Do You Believe In Evolution?

[Arcturus]

To answer the OP, I accept common descent as the overwhelmingly best available explanation for a a great variety of phenomena in fields like molecular biology, biogeography, paleontology, and comparative anatomy.

Furthermore I accept random mutation combined with natural selection (and a few other mechanisms, such as genetic drift, etc) as the best explanation for how the relatedness that common descent show came to be.

I reject all forms of creationism in which species appeared "as is", based upon the strong evidence to the contrary, and the fact that no form of creationism I've ever been presented with has had any form of explanatory power.
Furthermore I reject so called Intelligent Design, seeing as how it is simply a "fancy" rewording of the age old canard "I can't understand how evolution could have done it, therefore God somehow by default did."

I agree with all of this, excellent post, Kent.

 

[Bill]

Actually, I find it interesting that in all of human history, no one has ever seen a star actually form. Scientists have theories galore on the subject, but none of them have ever been conclusively proven.

Pictures of star formation clusters. I've asked you before, and I'll ask again: where are you getting your science knowledge?

Yes, it is. Many scientists will tell you flat-out that standard policy is to throw out theories that don't work, and replace them. But with evolution, they haven't thought of anything to replace that theory, because throwing it out would leave a tremendous hole where the origins of life are concerned. They don't want to trash the evolution theory because at present, there's only one viable substitute: the Word of God...and to accept that would mean placing all of humanity under His authority, which they don't want to do.

Again, you are misstating evolution and equating it with the origin of life. Science doesn't throw out evolution because it best explains the evidence. The "Word of God as written by men who say they're words are from God" can't compete, on any level.

 

[Bill]

I believe in micro-evolution. But, I don't believe in macro-evolution.

That's like saying you believe the sun rises in the morning, but you don't believe it sets in the evening.

 

[Bill]

So those are enough to prove evolution as fact? If that is so why is there any controversy at all in this?

Evolution is fact because it has been observed. There are observed instances of speciation. There is a definite change in the genetic information of a gene pool from one generation to another(<---definition of evolution). It has been observed and documented. We have mounds and mounds of evidence supporting it. Evolution is fact.

The how and why is still being explained. The explanations of how and why are theories. The theory of evolution seeks to explain how evolution works. Gravity is the same. That gravity occurs is a fact. We see the effects all around us. The how and why of gravity still needs explanation. Therefore, we have the theory of gravity to explain it. Theories explain the facts.

There is no real controversy in the world of science. But literalists do not want to accept that there are explanations of the natural world in which their god is not needed and the words of their Bible are wrong or do not hold as much power as previously thought. And they will do anything to keep that from happening, including blatantly ignoring evidence or knowledge. That is why there is controversy. I have yet to see anyone who both denies evolution and understands it. I suspect that is because with understanding, the denial would diminish.

 

[Hotwire]

Evolution is fact because it has been observed. There are observed instances of speciation. There is a definite change in the genetic information of a gene pool from one generation to another(<---definition of evolution). It has been observed and documented. We have mounds and mounds of evidence supporting it. Evolution is fact.

The how and why is still being explained. The explanations of how and why are theories. The theory of evolution seeks to explain how evolution works. Gravity is the same. That gravity occurs is a fact. We see the effects all around us. The how and why of gravity still needs explanation. Therefore, we have the theory of gravity to explain it. Theories explain the facts.

There is no real controversy in the world of science. But literalists do not want to accept that there are explanations of the natural world in which their god is not needed and the words of their Bible are wrong or do not hold as much power as previously thought. And they will do anything to keep that from happening, including blatantly ignoring evidence or knowledge. That is why there is controversy. I have yet to see anyone who both denies evolution and understands it. I suspect that is because with understanding, the denial would diminish.

Very well put, sir. If I were judging this contest, I would have awarded you the win.

 

[Tally Man]

I get it that you can't test Creationsim at all so it loses credibility, but on that note can you test evolution either? It takes so long for a species to change how can that be tested and measured? Empirical observation might cover looking at Cro-Mangnon bones and then us, but what about all those missing links in between?

Well seeing as evolution is

In biology, evolution is the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next.

it is fairly easy to test and measure it. The famous moth experiments by Bernard Kettlewell. Those experiments tested and ended up predicting an evolutionary change in the moths genes because of pollution. Not only that but we have a ton of other evidence which helps show evolution occurring in the past as well as the present. So to say we can't test it or measure it isn't true.

 

[michephantom]

There is no real controversy in the world of science. But literalists do not want to accept that there are explanations of the natural world in which their god is not needed and the words of their Bible are wrong or do not hold as much power as previously thought. And they will do anything to keep that from happening, including blatantly ignoring evidence or knowledge. That is why there is controversy. I have yet to see anyone who both denies evolution and understands it. I suspect that is because with understanding, the denial would diminish.

What is interesting to me is reports of scientists who originally were atheists, but somehow changed their mind because they felt they found some innacuracies. Since I believe that the evidence to back up evolution is solid, then I wonder how people with scientific training could come to misunderstand the evidence. They would have no reason to deny evoltuion, because they had no previous belief that contradicted it.

And it's scary that such educated people could go astray.

Also, has anyone who objected to the theory of evolution ever provide a non-supernatural replacement for it?

 

[Moviefan2k4]

Evolution is fact because it has been observed. There are observed instances of speciation. There is a definite change in the genetic information of a gene pool from one generation to another(<---definition of evolution). It has been observed and documented. We have mounds and mounds of evidence supporting it. Evolution is fact.

And I'm willing to bet that every instance of such evolution is limited to various species within a set kind (i.e., different fish, or different frogs, etc.). That's what micro-evolution is: variations within a set kind, limited to that animal's specific genetic traits. Using that reality as an excuse for macro-evolution (the changing from one animal kind to a completely different one) is utterly ridiculous. No one has ever, under any circumstances, seen any animal produce anything but another of their own kind. As such, macro-evolution will remain a popularly-accepted theory, but never a verifiable fact.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

And I'm willing to bet that every instance of such evolution is limited to various species within a set kind (i.e., different fish, or different frogs, etc.). That's what micro-evolution is: variations within a set kind, limited to that animal's specific genetic traits. Using that reality as an excuse for macro-evolution (the changing from one animal kind to a completely different one) is utterly ridiculous. No one has ever, under any circumstances, seen any animal produce anything but another of their own kind. As such, macro-evolution will remain a popularly-accepted theory, but never a verifiable fact.

no one has ever said evolution happens over night, this is where creationists become ignorant... something like your suggesting, would take thousands upon thousands of years. A deer just doesn't one day give birth to a giraffe.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

no one has ever said evolution happens over night, this is where creationists become ignorant... something like your suggesting, would take thousands upon thousands of years. A deer just doesn't one day give birth to a giraffe.

For macro-rvolution to be fact, there'd have to be some point where one kind of animal produced a completely different kind, no matter the time difference. We may see examples of fish where there's two different types of fish DNA, but that's micro-evolution, not macro.

Similarly, a recent study stipulated that humans and apes are 98.6% similar...but 1.4% still represents a huge amount of genetic difference. Apes and man are physically similar because they have similar purposes to accomplish in life, and because they were created by a common designer...not because of a common ancestor.

 

[Danalys]

you don't see a reptile suddenly become a bird. you see a more bird like reptile, then an even more bird like reptile etc over and over until it's what we classify as a bird.

 

[Oddzball]

If you are wrong and God is real then you will face a punishment for your lifelong rejection

Thor be very unappy about your fail to offer him proper due.

The gamble with betting on the unknown is there are other unknowns.

 

[Bill]

And I'm willing to bet that every instance of such evolution is limited to various species within a set kind (i.e., different fish, or different frogs, etc.). That's what micro-evolution is: variations within a set kind, limited to that animal's specific genetic traits. Using that reality as an excuse for macro-evolution (the changing from one animal kind to a completely different one) is utterly ridiculous.

No, that is what your narrow definition of micro-evolution is to allow it to fit within your similarly narrow world view. There are no known mechanisms that keep macroevolution from occurring given enough time. But to state that we have to see one animal suddenly changing into another is an inaccurate reflection of the terms.

No one has ever, under any circumstances, seen any animal produce anything but another of their own kind. As such, macro-evolution will remain a popularly-accepted theory, but never a verifiable fact.

Evidence for macroevolution.

 

[dark_b]

And I'm willing to bet that every instance of such evolution is limited to various species within a set kind (i.e., different fish, or different frogs, etc.). That's what micro-evolution is: variations within a set kind, limited to that animal's specific genetic traits. Using that reality as an excuse for macro-evolution (the changing from one animal kind to a completely different one) is utterly ridiculous. No one has ever, under any circumstances, seen any animal produce anything but another of their own kind. As such, macro-evolution will remain a popularly-accepted theory, but never a verifiable fact.

iremember when someone told you that some snakes had little legs inside them when they were found dead. under the skin.
this is something right?

if i remember correctly you said in the thread; '' in the bible it is not written that she does NOT have legs''.

 

[Bill]

For macro-rvolution to be fact, there'd have to be some point where one kind of animal produced a completely different kind, no matter the time difference. We may see examples of fish where there's two different types of fish DNA, but that's micro-evolution, not macro.

Again, wrong. There has to be enough generations of offspring to give mutation and other factors time to work. Your post displays a gross misunderstanding of evolution and how it works. How can you even possibly feel comfortable commenting on it with such an erroneous grasp of the subject?

 

[The Apocalypse]

Moviefan is being owned by Bill and true facts. I love it, I love it.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

Evidence for macroevolution.

Fossils are completely unreliable in proving macroevolution, for one reason more than most: it's dead. Fossils cannot be used to prove evolutional theory, because in truth, all you can conclusively prove by looking at a fossil is that it died. You can't prove it had any offspring at all.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Fossils are completely unreliable in proving macroevolution, for one reason more than most: it's dead. Fossils cannot be used to prove evolutional theory, because in truth, all you can conclusively prove by looking at a fossil is that it died. You can't prove it had any offspring at all.

.... fossils have DNA.. what proof do you want? watching a fish give birth to a cat or something? i dont think you understand evolution AT ALL... it's slight details by slight details. Faster evolution does seem to happen with fish and reptiles but its still a step by step process. there was a recent study that found out this type of fish (trapped in a pond, had recently evolved into 2 seperate species in order to survive the pond. Some believe pollution and the darker water enabled the transformation.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

iremember when someone told you that some snakes had little legs inside them when they were found dead. under the skin.
this is something right?

The presence of bone spurs in a serpent's skeleton only suggests that the creatures could've originally had legs, at some distant point. Scripture offers this in what I call a "reverse mentioning". Following its treachery, God cursed the serpent to crawl on its belly for the rest of its life. Well, common sense dictates that it must not have done so prior to the curse, which suggests an alternate form of movement...such as having legs.

If i remember correctly, you said in the thread, ''in the Bible it is not written that she does NOT have legs''.

What I said was that Scripture doesn't explicitly record serpents bearing legs in the book of Genesis. However, if they didn't, then the following questions remain: "Why would God curse an animal to do something which it was already doing by default? What purpose would that serve?"

 

[Nitehawk013]

Bill just seems to be better at memorizing. Message boards are always filled with "arm chair" Biologists convinced of their own brilliance.

Personally, I have seen guys like Ken Hovind, Arlo Moehlenpah, Morris and Ham completely dismantle evolutionary Biologists with all their awards and PhD's in debate. Message board debate is pointless about 99.5% of the time. It gets far too broad, far too loose and you rarely get either side cornered to nail down one issue at a time. You ask one hard question and the opposing side wants to change gears and go a different direction.

The evolution idea is beyond even my faith from the word go. The Big Bang says that everything that is in the known universe came from the explosion of a "singularity" that was the size of the period at the end of this sentence. Hmm. And yet that say we Christians are teh crazy ones for having faith. It takes more faith to believe the evolution joke than anything in the Bible.

 

[Majic Walrus]

Just out of curiosity, what miracle or great presentation would serve to convince you that God is real? The parting of an ocean? The raising of the dead? Water turning to blood, and back again? Such things would certainly impress people's collective imaginations...but then what? It's far more likely that those same people would go right back to living life their own way, rather than God's. They'd probably even try making up reason why what they just saw was false.

That's up to God to figure out. I'm not sure what would have to take place in order to convince me. Certainly God would have to come out of Heaven to claim it though.

In all honesty, God cares far more about saving people than He does about impressing them. The miracles done in Scripture were necessary for various reasons, and I highly doubt any of them were about impressions alone.

Necessary? Like walking on water?

If God can impress me and save me at the same time why not? Why risk my eternal salvation because he's to bashful to do some show and tell?

Really? Well, what would you replace it with? Let's suppose, just for the sake of discussion, that anything and everything related to evolution were thrown out the proverbial window. You'd be left with a lot of questions to answer, like...

1) Who are we as a race?
2) How did we get here?
3) What is the meaning of life?
4) What happens after we die?

We could replace it with the theory of string cheese, once upon a time some string cheese exploded every that was made was made and it was good? Or how about once upon a time there was a frost giant and a tree? Or how about the universe was never created, it has always existed? Or how about the universe was created by space aliens? Those are all equally as valid as the theory that God created the universe.

These same four questions are the biggest ones that humans have tried to unravel for centuries. Now, if evolution were true, these 4 questions would likely be answered this way...

1) We simply exist, with no aparent rhyme or reason.
2) We came from amoebas and single-celled organisms billions of years ago, changing constaly over time into new species.
3) There is no meaning to life, so you might as well enjoy yourself. If it feels good to you, do it.
4) Your body will deteriorate, and be recycled into the ecosystem, where another creature will eventually take your place.

See how this mode of thinking can get messed up real quick?

Those questions can be answered in thousands of different ways and they have been asked since the beginning of thought. What's wrong with that mode of thinking?

 

[Moviefan2k4]

...what proof do you want? watching a fish give birth to a cat or something?

Such a visually-referenced phenomena would be required to conclusively prove the existence of evolution.

I dont think you understand evolution AT ALL... it's slight details by slight details.

Of which there is no concrete proof, only theories and suggestions.

There was a recent study that found out this type of fish (trapped in a pond, had recently evolved into 2 seperate species in order to survive the pond. Some believe pollution and the darker water enabled the transformation.

Both of these species were still fish though, correct? That's micro-evolution, not macro. I'm all for animals bringing forth new species, but therei lies another problem.

See, Darwin fooled a lot of people by substituting the word "species" for "kinds" in his writings. In the strictest sense, a true kind is a particular type of a certain animal. Look at dogs, wolves, and coyotes. Each of these creatures share a ton of similarities, suggesting that they likely came from an older, dog-like ancestor. Variations within the kinds can occur, resulting in new species of dogs, coyotes, or wolves. I don't have any objections to that, because it's perfectly reasonable. The changes are confined to the kind of animal, but not the exact species.

What's not reasonable is science's current theories that say animals change from kind to kind (which no one has ever observed). You've never seen a horse give birth to anything but a horse. A bird has never reproduced anything but another bird. There are variations within the kinds, but that's the limit of it.

 

[Majic Walrus]

The presence of bone spurs in a serpent's skeleton only suggests that the creatures could've originally had legs, at some distant point. Scripture offers this in what I call a "reverse mentioning". Following its treachery, God cursed the serpent to crawl on its belly for the rest of its life. Well, common sense dictates that it must not have done so prior to the curse, which suggests an alternate form of movement...such as having legs.

Common sense does not dictate that God cursed snakes! That's what the bible dictates.

Could it not be equally plausible that at one point snakes had legs and then through different evolutionary processes they lost these legs?

What makes the biblical rationale different from the scientific rationale?

 

[Nitehawk013]

Commonality among species/kinds and even across those lines does not provide evidence to evolution necessarily. The link earlier about proof of macroevolution seemed preoccupied with showing how different species all had certain common makeups (protein chains, catalysts, anatomically). To be fair, that no more proves evolution than it possible proves common creator. It could just as easily be that the common Creator used the same method and blueprint for creating them.

You can still tell many instances of paintings and arcitechture even without signature because they follow the same common styles and themes of their creators other works.

You need to understand it all usually comes down to the mindset of the one looking at the "evidence". If one is "atheist" then they are immediately going to see evolution. If they are a person of faith, they will immediately see Creator. And they will either accept or criticize everything based on those pre-adjusted bifocals.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

Necessary? Like walking on water?

Jesus did that because He was going to use it as a lesson for the disciples. Peter said, "Lord, if it's you, call me to come to you on the water." That's a pretty bold move, considering thier fear in thinking Jesus was a ghost.

In response, Jesus simply said, "Come." So long as Peter's eyes remained on Jesus, he walked on water as well. But the moment he fixed on the wind and waves, his fear took over, and he began to sink. Jesus pulled him back up to the surface, saying, "Why do you doubt?" He was teaching His followers to trust Him more than their circumstances.

If God can impress me and save me at the same time why not? Why risk my eternal salvation because he's too bashful to do some show and tell?

Salvation is already offered, completely free to you or anyone else; no money or payment is required. All God asks is that you believe in your heart that Jesus is the Son of God, that He was crucified, and confess with your mouth that God raised him from the dead as payment for your sin. That's it. Everything else in Scripture is about living the most God-honoring life possible while on Earth.