Humans are still evolving...

[Thief]

We can include the "idea" of a creator god (there are SO MANY OF THEM)....but the idea breaks down quickly due to lack of evidence.

Well...if you insist that God is an 'idea'....

Are you then stripping the 'intellect and heart' from that 'idea' as well?

And of course the 'evidence problem' won't go away.
No points for a call of evidence.

We are still under ..religious topics....religious debates....
evolution versus creationism....

If you desire a chemistry discussion....only...
this won't be the place for it.

 

[FDRC2014]

Not into a separate species. You would have to have total reproductive isolation of a subset on homo sapiens to evolve a new separate species. That situatiom dos not currently exist on earth.

True, although there are isolated groups of non-interbreeding populations, for example in the Amazon. Though as you correctly point out, there is no reason for these to evolve so much they would become another species.

 

[FDRC2014]

All the ones that are passed down via reproduction do.

To a degree, but this is not evolution as such, unless it provides an advantage or disadvantage to reproductive success. If having an arm on your head was liked to having more children, then the mutation would evolve into the population. As a single mutation in an isolated organism (say just one child), it is not classed as evolution, just a mutation.

Evolution isn't just big changes, the development of basic heterozygosity is still evolution.

True, i have never disputed this. In fact my whole thread was about the small changes taking place, which prove evolution is happening.

I'm not saying it would... but you suggested it wasn't possible and I pointed out how it is and does happen.

wa:do

I never said a mutation causing an arm to grow on ones head was theoretically impossible, but it evolving into our current population with no environmental change is next to impossible, as there is no change in fitness of the holder of the mutation.
For something to evolve into a population, so it is at place (i.e. like an arm on us), it must increase fitness. And arm on your head is only likely to decrease your fitness due to social issues.

 

[FDRC2014]

Every mutation causes a change in the genetic frequency of a population, so they all technically result in evolution.

No, evolution has to happen over generations. It looks at the whole population as oppose to an individual with a mutation (I suppose technically the allele frequency has slightly changed, but this is not considered evolution).

You don't think it's possible for mutations that have no substantial deleterious effect on the organisms' ability to prosper in their current environment to just accumulate and to only later become more expressed should environmental conditions change in such a way as to favor the mutation?

No! This is completely possible, in fact it happens all the time.
You may have a mutation causing immunity to a future pandemic, which i will die in due to lack of immunity. This is evolution.
If the mutation has no effect on the organism (+ve or -ve) it will just stay a relatively constant level, until a selection pressure is added to the population.

 

[CatholicCrusader]

Originally Posted by Dirty Penguin
We can include the "idea" of a creator god (there are SO MANY OF THEM)....but the idea breaks down quickly due to lack of evidence.

In fact, their is not physical evidence to support the belief that there is NO God either. Theists and Atheists alike have no physical evidence to back up their claim. So I could just as easily say that Atheism quickly breaks down for lack of evidence.

But how about mathematics and the law of probabilities? In this realm, probablity suggests that there must be a God. The idea that there is no God is mathematically impossible. Basic probability tells you that the odds of a blob of primordial ooze morphing into a man, regardless of how much time has passed, are so remote that mathematicians regard it as impossible. Emile Borel and Fred Hoyle are just two mathematicians who reject evolution on statistical grounds. The idea is a "Statistcal Immposibility". For example, it is theoretically possible that you could blow up a junk yard and all the flying pieces would land and form themselves into a Cadillac - that is possible. But the odds against it are so high that it constitutes a "Statistcal Immposibility".

 

[PolyHedral]

But how about mathematics and the law of probabilities? In this realm, probablity suggests that there must be a God. The idea that there is no God is mathematically impossible. Basic probability tells you that the odds of a blob of primordial ooze morphing into a man, regardless of how much time has passed, are so remote that mathematicians regard it as impossible.

Then they do not understand statistics. What are the chances of a hole being perfect for the puddle it contains?

 

[FDRC2014]

In fact, their is not physical evidence to support the belief that there is NO God either. Theists and Atheists alike have no physical evidence to back up their claim. So I could just as easily say that Atheism quickly breaks down for lack of evidence.

DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE TO DISPROVE THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER?
God, is conveniently non-falsifiable. And what is the atheists claim, believing in science, which is based on evidence.
I actually face-palmed

But how about mathematics and the law of probabilities? In this realm, probablity suggests that there must be a God.

No

The idea that there is no God is mathematically impossible.

No!

Basic probability tells you that the odds of a blob of primordial ooze morphing into a man, regardless of how much time has passed, are so remote that mathematicians regard it as impossible. Emile Borel and Fred Hoyle are just two mathematicians who reject evolution on statistical grounds. The idea is a "Statistcal Immposibility". For example, it is theoretically possible that you could blow up a junk yard and all the flying pieces would land and form themselves into a Cadillac - that is possible. But the odds against it are so high that it constitutes a "Statistcal Immposibility".

No.
Because they (Borel and Hoyle) don't know everything.
How can you produce a statistically impossible model when you cant model the pre-universe.
Evolution is not mathematically impossible. Their calculations are disproved also disproved by the fact we are here, they need refining. Its like calculating that the bumble bee cannot fly - but it can! The mathematicians were just wrong.

 

[tumbleweed41]

In fact, their is not physical evidence to support the belief that there is NO God either. Theists and Atheists alike have no physical evidence to back up their claim. So I could just as easily say that Atheism quickly breaks down for lack of evidence.

One could say the same about invisible pink unicorns.

But how about mathematics and the law of probabilities? In this realm, probablity suggests that there must be a God. The idea that there is no God is mathematically impossible. Basic probability tells you that the odds of a blob of primordial ooze morphing into a man, regardless of how much time has passed, are so remote that mathematicians regard it as impossible. Emile Borel and Fred Hoyle are just two mathematicians who reject evolution on statistical grounds. The idea is a "Statistcal Immposibility". For example, it is theoretically possible that you could blow up a junk yard and all the flying pieces would land and form themselves into a Cadillac - that is possible. But the odds against it are so high that it constitutes a "Statistcal Immposibility".

Calculating the odds of something that has already occurred is an effort in futility.

The odds that I will be craped upon by a magpie at while walking to work at exactly 9:15 AM on June 1st, 2011 at the corner of Mark Dabling Blvd and Rockrimmen Blvd would be deemed, by your method of calculation, a "Statistical Impossibility"...
But it happened.

 

[CatholicCrusader]

......Calculating the odds of something that has already occurred is an effort in futility......

When you have no physical evidence for either claim, you must move into other areas. It happens in courtrooms all the time.

 

[McBell]

When you have no physical evidence for either claim, you must move into other areas. It happens in courtrooms all the time.

Good point.
Except that creation has been shown in court to be wishful thinking and evolution has been shown to be truth.

Way to shoot your own argument in the foot.

 

[FDRC2014]

When you have no physical evidence for either claim, you must move into other areas. It happens in courtrooms all the time.

Err, no physical evidence?
I suggest you go read up on the evidence for evolution.

 

[CatholicCrusader]

When you have no physical evidence for either claim, you must move into other areas. It happens in courtrooms all the time.

Err, no physical evidence?
I suggest you go read up on the evidence for evolution.

I was not talkig about evolution. I was talking about the existance of God.

Regarding evolution: In fact, thoughtful Christians accept many tenets of evolution, including the Pope. It is evolution out of nothing that we reject.

 

[McBell]

It is evolution out of nothing that we reject.

Now you are confusing evolution with abiogenesis.

 

[FDRC2014]

I was not talkig about evolution. I was talking about the existance of God.

Regarding evolution: In fact, thoughtful Christians accept many tenets of evolution, including the Pope. It is evolution out of nothing that we reject.

So you don't believe that God put all the different species on earth.
Just that God created the earth.
Well this is yet again supported by evidence.
We know pretty much how the earth was formed.
As to abiogenesis, there are plenty of hypothesises around that are supported by some evidence. None of them are just 'god did it'.
Just look at the ancient greeks who thought that god created lightning, we know now he doesn't, so just because we don't know something doesn't mean to say God did it. We just don't know for sure.

 

[CatholicCrusader]

Now you are confusing evolution with abiogenesis.

Perhaps.

But I think when a lot of Joe-Sixpacks say "Evolution", they are generally refering to an evolution that rejects the existance of God.

But I admit I probably have my terms mixed up. But I think you know what I meant.

 

[Jose Fly]

But how about mathematics and the law of probabilities? In this realm, probablity suggests that there must be a God. The idea that there is no God is mathematically impossible. Basic probability tells you that the odds of a blob of primordial ooze morphing into a man, regardless of how much time has passed, are so remote that mathematicians regard it as impossible. Emile Borel and Fred Hoyle are just two mathematicians who reject evolution on statistical grounds. The idea is a "Statistcal Immposibility". For example, it is theoretically possible that you could blow up a junk yard and all the flying pieces would land and form themselves into a Cadillac - that is possible. But the odds against it are so high that it constitutes a "Statistcal Immposibility".

May I see your calculations please?

 

[CatholicCrusader]

So you don't believe that God put all the different species on earth.
Just that God created the earth.
Well this is yet again supported by evidence.
We know pretty much how the earth was formed.
As to abiogenesis, there are plenty of hypothesises around that are supported by some evidence. None of them are just 'god did it'.
Just look at the ancient greeks who thought that god created lightning, we know now he doesn't, so just because we don't know something doesn't mean to say God did it. We just don't know for sure.

I believe that Fundamentalist Christians pretty much botch up the Book of Genesis. Genesis is not a scientific document. Genesis teaches one thing: That God created everything out of nothing, that he created man in his own image, that man seperated himself from God through disobedience, and that God immediately set about the long - or at least it seems long to us - process of healing that rift.

Everything in Genesis is meant to convey that truth, but it is done in the ancient Semitic style of writing, using allegories, fantastic imagery, and all based on traditions that were handed down for centuries. I do not believe there was a serpent, or a tree, or a garden, etc. These are all images & allegories, in a certain style of writing, meant to convey the fundamental truth I stated above.

So, how long did creation take? Perhaps millions of years. The two extremes to avoid are the rejection of religion in favor of science, and the rejection of good science in favor of a literal 6-day read of creation.

 

[Thief]

So you don't believe that God put all the different species on earth.
Just that God created the earth.
Well this is yet again supported by evidence.
We know pretty much how the earth was formed.
As to abiogenesis, there are plenty of hypothesises around that are supported by some evidence. None of them are just 'god did it'.
Just look at the ancient greeks who thought that god created lightning, we know now he doesn't, so just because we don't know something doesn't mean to say God did it. We just don't know for sure.

So if God creates a circumstance (conditions) that bring(s) about lightning.
that's not the same as...God did it?

 

[McBell]

But I think when a lot of Joe-Sixpacks say "Evolution", they are generally refering to an evolution that rejects the existance of God.

Yes, there are people who view evolution to mean god does not exist.
My experience it is mostly theists who believe their god is powerless against the mere mortal humans who use evolution to ratify their no-god beliefs.

Evolution does not say nor even imply anything about how life started.
Abiogenesis does.

 

[FDRC2014]

I believe that Fundamentalist Christians pretty much botch up the Book of Genesis. Genesis is not a scientific document. Genesis teaches one thing: That God created everything out of nothing, that he created man in his own image, that man seperated himself from God through disobedience, and that God immediately set about the long - or at least it seems long to us - process of healing that rift.

Everything in Genesis is meant to convey that truth, but it is done in the ancient Semitic style of writing, using allegories, fantastic imagery, and all based on traditions that were handed down for centuries. I do not believe there was a serpent, or a tree, or a garden, etc. These are all images & allegories, in a certain style of writing, meant to convey the fundamental truth I stated above.

So, how long did creation take? Perhaps millions of years. The two extremes to avoid are the rejection of religion in favor of science, and the rejection of good science in favor of a literal 6-day read of creation.

Many people in the past have and still do believe literally in the bible.
What is it that gives you the ability to pick and chose what to believe metaphorically and literally.
Surely your mere ability to do this, just means the bible is useless (which it is, since I have morels, and don't read the bible).
So the Christian God was only conjured up in the bible, so why do you believe in it. Do you also believe in the many other gods, such as Zeus.