Evolution taken on Faith

[ImmortalFlame]

of course, thats exactly what im saying.

You're lying. What you said is that evolution claims that one family of animals can become another family. That isn't remotely true, and for you to now claim that you knew this is blatantly dishonest.

Yet evolutionists would have us believe that fish in the ocean climbed out of the ocean, developed lungs and began walking on land.

Or, you could actually do some research and find our how it actually happened in detail.

 

[Mycroft]

Here is a MUST WATCH video.

Science is based on 'observable and demonstrable evidence. But evolution is not based on such evidence....it requires faith - blind faith at that.


Watch the video and decide for yourself:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r83ROf8coSU

You know what else is taken on faith? God speaking to you through Goldfish Crackers

Florida woman finds

I think on Balance I'll take my chances with the evidenced, observed and reproduced theory of evolution.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

v
But do you think this actually happens in human 'breeding'? ( i dont like to use that word in terms of people, but i will for this question) Do men and women only select the strongest most physically perfect looking mate?

That is actually a real problem in our world today. The reason why we have so many people now needing glasses is because those genes for weak eyes aren't being breed out for example. In the past things would kill people if they didn't have the protections against it. The most extensive evolution of mankind in the past few tens of thousands of years, has been the evolution of our immune systems and which diseases we have built immunity from.

For example the Native Americans (despite being the same species) diverged from what would be called Europeans long long ago. Not much changed. Some skin and hair tone but a drastically different evolution line for resistance to disease. That is why when the European settlers came to America for the first time disease killed more than guns.

If we are to accept the teaching of macroevolution as true, we must believe that mutations and natural selection did produce all complex life-forms, despite the last 100 years of research showing these have never created anything entirely new.

How do we account for that fact?

It takes more than 100 years for macroevolution on the scale of beings as complex as ourselves to happen? We have observed marcroevolution in fruit fly experiments and yeast experiments that have generations that last around 20 minutes to 24 hours. And this was under highly controlled circumstances.

But make no mistake there has been no failure or disappointment in evolution from scientists. I just think that the expectations being put on it by creationists and other evolution deniers comes from a misguided or misunderstood viewpoint.

 

[McBell]

Here is a MUST WATCH video.

Science is based on 'observable and demonstrable evidence. But evolution is not based on such evidence....it requires faith - blind faith at that.


Watch the video and decide for yourself:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r83ROf8coSU

Really?
Have you really stooped so low as Ray Comfort?
Are you going to present the Hovind Challenge next?

And here I thought your faith was stronger than that....:sad:

 

[Mycroft]

Really?
Have you really stooped so low as Ray Comfort?
Are you going to present the Hovind Challenge next?

And here I thought your faith was stronger than that....:sad:

I find it amusing how Mr. Comfort as an unnatural obsession with all things sexual.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

I agree that everyone should have an acceptable level of education and understanding of the basics in most of the important regions of science.

But the very specifics of why we can track allele changes and how its done and what the RNA vs DNA strip looks like. Or why gram stains are helpful in identifying bacteria and how the evolution of basic cellular metabolism affects its fitness.

I mean we can learn "We found fossils. Date them with their half life and can put them in order." but we don't learn how to date them, why dating specifically works, why radiometric dating works, ect ect ect.

I can't explain or really understand the evidences for the Big Bang or string theory specifically because I don't know quantum mechanics and couldn't make sense of equations that would be the most basic of language to convey their arguments.

But back on point if we "know" that the scientific fields are based on evidence then why can't we trust them? The information is there if we wish to verify and we can trust that science generally gets it right or at the very least has a very very very very strong support system when calling something a "fact". So blindly believing in evolution when you have a basic grasp of it but don't know the specific details is very acceptable.
*edit. though I don't really see that as "Blindly accepting" anymore.

Yeah I'm not saying that everyone should know every single detail of every known field. But if they have a certain question in mind, they should learn enough to where they know the answer themselves without blind trust.

I wouldn't call myself an expert in Evolutionary Biology, but I know enough to the point that I think Evolution is undeniable and that I don't need to blindly trust in it. For instance, I think knowing about ERV markers, or animals with smooth abundant fossil records that show a very clear sequence of change(horse fossils, cetacean fossils, dinosaurs to birds, therapsids to mammals etc... ) is enough to confirm Evolution from within my personal knowledge frame.

Also, there's a lot of science propaganda out there. Another reason not to blindly trust is that wealthy people will often hire experts of a given field to lie about something to perhaps promote a product. And since he's an "expert", people will just believe him.

You might just as reasonably say that she "blindly trusts" that humans reached the moon, or that proteins are exist.

Yeah I would, and people shouldn't do that. They should try to learn enough about the topic themselves to the point to were they don't need blind trust.

they are not making 'predictions' because that would require 'fore thought'

you can't make predictions about 'past' events.

Yes you can. Prediction in science isn't the same as a prophecy or a forecast.

A prediction is when a fact, set of facts or set of premises dictate that another fact must be true in order for the premise to be true. If the prediction turns out untrue, it means the premise is untrue.

Evolution makes many predictions, as in, it dictates that certain things must be true in order to satisfy the theory.

The video you posted involves the interviewers actually making a false prediction. He kept asking for evidence of life forms changing "kinds", or more specifically, for creatures that jump from one clade to another, which is NOT a prediction of Evolution. He kept iterating things like "the finches are still finches". Nothing stops being anything as it evolves. Humans are still apes, apes are still primates, primates are still eutheria, eutheria are still mammals, mammals are still vertebrates.

 

[SkylarHunter]

Ever read a book on evolution that wasn't written by a creationist?

I read books by people who are qualified to write them. Atheists are not the only people who can write something with scientific value and if you read them you will see they make some very good points.

 

[McBell]

I read books by people who are qualified to write them. Atheists are not the only people who can write something with scientific value and if you read them you will see they make some very good points.

So does that mean the answer to Sunstones question is "no"?

 

[Sunstone]

I read books by people who are qualified to write them. Atheists are not the only people who can write something with scientific value and if you read them you will see they make some very good points.

You sound pretty touchy about lacking a minimal education in the evolutionary sciences. But I bet your lack of knowledge hasn't stopped you from forming strong, firmly held opinions that tens of thousands of scientists have it all wrong. In fact, I bet your lack of knowledge helps you to form such opinions, rather than hinders you.

Have a good day.

 

[johnhanks]

Do you realise that scientists spent decades testing the 'genetic mutation' theory only to find that genetic mutations never changed one type of animal into a different/new type?

If "the 'genetic mutation' theory" is a theory that mutations alone can bring about the emergence of new taxa at family level or above, I do not believe it is one that any competent biologist has ever held. What specific scientific experiments are you alluding to above, whereby scientists "spent decades testing" it? Where can I read about them, as you imply you have?

I should not be surprised, I suppose, that you have managed to ignore post 77 completely, as it addresses directly the very straightforward and utterly unmysterious events (of which genetic mutations form only a part) which must occur to "change one type of animal into a different/new type".

If we are to accept the teaching of macroevolution as true, we must believe that mutations and natural selection did produce all complex life-forms, despite the last 100 years of research showing these have never created anything entirely new.

How do we account for that fact?

Again, can you cite some of this research that you have read about, or are you parroting a mantra from a creationist website? How exactly did the results show that mutations and natural selection have never produced anything entirely new? And what exactly counts as something "entirely new"?

 

[Sunstone]

... I'll try to answer this in another way: The interviewer in this video was misinformed of what evolution implied, and the questions were so distant from the actual theory of evolution that they couldn't be answered. It's not that these evolutionists didn't know the answers, it's because the interviewer didn't know evolution.

Good point.

Spoiler: Very long, thorough answer

As you might know, everyone has a unique set of genes. Yet, these genes aren't entirely unique in the sense that they're passed down through family trees, these are shared traits.

As you might also know, genes continue via reproduction (sex).

Certain men like certain traits in women, certain women like certain traits in men. These attractive traits, selected by the preference of the individuals having sex, are based on genes.

Considering all of that; the child of these individuals, both having preferred traits, have some of the genes that were preferred by the couple. These attractive traits are spread down. Multiply this by every sexually active couple in the human race, you'll notice that everyone born has traits that were desirable. All together, this is the process known as natural selection.

Another player in natural selection is life span. So now there's two things at play:

1) If you don't have traits that are desirable, you won't have sex to spread those undesired traits.
a) If nobody you met finds you attractive (which would more closely mean that they dislike your traits), those traits that make you unattractive will not be passed on. If that happens to often (that these traits are found unattractive by the majority of people), then the traits will vanish from the species as they'd have not been spread.

2) If you don't live long enough to have sex, your traits will not spread.
a) If you didn't live long enough to carry on your genes because of an accident related to the limitations of your traits, those limiting traits will not be carried on. Then, if that trait is limiting to too many people in the same sense, it'll eventually no longer be found in genes of anyone, the gene for that limiting trait will be wiped out!


That's natural selection.


As for genetic mutation, I think that works similarly to natural selection. Gene mutations exist, and if a gene mutation happens to be desirable, it would happen more often, as this new gene would spread and eventually, after many generations, will be so mutated that it'll seem like a totally new and different gene.

As far as everything else, I'm not able to go too deep in depth with because like I said, I only know what I learned in biology and over internet conversations. I've never found evolutionary biology to be interesting enough to just read huge, boring books on. But I did find some of the knowledge useful; it made "artificial selection" make 10x more sense.

That's actually a pretty good summary of sexual selection, Sum, although you called it "natural selection". Sexual selection, along with genetic drift and natural selection seem to be the main ways species evolve.

 

[SkylarHunter]

You sound pretty touchy about lacking a minimal education in the evolutionary sciences. But I bet your lack of knowledge hasn't stopped you from forming strong, firmly held opinions that tens of thousands of scientists have it all wrong. In fact, I bet your lack of knowledge helps you to form such opinions, rather than hinders you.

Have a good day.

I don't lack knowledge about evolutionary sciences. My opinions are based on extensive research.

The thing about people like you is, if I tell you I believe in a creator our of blind faith you think I'm stupid and ignorant. If I give you examples of books written by men of science who found flaws in the evolution theory you keep thinking I'm stupid and ignorant. I have to conclude that unless I agree with you, you will keep thinking less of me and question my intelligence because I dared to not agree with you.

If that makes you happy, then go ahead.

 

[averageJOE]

Really?
Have you really stooped so low as Ray Comfort?
Are you going to present the Hovind Challenge next?

And here I thought your faith was stronger than that....:sad:

I've never heard of Hovind's Challenge. Is it the one where he asks "Is it impossible for god to exist?", "Is it impossible for god to write the bible?"

 

[Ouroboros]

If we are to accept the teaching of macroevolution as true, we must believe that mutations and natural selection did produce all complex life-forms, despite the last 100 years of research showing these have never created anything entirely new.

Never created anything new? Really?

There are new strains of yeast, bacteria, virus, mold, and fungus discovered each year in places where they never existed before.

There are bugs that have evolved to resist GMO crops in India (I think it was). GMO is vegetable (mostly corn, soy, and some other plants) that have been altered by Monsanto in the past 20 years to create its own pesticides. It's an artificial plant to resist bugs. Now... 10 years after the use... there are bugs that have resistance in turn against the plants pesticides (created by humans). Were did they come from?

We see this all the time. New bugs, new virus, new everything that fights against human attempts to keep us safe, happy, and healthy.

Where did MRSA come from? It didn't exist 50 years ago. No where. Today, it's not only on the rise, but several other super-bug strains have evolved. They didn't exist before, and by vector analysis they have found were some of these new strains started. Mostly in hospitals. In hospitals that didn't have those bugs at all before, and suddenly... boom, there's a new kind of virus.

So nothing new?

There's actually a lot, a huge amount more of this, if you only took your time to put some interest and read about it.

In beer brewing, there are now hundreds of strains of yeast for the process. Some of them for lager (below 50 degrees fermentation) and ales (70 and above). There are new strains of hops, like the more bitter hops that didn't exist on the market some 15 years ago. These have been created by selection, instead of natural selection you pick and play "nature" for the plants and reproduce those plants and pick the ones you want, and so on, until you have picked the mutations that you prefer. The same was done with dogs and all the breed the past couple of hundred years. Dalmatians didn't exist some hundred years ago. They were bred by taking the "kind-a" dalmatian like and let them reproduce, and then you pick the ones with a more-kind-a dalmatian look from the offspring, and so forth. This is done with plants too. You find them in the store right now. Tomatoes, apples, ... all artificially selected and bred to become something more pleasing for the shopper. Bananas are another example. Or take the tusks on the elephants. Can you explain why they have smaller tusks now?

 

[McBell]

I've never heard of Hovind's Challenge. Is it the one where he asks "Is it impossible for god to exist?", "Is it impossible for god to write the bible?"

Kent Hovind's $250,000 Offer

 

[Sunstone]

...you will keep thinking less of me and question my intelligence because I dared to not agree with you.

I personally know several highly intelligent people who believe the universe and all that was in it was created by a deity, and who also accept evolution in both fact and theory. I do not think any less of them because their views differ from mine. So, your trenchant observation that I think less of you merely because you "dare not agree with me" would seem to be a self-serving misrepresentation of my views.

However, if you or anyone else is going to listen to that laughable, lovable, fool Michael Behe, and think herself informed because she has, then good luck with that.

 

[Pegg]

Never created anything new? Really?

There are new strains of yeast, bacteria, virus, mold, and fungus discovered each year in places where they never existed before.

There are bugs that have evolved to resist GMO crops in India (I think it was). GMO is vegetable (mostly corn, soy, and some other plants) that have been altered by Monsanto in the past 20 years to create its own pesticides. It's an artificial plant to resist bugs. Now... 10 years after the use... there are bugs that have resistance in turn against the plants pesticides (created by humans). Were did they come from?

the yeast is still yeast, bacteria is still bacteria....they havn't changed into an entirely new 'kind' of creature. They havn't grown wings. They havn't changed from the 'kind' of organism they are....they've adapted, yes. But that doesnt mean they are no longer a yeast or a bacterial.

Macroevolution is the teaching that the bacteria became something else.... apparently all life today began as a single cell, then it changed to a multi celled organisam, then it changed again into some other creature until eventually the world was full of a wide variety of different kinds of creatures.

This is what is unobservable and completely out of harmony with the known evidence.

We see this all the time. New bugs, new virus, new everything that fights against human attempts to keep us safe, happy, and healthy.

but the virus's are still virus's.

In beer brewing, there are now hundreds of strains of yeast for the process. Some of them for lager (below 50 degrees fermentation) and ales (70 and above). There are new strains of hops, like the more bitter hops that didn't exist on the market some 15 years ago. These have been created by selection, instead of natural selection you pick and play "nature" for the plants and reproduce those plants and pick the ones you want, and so on, until you have picked the mutations that you prefer. The same was done with dogs and all the breed the past couple of hundred years. Dalmatians didn't exist some hundred years ago. They were bred by taking the "kind-a" dalmatian like and let them reproduce, and then you pick the ones with a more-kind-a dalmatian look from the offspring, and so forth. This is done with plants too. You find them in the store right now. Tomatoes, apples, ... all artificially selected and bred to become something more pleasing for the shopper. Bananas are another example. Or take the tusks on the elephants. Can you explain why they have smaller tusks now?

the breeding of dogs is a good example to think about... you can breed a huge variety of dogs so that you get more and more varieties. You mention the dalmatian, which you call a dog, why? because you know its still a dog. It hasn't changed into anything other then a dog.
And no matter how much you continue to selectively breed them, they will always be dogs. They wont change into a new 'kind' of animal.

Do you not see this?

You might also like to consider that many of the selectively bred dogs in the world today...the ones we call 'pedigrees', have many congenital health problems. Selective breeding is not producing healthier stronger dogs in the world today and this is recognised by many breeders. So it stands to reason that selective breeding is not something that is always beneficial.

 

[Pegg]

It takes more than 100 years for macroevolution on the scale of beings as complex as ourselves to happen? We have observed marcroevolution in fruit fly experiments and yeast experiments that have generations that last around 20 minutes to 24 hours. And this was under highly controlled circumstances.

But make no mistake there has been no failure or disappointment in evolution from scientists. I just think that the expectations being put on it by creationists and other evolution deniers comes from a misguided or misunderstood viewpoint.

what did the fruit flys change into? Flys?

and when they do experiments on bacteria over many thousands of generations....they get bacteria over and over again.

Do you realise that what they were trying to achieve with all the mutation experiments was to see the big changes as described by evolution theory. But the experiments did not show that anything changed into something new. the flys remained as fly's and the bacteria remained as bacteria.

All they proved is that all organisms can adapt, they can become quite varied in size and shape.... but they can't change into something other then what is written in their dna.

 

[Father Heathen]

Here is a MUST WATCH video.

Science is based on 'observable and demonstrable evidence. But evolution is not based on such evidence....it requires faith - blind faith at that.


Watch the video and decide for yourself:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r83ROf8coSU

The fact that you bothered to post this garbage just shows that you don't pay any attention in these debates (and therefore shouldn't participate). These very same claims have been addressed and rebutted countless times before on here. The argument has long since been spanked and put to bed, so I don't know what you hope to achieve.
Willful ignorance is a form of dishonesty, and considering that dishonesty is regarded as a sin, you might want to pray for your soul.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Pegg. By your view, cells should only be cells. Not humans or bats or birds or anything else. So tell me. Are we actually cells or humans? How did humans come about from cells that should stay cells?


Of course, there are species that rise and branch out to become thier own classification through evolution. How on earth can it be denied with all the evidence staring you directly in front of you?

How come cells don't simply stay cells? How the stoic view even stand up to the diversity among species?

When did plants become meat eaters like Venus flytraps and pitcher plants, and squirrels glide through the air like birds?