toldailytopic: The theory of evolution. Do you believe in it?

[voltaire]

Show us an incontrovertible
mammalian skull or
identifiable bone in the
Cambrian or Ediacaran or
before.
According to the YEC model
of genesis, these things
should be EVERYWHERE. All
creatures lived at the same
time so we should find
everything all mixed
together. Why do we have a
progression?-------Alatone. Yes, according to YEC, all animals were living together at once. That is what was created. Why dont we find them mixed up everywhere in the fossil record??? THEY WERE DESTROYED IN THE FLOOD. I guess your next question is why aren't all the animals preserved all over the fossil record after the flood. When you destroy all life, all the animals from the ark do not suddenly thrive on every location on the planet. Not all plant life thrives immediately either. The plant life we find in the carboniferous and permian are all the animals had to eat for a while. Most higher order mammals either could not thrive on that vegetation or they could not compete for resources when the reptiles were in dominance.

 

[voltaire]

If it were true that
scientists love to upend the
apple cart, then they would
have continued to look for
human footprints in Paluxy.
But no one wants to look.
Why? Because scientists
don't really like upending
the apple cart, they like
being rich/powerful/famous
like everyone else. And
proving evolution wrong
would only get one fired.-------Yorzhik. No truer words were ever spoken.

 

[Selaphiel]

Majority opinion does not equate to truth It is not a proper scientific theory for the reasons I have provided. Really, it is quite simple. Natural science's proper realm is in the present - it relies upon experiments, demonstrations, and observations that can be done universally in the present that results in the same objective results. The ToE lacks these. There is no experiment to confirm it or falsify it, there are no demonstrations that can be provided to show how life truly evolved (only many conflicting hypothesis), and the ToE most certainly cannot be observed (nor can any other historical event be objectively observed).

This is utterly false. First you admit that you have not studied it in detail, then you go on to make highly unorthodox claims about what the theory is, those two statements do not add up do they?

You mistake the ToE for the phylogenetic trees constructed based on the evidence of the theory and the process the theory presents. I agree that there are different interpretations of the data when it comes to constructing the exact historical process, but that is not the core of the theory.
What the theory of evolution claims is that there is a change in inherited traits in a population through successive generations. The changes are "selected" based on how well they fit the environment the organisms live in. That is the claim, not some specific phylogenetic tree of life.

These claims can be tested as well and they have been ad nauseum. Examples that I have listed a thousand times before comes to mind. The long term evolution experiment using E.coli bacteria (lead by Richard Lenski: http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/) who has passed 50 000 generations.
Lizards who got placed in a different environment showed morphological change after only 37 years (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm).
Molecular biology demonstrates the shared inheritance of living species through DNA comparison as in ERVs and shared accumulated pseudogene mutations.

So it has been DEMONSTRATED that the process of evolution (known as genetic mutation and natural selection) is actual, and it has been demonstrated that species have a shared ancestry. That is the core of the theory and it is as solid as science gets.

Then we can quibble about the exact details of the HISTORICAL process which is an inference from the core of the theory, that depends on our understanding of the data and on what data is available to us. But to go from that to question the process itself and the fact that all living species share ancestry is a non-sequitur.

And we have provided multiple ways of falsifying the ToE in this thread already.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

I can say it will never happen because evolution happened. But if it did happen, you'd have to throw out evolution because creatures would be appearing before they could have possibly evolved.

You mean like the critters that produced these tracks?

 

[voltaire]

What the theory of
evolution claims is that
there is a change in
inherited traits in a
population through
successive generations. The
changes are "selected"
based on how well they fit
the environment the
organisms live in. That is
the claim, not some specific
phylogenetic tree of life.-----If that is all the TOE claims, then it is true and has been observed. Is that the only claim? Is it a claim of the TOE that all life today descended simple multicellular life such as algae?

 

[One Eyed Jack]

What the theory of
evolution claims is that
there is a change in
inherited traits in a
population through
successive generations. The
changes are "selected"
based on how well they fit
the environment the
organisms live in. That is
the claim, not some specific
phylogenetic tree of life.-----If that is all the TOE claims, then it is true and has been observed. Is that the only claim? Is it a claim of the TOE that all life today descended simple multicellular life such as algae?

More like a simple unicellular life-form about which we know absolutely nothing.

 

[YahuShuan]

Do I believe in the "Theory" of evolution? No. I believe that what I think, since it has not changed throughout my entire lifespan, that God created everything in six days, and that what I believe is based upon a book that has not changed in that aspect of it for two to four thousand years, and is verified by a relationship with that Creator, which also has not changed for six thousand years, it would seem that what I believe in is going so much farther towards the truth, than evolution would or could be, I must say that the "theory of evolution" doesn't stand a chance at ever coming close to being factual, in my eyes.

The question might be slightly better posed as: Do you believe in that which changes, or that which you CAN see, and "does not change"?

Seems to me that when a story changes, someone is lying. I thought science was proving something can happen again and again and true science is to verify that what the thought or theory is, can be replicated. When a scientist replicates a dinosaur and I see it alive, and they prove they did it from nothing...AND CAN DO IT AGAIN AND AGAIN. Then maybe I would listen to those who believe in that which changes over and over again??? When they do, it will be because Yah shows them HE can do what He said...over and over again and again...and I still don't think that the scientists will be able to replicate what God has done! Puny humans who just can't admit how puny they really are even in a Universe so vast.

Shabbat Shalom.

 

[csuguy]

This is utterly false. First you admit that you have not studied it in detail, then you go on to make highly unorthodox claims about what the theory is, those two statements do not add up do they?

Wrong. I did not make unorthodox statements about what the theory claims - I merely analyzed whether it falls into proper natural science or not. This doesn't take much knowledge to analyze, mostly just an understanding of what natural science is and is not.

You mistake the ToE for the phylogenetic trees constructed based on the evidence of the theory and the process the theory presents. I agree that there are different interpretations of the data when it comes to constructing the exact historical process, but that is not the core of the theory.
What the theory of evolution claims is that there is a change in inherited traits in a population through successive generations. The changes are "selected" based on how well they fit the environment the organisms live in. That is the claim, not some specific phylogenetic tree of life.

The trees are part of the theory - you can't claim that that life evolves and then not show demonstrate it. Those trees are the theory in its multiple forms. I will grant you, of course, that no one tree is seen as ultimately authoritative and that they are subject to change - but the trees nevertheless go hand in hand with the theory; they are the visual representation of the various thoughts on evolutionary theory.

And the theory is fundamentally historical. It's all about how life, historically, came to be and they provide various mechanism to try to explain how things evolved over history (hence Darwin's book was titled "The Origin of Species"). Again, I'll grant you that it isn't meant to be "exact" since obviously there is no way for them to acquire the necessary data to form an exact. Of course, as I pointed out before, we have no clue how representative the fossils we have are of the whole - so we can't even figure out an estimate of how accurate the various models truly are.

Things like "natural selection" and "evolution" are merely corner stones to the theory, but are not in themselves the theory.

These claims can be tested as well and they have been ad nauseum. Examples that I have listed a thousand times before comes to mind. The long term evolution experiment using E.coli bacteria (lead by Richard Lenski: http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/) who has passed 50 000 generations.
Lizards who got placed in a different environment showed morphological change after only 37 years (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm).
Molecular biology demonstrates the shared inheritance of living species through DNA comparison as in ERVs and shared accumulated pseudogene mutations.

Testing whether things change somewhat overtime (simply evolution) is not the same as testing the Theory of Evolution which is historical in nature. Evolution is a natural process that can be observed and tested in the present, the Theory of Evolution cannot be observed or tested in the present as it is a historical theory which tries to uncover how all the various forms of life came to be.

So it has been DEMONSTRATED that the process of evolution (known as genetic mutation and natural selection) is actual, and it has been demonstrated that species have a shared ancestry. That is the core of the theory and it is as solid as science gets.

Evolution and the Theory of Evolution are two different things. Establishing one does not establish the other. Non sequitor.

Then we can quibble about the exact details of the HISTORICAL process which is an inference from the core of the theory, that depends on our understanding of the data and on what data is available to us. But to go from that to question the process itself and the fact that all living species share ancestry is a non-sequitur.

The above has not been established. It is a historical theory but not something that can be objectively demonstrated. Not to say that there isn't supporting evidence for it, but it cannot be demonstrated as it is a historical claim. Also, to introduce the above is to introduce the issue of abiogenesis - which most advocates of the evolutionary theory try to keep as a seperate issue.

And we have provided multiple ways of falsifying the ToE in this thread already.

The ToE is unfalsifiable and you haven't provided any adequate means of falisifying it. Granted there are important peripheral issues which the ToE relies on such as evolution happening - but that is not a direct test on the ToE itself.

 

[no avatar]

The ToE is sound science. Since I don't believe the entire bible is literally true, science is not a prblem for me. I worship God, not a book about God.

In general ToE is only a problem for those who idolize the Bible.

Except that not all people who have a problem with the ToE are Christians. There actually are scientists who have problems with it. Unfortunately, the greater scientific community has seen fit to black-ball them and make sure their work doesn't see the light of day.

 

[no avatar]

So you are scientifically illiterate ? Because we don't know how everything started, we can't study what has happened to life? That's really, really silly to say! This is the equivalent of telling me that I can't study what has happened to a ball in my yard just because I don't know how it got in my yard. Life is here, and we can study it's changes. How everything got started, we do not yet know this, but it is being investigated. Just because you have a ancient comic book, does not mean it is true, it's still fiction.

I made no correlation between the two. People can study it all they want. They just don't acknowledge the inherent problems that are there when they remove a creator from the problem, like, how did we get here to begin with.

 

[The Barbarian]

Alate One writes:
I can say it will never happen because evolution happened. But if it did happen, you'd have to throw out evolution because creatures would be appearing before they could have possibly evolved.

You mean like the critters that produced these tracks?

Nope. While most scientists now think that birds evolved relatively late from carnivorous dinosaurs, a few (like Al Feduccia) think that dinosaurs and birds had a common ancestor in thecodonts. So it's a minor detail; were dinosaurs parents or siblings of birds? It's not completely resolved, and since well-evolved small theropod dinosaurs already existed in the late Triassic, these prints could be either small dinosaurs or birds without resolving the question. It's consistent with either.

 

[kmoney]

Good distinction Sela! I too, accept the theory of evolution as plausible based on the evidence. I believe it is open to adjustment as new evidence is found.
It does not interfere with my faith in God or his word.
In the scheme of things we know very little. By faith I have what God has given me.

I think this basically matches up with my views. I haven't studied the matters as much as I should but from what I've seen there is a strong case for evolution. There are some theological difficulties but you just have to work through them.

 

[Stripe]

Alate One writes:
I can say it will never happen because evolution happened. But if it did happen, you'd have to throw out evolution because creatures would be appearing before they could have possibly evolved. Nope. While most scientists now think that birds evolved relatively late from carnivorous dinosaurs, a few (like Al Feduccia) think that dinosaurs and birds had a common ancestor in thecodonts. So it's a minor detail; were dinosaurs parents or siblings of birds? It's not completely resolved, and since well-evolved small theropod dinosaurs already existed in the late Triassic, these prints could be either small dinosaurs or birds without resolving the question. It's consistent with either.

The ever malleable evolutionary story evolves again. :up:

 

[chrysostom]

There are some theological difficulties but you just have to work through them.

what are they?

 

[Stripe]

I think this basically matches up with my views. I haven't studied the matters as much as I should but from what I've seen there is a strong case for evolution. There are some theological difficulties but you just have to work through them.

When you get around to studying the evidence you'll change your mind.

 

[The Barbarian]

If it were true that scientists love to upend the apple cart, then they would have continued to look for human footprints in Paluxy. But no one wants to look. Why?

Because even rational creationists have realized it's a joke.

Rusch, Wilbert H., Sr., 1971, "Human Footprints in Rock," Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 201-213. In this article Rusch stated, "among creationist groups there is often considerable misplaced enthusiasm on the [man track] subject, with too great a willingness to jump to unjustified conclusions." Although his article focused on "man track" claims in locations other than the Paluxy, Rusch stated he would investigate the Paluxy claims, and make another report "should the results prove fruitful." He made no subsequent report. In 1981 Rusch related to me over the phone that he had visited the Paluxy sites in 1970 and 1971, and found "no definitive evidence" of human tracks. Ernest Booth (now deceased) investigated the Paluxy sites in 1970. Although Booth did not publish his findings, he related to me through letters and phone conversations that he agreed that the Taylor Site tracks were dinosaurian, and had found that the alleged human tracks on other sites were related to spurious phenomena. In a letter to me (dated November 29, 1981) Booth wrote, "Creationists have lost a lot of credibility over these so-called human tracks in the Paluxy... they are not human tracks at all...and many of them are not even tracks of any kind...We don't need this kind of evidence to support creation...."
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/tsite.htm

Because scientists don't really like upending the apple cart, they like being rich/powerful/famous like everyone else.

Yeah, the powerful and wealthy scientists secretly run society. Are you really that dumb?

And proving evolution wrong would only get one fired.

Asserting evolution will get you fired at the ICR graduate school. But even Stephen Gould willingly took a professed YE creationist as a doctoral candidate. Creationists suppress any dissent when they get a chance. Science is open to new ideas. This is an important difference between creationists and scientists.

 

[Desert Reign]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for January 14th, 2011 10:17 AM

toldailytopic: The theory of evolution. Do you believe in it?

Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

It's a theory. I'm ok with it generally, though I disagree on details.

Scientific theories only need to be reasonable, you don't have to believe in them in the same way you might a religious belief. It's not like moral commitment. Tomorrow the theory will be different to what it is today but Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and forever.

However, it is important to actually be able to understand it at all. With a lot of scientific theories you are doing really well if you understand half of it.

 

[bybee]

Because even rational creationists have realized it's a joke.

Rusch, Wilbert H., Sr., 1971, "Human Footprints in Rock," Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 201-213. In this article Rusch stated, "among creationist groups there is often considerable misplaced enthusiasm on the [man track] subject, with too great a willingness to jump to unjustified conclusions." Although his article focused on "man track" claims in locations other than the Paluxy, Rusch stated he would investigate the Paluxy claims, and make another report "should the results prove fruitful." He made no subsequent report. In 1981 Rusch related to me over the phone that he had visited the Paluxy sites in 1970 and 1971, and found "no definitive evidence" of human tracks. Ernest Booth (now deceased) investigated the Paluxy sites in 1970. Although Booth did not publish his findings, he related to me through letters and phone conversations that he agreed that the Taylor Site tracks were dinosaurian, and had found that the alleged human tracks on other sites were related to spurious phenomena. In a letter to me (dated November 29, 1981) Booth wrote, "Creationists have lost a lot of credibility over these so-called human tracks in the Paluxy... they are not human tracks at all...and many of them are not even tracks of any kind...We don't need this kind of evidence to support creation...."
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/tsite.htm



Yeah, the powerful and wealthy scientists secretly run society. Are you really that dumb?



Asserting evolution will get you fired at the ICR graduate school. But even Stephen Gould willingly took a professed YE creationist as a doctoral candidate. Creationists suppress any dissent when they get a chance. Science is open to new ideas. This is an important difference between creationists and scientists.

Well said!

 

[Selaphiel]

The trees are part of the theory - you can't claim that that life evolves and then not show demonstrate it. Those trees are the theory in its multiple forms. I will grant you, of course, that no one tree is seen as ultimately authoritative and that they are subject to change - but the trees nevertheless go hand in hand with the theory; they are the visual representation of the various thoughts on evolutionary theory.

The trees are inferences of the core principles of the ToE + the available fossil and molecular evidence. The fossil and molecular evidence is incomplete, so there are certain disagreements among biologists when it comes to the exact historical process. No one however is questioning that the shared ancestry of all biological organisms. The fact that species are interrelated is hard science, demonstrable with both fossil, embryological and molecular data.

And the theory is fundamentally historical. It's all about how life, historically, came to be and they provide various mechanism to try to explain how things evolved over history (hence Darwin's book was titled "The Origin of Species"). Again, I'll grant you that it isn't meant to be "exact" since obviously there is no way for them to acquire the necessary data to form an exact. Of course, as I pointed out before, we have no clue how representative the fossils we have are of the whole - so we can't even figure out an estimate of how accurate the various models truly are.

But there is no question about whether the species are interrelated with each other through common ancestry.

Testing whether things change somewhat overtime (simply evolution) is not the same as testing the Theory of Evolution which is historical in nature. Evolution is a natural process that can be observed and tested in the present, the Theory of Evolution cannot be observed or tested in the present as it is a historical theory which tries to uncover how all the various forms of life came to be.

That is a rather strange distinction that I have never seen before. The history of the diversification of species is an inference from the core facts of the ToE and the data we have. Of course we can not observe dinosaurs evolving into birds, but we can infer that it happened based on fossil data even if we do not have the complete story.

The above has not been established. It is a historical theory but not something that can be objectively demonstrated. Not to say that there isn't supporting evidence for it, but it cannot be demonstrated as it is a historical claim. Also, to introduce the above is to introduce the issue of abiogenesis - which most advocates of the evolutionary theory try to keep as a seperate issue.

They make it a separate issue because it is a separate question.

ToE = Origin of species as in explaining the mechanisms of how new species arise through genetic mutation and natural selection. This theory presumes the existence of life, it does not care how life originated. Life may have fallen from the heaven as far as the ToE is concerned since it is merely concerned by how speciation occur through genetic mutation and natural selection which are pretty much laws of nature.

Abiogenesis = Asking the question how life may have originated through chemical processes in the environment of the early earth. This is a question of how organic molecules may have formed in certain chemical molecules which form the building blocks for proteins

The ToE is unfalsifiable and you haven't provided any adequate means of falisifying it. Granted there are important peripheral issues which the ToE relies on such as evolution happening - but that is not a direct test on the ToE itself.

Wrong. Refute the molecular evidence of common ancestry in living species and you wreck the theory of evolution. Find a rabbit or any other complex animal in the precambrian strata and you refute all evolutionary models for the history of diversification of species.

 

[taikoo]

Except that not all people who have a problem with the ToE are Christians. There actually are scientists who have problems with it. Unfortunately, the greater scientific community has seen fit to black-ball them and make sure their work doesn't see the light of day.

This is of course utter bs, as anyone with at least two active brain cells should be able to tell. You think that at the u of Tokyo, U of Beijing, in Berlin, south africa, Finland.... they are all part of this conspiracy to suppress any science that doesnt fit some ideology?

Even the christians couldnt manage that during the dark ages.

Part of the humour and utter cluelessness of this idea is that some seeming innocuous bit of research would get published in some obscure journal... as it so often does, like with the first laser...and its only later that people learn the full implications, long long after the genii is out of the bottle... not that anyone was trying to keep it in anyway.


As for your people who have 'problems" with evolution that is about as vague as you could possibly get.

Nobody on gods green earth has a problem consisting of a so much as one single data point to back up any opinion that evolution isnt valid.

let us know when you have a data point, not just vague notions and gibberish about people in a world wide conspiracy to suppress Knowledge.