Evolution taken on Faith

[Looncall]

I think everyone has missed the point of the video in the OP.

Why can no one actually address the issue of macro evolution being unobservable? Hence its not real science if it can't be observed.

It leaves traces in the present. Those traces are observable. One need not be personally present to learn that something happened in the past.

Otherwise, there would be no point in calling in the police when one's house is burgled.

Really, can't you lot ever come up with something new? These old PRATTs get boring.

 

[Ouroboros]

and it only takes 9 months to produce a fully formed human

And it doesn't.

It takes 20 years to fully form the brain.

How do you think those same cells would cope out of the environment of the womb? Do you think the fact that they are cells means the will become what they are programmed to become?

And?

The fact that we evolved to have a 9 month gestation doesn't change anything.

The cells have been programmed by nature, just like all other living things.

Just look at how wonderful nature is. Don't downplay nature's abilities because it's so awesome. Don't look at nature and say, "Wow, it's great, therefore it can't do something great." Because that would be a contradiction.

I think nature is so great that it not only is great but was great and will be great and has abilities to create life through evolution. You believe that nature is only somewhat great, but not great enough. So who is awed of the world the most here? I am.

 

[Ouroboros]

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.

That is so wrong that it's not even funny.

Adaptation is a given feature or attribute that an organism has and can be used in given situations.

But the fruit fly didn't adapt. It's DNA changed. How do we know? By using a DNA sequencer that reads the DNA code and prints it out on a dumb computer screen. It's like doing a memory dump of a computer's BIOS. Different version will have different sequences of machine code. If the DNA is different, then the DNA is different. The "adaptation" is done by mutations by nature.

 

[Ouroboros]

I think everyone has missed the point of the video in the OP.

Why can no one actually address the issue of macro evolution being unobservable? Hence its not real science if it can't be observed.

That's because Creationists like Ray Comfort define "macroevolution" different than scientists!

The third tier macroevolution has not been observed. (Higher taxa, like genus)

But the second tier macroevolution has been observed multiple times. ( lower taxa, like speciation)

The third tier is only a continuation of the second tier. And we can see it in the fossil record and through DNA analysis, like mapping transposons.

---

May I ask you. Have you observed me?

No. You haven't.

So according to your reasoning, I don't exist.

But... I do exist. How would you know that I exist?

By inferring it from other methods than actually seeing me. For instance, you're talking to me through a webforum. So you know that I exist somewhere in this world because you're actually talking to me. You can infer my existence based on a different set of experiences and senses than just the eye.

Now, that works for higher tier macroevolution as well, as it does for a large amount of science in general. We can infer for instance that gravity works for solar systems, galaxies, etc because we can measure its effects. We don't see gravity, but we know it's there from what we measure.

So the question is... why would you believe in God? Have you observed God? Did you observe the resurrection? Yet you're certain it's true? You have inferred it from other methods of knowing. Some of them better than others.

When it comes to evolution of genera, we can study them in the fossil record. We can't see them first hand when they're happening because we have to live for thousands of years to do it. But that doesn't mean that it didn't happen. We can see the macroevolution for species happening right here, right now, so we know speciation is happening, and genus is just the next step up.

So to answer the question. No, we can not observe third tier macroevolution of genera happening in front of our eyes because it would require us to live for thousands of years. But we have observed lower tiers of macroevolution. And we have fossil record to see the pictures of the past. And we have genetic traces of heritage that can't be denied (like ERV, transposons, markers, and such).

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

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.

That's what Evolution is. It's building upon basic design, not just randomly changing things around. It doesn't predict that eagles will transform into squirrels. Noticed I used the word transform instead of evolve?

The word 'evolution' in general context means a process of development.

There was once only one species of a basic vertebrate at one time. It eventually split into different populations and evolved many different variants. Examples include the crocodilians, the squamata(lizards and snakes), turtles, birds and mammals all evolved from basic vertebrates, and all are still vertebrates.

Three main groups of extant mammals evolved from a basic single population of mammals. The monotremes, the marsupials and the placentals(there's more than those three that are extinct). All three are still mammals.

The placental mammals have many variants that evolved later but at one time was just a single population of a single group. Today, there's so many to name, but I'll name a few. You have rodents, carnivora(dogs, cats, bears), cetaceans, bats, primates etc... all are still placental mammals.

Primates have many different variants such as lemurs, tarsiers, simians etc.. All are still primates and primates are still mammals.

Simians contain New World Monkeys and Catarrhini. Catarrhini contain Old World Monkeys and Apes. Apes contain Lesser Apes and the Great Apes. Great Apes contain Orangutans, Gorillas, Chimps and Humans.

You're still an ape which is still a simian which is still a primate which is still a mammal which is still a tetrapod which is still a vertebrate which is still an animal which is still an eukaryote.

Future descendants of humans will always be humans. But what could happen with isolation is we could get many diverse groups of humans with drastic differences, but all share basic human features. Just like at one time there was one basic group of a species we'd call "the mammal". But today, mammal is ranked as a class and not a species because it's a group that has diversified so drastically.

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.

Well then it shouldn't be too hard for you to understand that a homo sapien evolved from a basic great ape with virtually very little change in DNA. I'd hardly consider that a change of "kind" as you put it.

 

[CMike]

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

A lot of science are guesses.

That's why they are theories.

 

[johnhanks]

Why can no one actually address the issue of macro evolution being unobservable? Hence its not real science if it can't be observed.

No-one has ever observed an electron, Pegg, so by your reasoning none of chemistry is real science either. And the "science" of how your computer is working right now all has to be taken on faith as well - no-one has ever observed those pesky electrons chasing around the circuitry.

In fact, if "real science" is to be restricted to what we can directly observe, it's going to shrink to a very small discipline.

 

[SkylarHunter]

That's what Evolution is. It's building upon basic design,

See, that's exactly where my problems with evolution come from: basic design. A few cells that supposedly showed up one day out of some chemical event no one was ever able to explain do not equal design. If those same cells got together and formed tissues, that would still not equal design.

Even the most basic design requires a level of logic and planing. If for evolution to be real it was necessary to have a base that was later changed into something more complex and diverse, where did that base come from?

Well then it shouldn't be too hard for you to understand that a homo sapien evolved from a basic great ape with virtually very little change in DNA. I'd hardly consider that a change of "kind" as you put it.

If you think humans are apes, does that mean we have the same value of a monkey or a chimp? Should someone who kills a chimp be trialed for murder and face the same sentence of someone who killed another human? If you think we are the same "kind" maybe we should be treated as equals...

 

[Ouroboros]

No-one has ever observed an electron, Pegg, so by your reasoning none of chemistry is real science either. And the "science" of how your computer is working right now all has to be taken on faith as well - no-one has ever observed those pesky electrons chasing around the circuitry.

In fact, if "real science" is to be restricted to what we can directly observe, it's going to shrink to a very small discipline.

Yup.

And personally, I have never observed oxygen, water molecules, or calories in food, but we still know for certainty that they exist without having to "blindly" believe they exist.

Maybe that's the new diet? Just deny that calories exist in food, and you'll lose weight automatically. Cool. Denial of facts of nature must be the new truth.

 

[Ouroboros]

Even the most basic design requires a level of logic and planing.

Like this one?

It's an antenna that was created by using the same principles as evolution. Random changes, reproduction and re-combination, and selection.

In radio communications, an evolved antenna is an antenna designed fully or substantially by an automatic computer design program that uses an evolutionary algorithm that mimics Darwinian evolution. This sophisticated procedure has been used in recent years to design a few antennas for mission-critical applications involving stringent, conflicting, or unusual design requirements, such as unusual radiation patterns, for which none of the many existing antenna types is adequate.
The computer program starts with simple antenna shapes, then adds or modifies elements in a semirandom manner to create a number of new candidate antenna shapes. These are then evaluated to determine how well they fulfill the design requirements, and a numerical score computed for each. Then, in a step similar to natural selection, a portion of the candidate antennas with the worst scores are discarded, leaving a small population of the highest-scoring designs. Using these antennas, the computer repeats the procedure, generating a population of even higher-scoring designs. After a number of iterations, the population of antennas is evaluated and the highest-scoring design is chosen. The resulting antenna often outperforms the best manual designs, because it has a complicated asymmetric shape that could not have been found with traditional manual design methods.

(Wiki)

It doesn't work (according to anti-evolutionists)... or it does work (according to observed experiments)?

If you think humans are apes, does that mean we have the same value of a monkey or a chimp? Should someone who kills a chimp be trialed for murder and face the same sentence of someone who killed another human? If you think we are the same "kind" maybe we should be treated as equals...

That's a different question. The truth of evolution does not hinge on any moral issues that might come from it. You can't say that the morality of smoking would show if smoking has health risks or not. Is 1+1=2 good or bad? If it's good, then it's true. If it's bad, then it's false. That doesn't work. The truth of scientific discovery comes from the actual scientific research, not from the value judgment of the results. Granted that some research shouldn't be done itself because of moral issues, but just because that we evolved from an ancestor to the apes doesn't mean that the moral implications suddenly makes the discovery false.

Making arguments like that, "then what about the moral implications of the discovery" is nothing but a red herring.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

See, that's exactly where my problems with evolution come from: basic design. A few cells that supposedly showed up one day out of some chemical event no one was ever able to explain do not equal design. If those same cells got together and formed tissues, that would still not equal design.

Even the most basic design requires a level of logic and planing. If for evolution to be real it was necessary to have a base that was later changed into something more complex and diverse, where did that base come from?

I think I'm just going to keep this video on my bookmakrs since I think this has been brought up about a dozen times in the last week.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8nYTJf62sE

If you think humans are apes, does that mean we have the same value of a monkey or a chimp? Should someone who kills a chimp be trialed for murder and face the same sentence of someone who killed another human? If you think we are the same "kind" maybe we should be treated as equals...

There are people that think that. However the way that we evolved was with a tribe mentality. We discriminate between "us" and "them". This is usually based off of arbitrary differences such as race, sexual orientation, preferred deity. But one of its more basic uses is that we don't feel the same level of compassion for other species than we do for other humans. We evolved to help pass along our genes not to help pass along the genes of another species. So this is why we have this inherent value placed upon our own species rather than others.

 

[SkylarHunter]

Like this one?

It's an antenna that was created by using the same principles as evolution. Random changes, reproduction and re-combination, and selection.


(Wiki)

It doesn't work (according to anti-evolutionists)... or it does work (according to observed experiments)?

If we were talking about a just few random changes, I would agree with you, but we're talking about such a vast amount of lucky coincidences that I can't see it being random anymore.

I believe in coincidences, they happen some times. There are even reports of lightning hitting the same places more than once. It's the volume that I can't work out. Myriads of things would have to go together in the most perfect way to bring us to the complexity and diversity of life forms we have today and I don't believe that happened by random changes like you described.

What sustains my believe in God is precisely the intelligence and purpose I see in the universe.

 

[Ouroboros]

If we were talking about a just few random changes, I would agree with you, but we're talking about such a vast amount of lucky coincidences that I can't see it being random anymore.

Because of natural selection.

Play Yatzee!. A game where you roll the dice, select the most optimal die, re-roll, and voilá, someone wins every time in that game.

I believe in coincidences, they happen some times. There are even reports of lightning hitting the same places more than once. It's the volume that I can't work out. Myriads of things would have to go together in the most perfect way to bring us to the complexity and diversity of life forms we have today and I don't believe that happened by random changes like you described.

So what are the chances that we share unique genetic defects with the chimps? There are 22 unique genetic changes that we share with the chimps that have no use in our body or design. The chances of that happening by chance, is basically impossible. The chances that we share ancestry, near 100%.

What sustains my believe in God is precisely the intelligence and purpose I see in the universe.

I believe God is the world, nature, reality, as such. Because of the fact that the world does create life.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

See, that's exactly where my problems with evolution come from: basic design. A few cells that supposedly showed up one day out of some chemical event no one was ever able to explain do not equal design. If those same cells got together and formed tissues, that would still not equal design.

Even the most basic design requires a level of logic and planing. If for evolution to be real it was necessary to have a base that was later changed into something more complex and diverse, where did that base come from?

Okay maybe I shouldn't use the word "design". As life forms evolve, they build on basic features.

And that's exactly what the fossil record shows. As we look at older fossils, the general features of life forms get more and more basic.

And that's the real question. If evolution is false, why is the fossil record laid out in such an insane precise way to make it look true? Why is there such a smooth transition of cetacean(marine mammals) having slightly more land based features as we look at older fossils?

Did God keep killing off this specific group of land creatures only to recreate slightly more aquatic creatures? And then kill those off only to recreate even more aquatic based creatures? And then killed those off only to recreate yet even more aquatic based creatures? And then rinse and repeated the process until we have modern whales? On top of that, for ***** and giggles, he left useless hind-legs hidden in the flesh of modern whales for us to find and trick us.

If you think humans are apes, does that mean we have the same value of a monkey or a chimp? Should someone who kills a chimp be trialed for murder and face the same sentence of someone who killed another human? If you think we are the same "kind" maybe we should be treated as equals...

idk, what does that have to do with anything we're talking about here? The question or suggested moral dilemma of how much we should value animals based on the degree of ancestral relationship, doesn't take away anything from the fact that we are related to them.

I may value my pet cat more than a human who's tried to kill me in the past, or has done something else I did not appreciate. Someone may not value their own father who's probably abused them, but does value someone not immediately related to them who's been a father figure.

 

[Looncall]

If we were talking about a just few random changes, I would agree with you, but we're talking about such a vast amount of lucky coincidences that I can't see it being random anymore.

I believe in coincidences, they happen some times. There are even reports of lightning hitting the same places more than once. It's the volume that I can't work out. Myriads of things would have to go together in the most perfect way to bring us to the complexity and diversity of life forms we have today and I don't believe that happened by random changes like you described.

What sustains my believe in God is precisely the intelligence and purpose I see in the universe.

Of course, the changes need not happen all of once, but accumulate over time. It's like compound interest.

Goddidit sure seems like a "get out of thinking free card" for the intellectually lazy.

 

[Parsimony]

Did God keep killing off this specific group of land creatures only to recreate slightly more aquatic creatures? And then kill those off only to recreate even more aquatic based creatures? And then killed those off only to recreate yet even more aquatic based creatures? And then rinse and repeated the process until we have modern whales? On top of that, for ***** and giggles, he left useless hind-legs hidden in the flesh of modern whales for us to find and trick us.

That's actually pretty close to what was believed at one time. I wish I could remember what the theory was called. It basically posited that whenever a species went extinct, God would revive that species in a form that was modified slightly so as to be adapted to the now-changed environment. Oh wait, this might be it: Progressive creationism

 

[Twilight Hue]

I think everyone has missed the point of the video in the OP.

Why can no one actually address the issue of macro evolution being unobservable? Hence its not real science if it can't be observed.

Your in complete denial here. You actually don't want to know about scientific methodology nor likely care how it's performed and arrived at.

Ignoring micro evoultion means you rather not know how it directly relates to the long term processes of macro evoultion. You avoid micro evoultion because by reaffirming macro evoultion all the time, it somehow makes the points you attempt to make appear valid and trust me, it dosent at all.

Micro evoultion is observable and testable and assuredly translates to the long term changes involving life on the macro scale. Ignoring micro evoultion isn't going to change the proven facts of evoultion.

You ought to get out of the six grade science class mentality akin to Hovind and Comfort and continue on with the more advanced aspects of evolutionary science.

The observable aspects you seek come from transitional fossils and yes, they have been found, and are well documented and as real as the air we breathe.

Fossils Reveal Truth About Darwin's Theory | LiveScience

There is your observable side on the macro scale. It's hard to get a fossil to lie about the facts of the matter.

 

[shawn001]

im not influenced by evolution...not in the slightest.

Yes you are, every time you take a breath of Oxygen its thanks to Evolution.


The Origin of Oxygen in Earth's Atmosphere

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/origin-of-oxygen-in-atmosphere/


Introduction to the Cyanobacteria

Architects of earth's atmosphere

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/cyanointro.html


Hazy shades of life on early Earth

"Research, led by experts at Newcastle University, UK, and published today in the journal Nature Geoscience, reveals that the Earth's early atmosphere periodically flipped from a hydrocarbon-free state into a hydrocarbon-rich state similar to that of Saturn's moon, Titan."

http://phys.org/news/2012-03-hazy-life-early-earth.html


Today’s Earth and the ancient Earth were not the same. The ancient Earth atmosphere would have been mainly natural gas and it was Cyanobacteria that evolved photosynthesis and hence why your breathing oxygen and why there are plants.

 

[Bunyip]

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

Evolution is a name we gave to a process that was observed to occur. The theory of evolution is an explanation of those observations.

The entirety of the Theory of Evolution is explaining observations. Macro-evolution for example has been observed many, many times.

 

[Sunstone]

Hence its not real science if it can't be observed.

That's quite a credible statement coming, as it does, from such an authority on science as a random internet video. Tell me, Pegg, do you get all your opinions on what is or is not science from such esteemed sources?