is futile. Because you do not debate you make proclamations.

 

[SiderealExalt]

Lies are lies and bob has talked himself into his own corner.

 

[billwald]

>Or putting it another way: are you open to the possibility that all life did not descend from a single primitive ancestor?

The chemistry of this universe seems to require that all life forms be carbon based. During the geologic time that one primative ancestor appeared many similar critters could have appeared.

 

[Skeptic]

You are much too mature an individual to be taken in by the simple stories which have lured so many youngsters into accepting the evolutionary fairy tale.

Creationism is the simplistic story that is not supported by evidence.

Solid empirical evidence has rationally "lured" the vast majority of adult scientists into accepting evolution.

Calling evolution a "fairy tale" is nonsense! Fairy tales are based not upon evidence, but on tradition and myth.

Your creationist story clearly fits the criteria for fairy tales. It is not based on empirical evidence, and is totally derived from tradition and myth. Your creationist story would not even exist if it were not for the fact that, centuries ago, a bunch of folks, who were, of course, ignorant of modern science, decided to codify their folklore and superstitious dogma by writing down their stories, which were later incorporated in a book.

I encourage you to look into these things in detail yourself to determine the actual facts in the matter.

You have clearly demonstrated that you don't even care about the facts as presented by the evidence. Why, you can't even imagine any evidence that could potentially change your mind about your creationist story! Therefore, your belief does not hinge on the evidence, it hinges on your faith in fairy tales and superstitions.

Bob, stop trying to pawn yourself off as a man of science. Your views are clearly very anti-science.

 

[Vision in Verse]

I am really enjoying the pathetic attempts of unbelievers to "figure me out".

Apparently they have given up arguing with me about the evidence against their precious theories, and yes, I really do take sadistic pleasure in teasing some about "theories".

Talk about swallowing a camel and choking on a gnat.

Bob b: An older man who has been brought into Christianity and seeks further validation of his beliefs by trying to cast doubt on accepted scientific theories.

 

[bob b]

Bob b: An older man who has been brought into Christianity and seeks further validation of his beliefs by trying to cast doubt on accepted scientific theories.

The only "accepted beliefs" I am challenging are those having to do with the origin of the universe and the origin of life.

These did not happen "naturally".

God exists, He loves you and wants you to love Him.

 

[noguru]

The only "accepted beliefs" I am challenging are those having to do with the origin of the universe and the origin of life.

These did not happen "naturally".

God exists, He loves you and wants you to love Him.

Now that is a truly valid scientific argument that follows logically from the empirical evidence. No theological proclamations there.

 

[bob b]

Now that is a truly valid scientific argument that follows logically from the empirical evidence. No theological proclamations there.

If you are not careful, you may "scientific argument" yourself right out of salvation.

 

[Vision in Verse]

The only "accepted beliefs" I am challenging are those having to do with the origin of the universe and the origin of life.

The origin of the universe is unknown. We can only tell what happened after the begining (13.7 bya). The origin of life cannot be known for certain, but many have thought up ways that life could have arisen naturally. Many have yet to be "tested". You can imagine how difficult it would be to design an experiment in which you can prove that life can arise naturally.

These did not happen "naturally".

There is natural, and there is unknown. Everything that occurs is natural.

God exists, He loves you and wants you to love Him.

So speaketh the Deciever.

 

[noguru]

If you are not careful, you may "scientific argument" yourself right out of salvation.

Are you trying to intimidate me?

 

[bob b]

Are you trying to intimidate me?

Nope, trying to help you value salvation.

 

[noguru]

Nope, trying to help you value salvation.

Oh, and what makes you think I don't value salvation?

Can you tell me what salvation means to you?

Can you tell me what exactly there is with scientific arguments that would keep me from salvation through Jesus?

 

[lucaspa]

Many evolutionists have said on these forums that science is always open to the possibility that a particular theory is not true.

In this thread I would like evolutionists to tell us whether they are open to the possibility that macroevolution is not true, and further, to tell us what the impact on their current world view would be if scientific evidence and studies showed this to be the case..

First, I think by "macroevolution" you mean what I and other scientists call "evolution". That is, descent with modification from common ancestors. Yes, I am open to the possibility. However, (macro)evolution has been tested to such an extent that we have run out of possible ways to falsify it. About the only evidence that could be found that would falsify (macro)evolution would be mammalian fossils in Cambrian or Pre-Cambrian rock. Therefore, since the evidence is overwhelming, I accept (provisionally) that evolution is true.

Should macroevolution be falsified, that would have no impact on my "worldview". Since I am theist now, how would it change that worldview?

 

[lucaspa]

If you are not careful, you may "scientific argument" yourself right out of salvation.

How? I think you are making a theological and logical error. You are saying "if God did not create by the way I say, then God did not create and God does not exist." You can see the "does-not-follow" in that logic. God can create any way He chooses. And the evidence God left us in His Creation tells us He created by the processes science discovers, including evolution.

 

[bob b]

Can you tell me what exactly there is with scientific arguments that would keep me from salvation through Jesus?

I have no problem with scientific arguments. I do have a problem with psuedoscientific arguments which imply that the Bible has serious errors, because this tends to degrade belief that Jesus Christ was who He claimed to be, and that His sacrifice for our sins was necessary for our salvation.

You have caved to evolutionary propaganda and therefore do not believe in the accuracy of scripture.

 

[lucaspa]

"Species" is too vague a term to use in this discussion, because the difference between one species and another may be so small as to be virtually invisible to anyone but an expert. In other words some cases may be due to microevolution, perhaps a change as small as a single base change to a single gene.

That's not true. Species is not too vague a term to use. The biological species concept is pretty specific: populations that do not interbreed to produce fertile offspring. Single nucleotide polymorphisms happen all the time -- you have several hundred in your genome. However, that does not constitute a new species.

Species is the only real unit in taxomomy. All the "higher" groups -- genus, family, order, etc. are simply groups of species. So, once you have speciation, in terms of evolution, you are done. Proved. A genus is simply more speciation events spread thru time.

Large scale evolution of all creatures from a single ancestor would require small changes to accumulate to become large changes..

And that is what happens. Once a new allele becomes "fixed" in a population, it means that every member of that population has that allele. Under that situation, there is no going back. Changes involving fixation must accumulate.

For example, what if life has descended from not a single ancestor but instead from multiple different types of ancestors, perhaps representing all the phyla?

That has been tested by phylogenetic analysis. And falsified. Didn't happen. The base sequence of genes across phyla are connected by historical connections and not independent observations.

Or putting it another way: are you open to the possibility that all life did not descend from a single primitive ancestor?

That is something different. And, in fact, due to lateral gene transfer, probably isn't true. Because unicellular organisms share genes between organisms not their descendents, there probably was no single common ancestor. Instead, there is the Last Common Ancestor.

 

[lucaspa]

I have no problem with scientific arguments. I do have a problem with psuedoscientific arguments which imply that the Bible has serious errors, because this tends to degrade belief that Jesus Christ was who He claimed to be, and that His sacrifice for our sins was necessary for our salvation.

That's simply bad logic and bad theology. I know the argument. It runs like this:
Sin entered the world thru the sin of one man -- Adam. Jesus died only because Adam sinned. If there wasn't an Adam, then there would be no sin and no need of Jesus sacrifice.

However, you have posted the refutation of that argument in your post: "His sacrifice for our sins" OUR sins. Yours and mine. Not Adam's. The sins you and I commit. And we commit those sins no matter what Adam did. In fact, Adam is simply an archetype that stands for each and every one of us.

Jesus' sacrifice for our sins works whether we evolved or whether God formed Adam from dust or God spoke men and women (both plural in Hebrew in Genesis 1) together into existence. It doesn't matter how God created us.

You have caved to evolutionary propaganda and therefore do not believe in the accuracy of scripture.

Define "accuracy of scripture". The Bible is not inerrant. Jesus himself tells us this in Mark 10 and Matthew 14.

 

[lucaspa]

The only "accepted beliefs" I am challenging are those having to do with the origin of the universe and the origin of life.

These did not happen "naturally".

How do you know that "naturally" leaves out God?

bob, let me submit that you are working on bad theology: god-of-the-gaps theology.

Let me leave you this to think about. Also think about where I found it. And no, it wasn't the book listed:

"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once." Butler: Analogy of Revealed Religion.

 

[lucaspa]

I'm a girl.

I don't think either can really be falsified. They can be made far more unlikely by new evidence, or observation that contradicts them, to the point where there is no reasonable doubt, but I don't think we can prove them wrong conclusively.

Oh, yes. More specifically, either easily could have been proved wrong by any number of possible evidence. For instance, experiments to test for reproductive isolation could have come up negative. Without the ability to get reproductive isolation in sexually reproducing species, speciation would have been impossible.

Second, it could have been impossible to classify living organisms in a nested hierarchy. If that were impossible, then common ancestry is impossible, since common ancestry must lead to a nested hierarchy of classification.

There are many other tests that evolution could have failed. But it didn't. Now we have basically run out of tests.

I am not 100% certain that the ToE is reality and I'm not certain that creation is bollocks.['quote]

These are not contradictory, creation and evolution. After all, evolution could easily be the way God created.

Now, creationism and evolution are contradictory. But then, they can both be viewed as 2 theories about how God created.