I think that evolution is real but there needs to be something else and a believer's something else is GOD. What is the something else of a non-believer?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Just Accidental?
- Thread starter Deeje
- Start date
- Status
Let me just continue on from Lines of evidence: The science of evolution :
"Evidence by example
Although the history of life is always in the past, there are many ways we can look at present-day organisms, as well as recent history, to better understand what has occurred through deep time. Artificial selection in agriculture or laboratories provides a model for natural selection. Looking at interactions of organisms in ecosystems helps us to understand how populations adapt over time. Experiments demonstrate selection and adaptive advantage. And we can see nested hierarchies in taxonomies based on common descent."
Artificial selection is carried out to demonstrate what happen in "natural selection"....but where does natural selection cross genetic barriers to become some other "kind" of creature?
"Artificial selection
Artificial selection provides a model that helps us understand natural selection.
People have been artificially selecting domesticated plants and animals for thousands of years. These activities have amounted to large, long-term, practical experiments that clearly demonstrate that species can change dramatically through selective breeding.
Broccoli and brussels sprouts bear little superficial resemblance to their wild mustard relatives.
OK, so we have wild mustard which is genetically related to brussels sprouts and broccoli, and us gardeners can see a distinct similarity in the flower that produces the end vegetable, but isn't that an indication that artificial selection by man has simply seen variety take place within the species? We all know that adaptation can see many changes within a species, (see dog example below) but we never see one species of plant change into another kind of plant altogether. These are all edible vegetables that taste very similar....
http://planetsave.com/2012/09/04/evolution-of-the-mustard-plant/
We also have to consider that "natural" selection produces a way different end result to "artificial" selection where humans decide which traits they want to engineer into the original species to attain a desired result.
It is directed by human intelligence, not produced by ransom chance.
"If domesticated dogs were discovered today they would be classified as hundreds of different species and considered quite distinct from wolves. Although it is probable that various breeds of dogs were independently domesticated from distinct wild dog lineages, there are no wolf relatives anywhere in the world that look much like dachshunds or collies (below).
These observations demonstrate that selection has profound effects on populations and has the ability to modify forms and behaviors of living things to the point that they look and act very unlike their ancestors. Artificial selection provides a model that helps us understand natural selection. It is a small step to envision natural conditions acting selectively on populations and causing natural changes."
"A small step" or a large leap of suggestion?.....and at the end of the day, no matter what features are artificially bred into these animals by humans intentionally selecting traits......they are all still dogs. They will never become some other 'kind' of animal.
"Ecology
The environment affects the evolution of living things.
As predicted by evolutionary theory, populations evolve in response to their surroundings. In any ecosystem there are finite opportunities to make a living. Organisms either have the genetic tools to take advantage of those opportunities or they do not.
House sparrows arrived in North America from Europe in the nineteenth century. Since then, genetic variation within the population, and selection in various habitats, have allowed them to inhabit most of the continent. House sparrows in the north are larger and darker colored than those in the south. Darker colors absorb sunlight better than light colors and larger size allows less surface area per unit volume, thus reducing heat loss — both advantages in a cold climate. This is an example of natural selection acting upon a population, producing micro-evolution on a continental scale."
Adaptation or "micro-evolution" again did not change these sparrows into eagles or parrots.....They are still very recognizable as sparrows. The adaptations in this example are superficial, much like Darwin's finches..
"Experiments
Experiments also show that populations can evolve.
John Endler of the University of California has conducted experiments with the guppies of Trinidad that clearly show selection at work. The scenario: Female guppies prefer colorful males for mating purposes. Predatory fish also "prefer" colorful males, but for a less complimentary purpose — a source of food that is easy to spot. Some portions of the streams where guppies live have fewer predators than others and in these locations the males are more colorful (top frame). Not surprisingly, males in locations where there are more predators tend to be less colorful (bottom frame).
When Dr. Endler transferred predatory fish to the regions with brightly colored male guppies, selection acted rapidly to produce a population of duller males. This demonstrates that persistent variation within a population provides the raw material for rapid evolution when environmental conditions change."
This experiment again proved that fish can adapt for survival as needed, but the guppies remained guppies. The "evolution" in this case is adaptation and is nothing other than what the Designer programmed into all creatures when he created them. All have the ability to adapt to a change in climate or food source.
Science is not telling the whole truth, but merely telling what they want to us believe is true within the parameters of their own man-made theory and according to the way they interpret their evidence. They cannot interpret it any other way because that would undermine their whole theory.
"Evidence by example
Although the history of life is always in the past, there are many ways we can look at present-day organisms, as well as recent history, to better understand what has occurred through deep time. Artificial selection in agriculture or laboratories provides a model for natural selection. Looking at interactions of organisms in ecosystems helps us to understand how populations adapt over time. Experiments demonstrate selection and adaptive advantage. And we can see nested hierarchies in taxonomies based on common descent."
Artificial selection is carried out to demonstrate what happen in "natural selection"....but where does natural selection cross genetic barriers to become some other "kind" of creature?
"Artificial selection
Artificial selection provides a model that helps us understand natural selection.
People have been artificially selecting domesticated plants and animals for thousands of years. These activities have amounted to large, long-term, practical experiments that clearly demonstrate that species can change dramatically through selective breeding.
Broccoli and brussels sprouts bear little superficial resemblance to their wild mustard relatives.
OK, so we have wild mustard which is genetically related to brussels sprouts and broccoli, and us gardeners can see a distinct similarity in the flower that produces the end vegetable, but isn't that an indication that artificial selection by man has simply seen variety take place within the species? We all know that adaptation can see many changes within a species, (see dog example below) but we never see one species of plant change into another kind of plant altogether. These are all edible vegetables that taste very similar....
http://planetsave.com/2012/09/04/evolution-of-the-mustard-plant/
We also have to consider that "natural" selection produces a way different end result to "artificial" selection where humans decide which traits they want to engineer into the original species to attain a desired result.
It is directed by human intelligence, not produced by ransom chance.
"If domesticated dogs were discovered today they would be classified as hundreds of different species and considered quite distinct from wolves. Although it is probable that various breeds of dogs were independently domesticated from distinct wild dog lineages, there are no wolf relatives anywhere in the world that look much like dachshunds or collies (below).
These observations demonstrate that selection has profound effects on populations and has the ability to modify forms and behaviors of living things to the point that they look and act very unlike their ancestors. Artificial selection provides a model that helps us understand natural selection. It is a small step to envision natural conditions acting selectively on populations and causing natural changes."
"A small step" or a large leap of suggestion?.....and at the end of the day, no matter what features are artificially bred into these animals by humans intentionally selecting traits......they are all still dogs. They will never become some other 'kind' of animal.
"Ecology
The environment affects the evolution of living things.
As predicted by evolutionary theory, populations evolve in response to their surroundings. In any ecosystem there are finite opportunities to make a living. Organisms either have the genetic tools to take advantage of those opportunities or they do not.
House sparrows arrived in North America from Europe in the nineteenth century. Since then, genetic variation within the population, and selection in various habitats, have allowed them to inhabit most of the continent. House sparrows in the north are larger and darker colored than those in the south. Darker colors absorb sunlight better than light colors and larger size allows less surface area per unit volume, thus reducing heat loss — both advantages in a cold climate. This is an example of natural selection acting upon a population, producing micro-evolution on a continental scale."
Adaptation or "micro-evolution" again did not change these sparrows into eagles or parrots.....They are still very recognizable as sparrows. The adaptations in this example are superficial, much like Darwin's finches..
"Experiments
Experiments also show that populations can evolve.
John Endler of the University of California has conducted experiments with the guppies of Trinidad that clearly show selection at work. The scenario: Female guppies prefer colorful males for mating purposes. Predatory fish also "prefer" colorful males, but for a less complimentary purpose — a source of food that is easy to spot. Some portions of the streams where guppies live have fewer predators than others and in these locations the males are more colorful (top frame). Not surprisingly, males in locations where there are more predators tend to be less colorful (bottom frame).
When Dr. Endler transferred predatory fish to the regions with brightly colored male guppies, selection acted rapidly to produce a population of duller males. This demonstrates that persistent variation within a population provides the raw material for rapid evolution when environmental conditions change."
This experiment again proved that fish can adapt for survival as needed, but the guppies remained guppies. The "evolution" in this case is adaptation and is nothing other than what the Designer programmed into all creatures when he created them. All have the ability to adapt to a change in climate or food source.
Science is not telling the whole truth, but merely telling what they want to us believe is true within the parameters of their own man-made theory and according to the way they interpret their evidence. They cannot interpret it any other way because that would undermine their whole theory.
I claimed nothing more than to counter what the scientists said without backup of anything to substantiate what they suggested.
I saw no evidence for what they claimed. I only saw what came out of their biased interpretation of their "evidence".
I absolutely agree, which is why I post pictures of real living things rather than diagrams and illustrations of dead things. The living things speak so much louder than the dead ones IMO.
Look at these "squarely in the face" and tell me that they are all just accidents of evolution......
I watched it, but it was little more than an instruction video on how to ridicule creationists and how to get rid of religion...its the only thing standing in the way of godless science apparently.
I had no idea that Americans were so religious! According to the presenter, 92% of them believe in God! Does that mean that only 8% believe in godless evolution?
If I was an American, I would be ashamed of the stats he presented. He painted the majority of the people in that nation as a bunch of superstitious, religious morons who can't see past their belief system to see the real "truth" of evolution.
It appears that they are not doing a very good job.
But rather than see religion and science as opposing positions, it makes more sense to see if they can agree, after all, the creator of the universe is the creator of science and the designer of the human brain which allows man to even contemplate the many aspects of creation. It isn't an 'either/or' scenario in my estimations, but an adjustment in both erroneous arguments to meet somewhere in the middle. I can do that.
Last edited:
For those who are interested in what exactly a "kind" is here is an informative article. On Biblical Kinds - CSI
You obviously must have a list of "kinds" since you can say that eagles are one "kind" and parrots another "kind". Please give us this list so we can know that you are just not making this up as you go along.
Shad
Veteran Member
Read the section on speciation.
Define "kind" as these are not term of biology
This is not an example of specation. You demand it should be for no reason. This is an example of species which are related.
Both demonstrate how species change, nothing more. Natural selection is not random chance
Arguement by assertion
Again this was not an example of speciation but of natural selection.
Again this was not an example of speciation but of natural selection. Followed by another assertion
Science is not telling the whole truth, but merely telling what they want to us believe is true within the parameters of their own man-made theory and according to the way they interpret their evidence. They cannot interpret it any other way because that would undermine their whole theory.
No you are openly distorting what you have read by treating natural selection as speciation. All you have demonstrated is that you lied in the whole post then cry foul based on your dishonesty. Try again.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
There are always going to be elements in both science and religion whereas some will distort reality. But the realms of science and religion are not the same even though there are some areas of overlap.
If I as a scientist lie about whatever, there'll be a lineup of other scientists to correct me. However, in most cases, the same is not true in the area of religion because almost all religious beliefs are unfalsifiable. I can invent the most preposterous religion "fact", and no one is likely to be able to disprove me.
So, in religion what there is is belief-- faith, if you would prefer. But science cannot and does not work the same way because we live or die on objectively-derived evidence, which is obviously very different with religion.
I think we each get carried away at times, and I plead "guilty!" to that as well. However, thank you for your kind words on this, and I enjoy your demeanor as well. I gotta tell you a true story of what happened in my anthropology course about 30-some years ago.If you look at the comments on this thread, who are the ones name calling and accusing others of lying? Who are really pushing their agenda on this thread? The ones who accept ID are just telling things as they see them...we don't have to resort to slander in order to get our point across. Attack is a very weak form of defense, so why do it?.....why betray your intelligence in what appears to be a desperate attempt to be right?I am not referring to you metis as I have always found you to be very fair minded.
I used to bring in a Baptist deacon each semester to my classes to talk about I.D.-- not because I had to but because I felt it was important for my students to get that take as well. It was strictly non-confrontational as I would not challenge him at all during his presentation. We got along so well that we became good friends.
Anyhow, after finishing his presentations one of the times he came in, he thanked me for allowing to do this, and he said that he felt that it was very important for students to hear the "other side". I told him thanks, and then I said that if he ever wanted me to give the "other side" to people in his congregation that I would be more than willing to do so. He looked at me, and gave me a sheepish smile back. Needless to say, I never got the invite.
So, this is a problem I have with those who feel that students need to be exposed to I.D., and it's that through my experience it's just a one-way street with them, namely that they say that but they really don't believe it should apply to themselves. However, I am not saying that you do this.
Take care.
For the record, lying is allowed. Accusing people of lying isn't. Simply ignore people that you do not trust.
Shad
Veteran Member
Never accused. I provided evidence than made a conclusion.
More so this stupid rule prevents anyone for pointing out the lie leaving the liar free to continue. This is nothing but coddling the dishonest than punishing people that point this out.
We are here to promote dialogue between different religions, to learn from others about their religions, not to determine who is a liar and force crap down people's throats. We're also here to have fun without stepping on toes. Its the forum mission. Why don't you go find some perfectly dead and perfectly honest place where you will be comfortable or get a job running a torture chamber or morgue, so you can be happy.
Shad
Veteran Member
The topic was not religion but distortion of a simple guide site of evolution in which someone distort natural selection as if it were speciation.
When someone openly distorted the source they use that is stepping on toes. Merely pointing this out isn't.
Violating the rules you are supposedly uphold. Amusing
I'm just a volunteer unpaid moderator politely reminding forum participants to uphold the rules.
Please respect the rules, folks.
Shad
Veteran Member
I have. You made an unwarranted claim.
When?
Shad
Veteran Member
1. "Why don't you go find some perfectly dead and perfectly honest place where you will be comfortable or get a job running a torture chamber or morgue, so you can be happy."
That I will be happy in a torture chamber? Really? Solely based on the fact that I pointed out a distortion of a source by a poster.... That my happiness is tied to this is nonsense.
2. "We are here to promote dialogue between different religions, to learn from others about their religions, not to determine who is a liar and force crap down people's throats."
I pointed out a flaw in the argument since it is based on a distortion of the source. A source itself which openly states the difference between natural selection and speciation. A distortion that has not only been explained by me but other members. A distortion in a long line of distortion presented over and over again. A distortion in this context is still a lie.
I was replying to your comment that the forums ought to allow calling people liars. They don't allow it. Morgues and torture chambers are very honest places, and they are good descriptions of sites that allow users to call each other liars. Reddit is a torture chamber, and Facebook is a morgue. Honesty is what you want, and you say you do not like forum rules so why not try a morgue or torture chamber instead of this vibrant place.
Shad
Veteran Member
Pointing out someone is distorting a text is no different than calling someone a liar. The only difference is the person's ability to figure it out.
I made a conclusion based on evaluation of the arguments presented which hinge on a distortion of the source. My very counter-argument no matter how subtle will still make this statement.
So it is accept to make false statements yet prohibited to point these out.... And I should leave for daring to point out false statements.....
I didn't build this successful site or make the rules. Maybe open a site feedback thread and ask to discuss it with staff?
Sapiens
Polymathematician
"Calling" someone a liar in a vacuum is a personal attack. Identifying someone who quote mines, along with the appropriate documentation, is merely stating a fact. Are we now to not be permitted to state facts when they reflect badly on someone's choice of actions? That's what a debate entails!
There is no way to win a debate here. There are no liars, just as customers are always right. It makes it hard to press a point, and that is intentionally the idea for the purpose of promoting discussion between people who never, ever, ever, ever agree. It is not a Scientific environment. Nobody converts anybody here, and nobody gets to preach. It is a no win debate scenario. The same things being discussed today will be discussed again six months to a year from now, probably by the same people. Its diplomacy, the eternal game.
- Status