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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Yes, actually, it does. Let's say you worked on an assembly line of some sort, and all that passed in front of you were small,ball-like objects that could be all kinds of shapes, sizes and colours, and it was your job to pick out the balls from the line that were smaller than 5cm in diameter and blue. Would you call the process of receiving random balls, and then selecting out specific balls that fit certain criteria, a "random" process?That make sense.
Okay then...
No. There is no such thing as "proof" when it comes to scientific theories - there is only evidence. One fact alone is never enough to demonstrate the certainty of a given scientific model beyond all reasonable doubt, especially when the theory is as broad and wide-reaching as evolution. Nobody here (that I can see) has claimed that "proof" exists, just evidence.
That is not a sufficient reason to dismiss it. When you understand how the process occurs, you will see how and why evolutionary theory makes infinitely more sense than any potential competing hypothesis. Just because you don't see how it can be possible, doesn't mean it isn't. Since you believe in Biblical miracles, you can hardly claim not to be willing to believe seemingly impossible things.
Sure - if you ignore all the millions of years BEFORE then when they apparently branched-off from other mammals.
That is a claim that you have to demonstrate. As far as I can see, all DNA is subject to change. For your claim to be true, there would need to be two different kinds of DNA - the DNA that was subject to change and would allow for variation within "kinds"; and the DNA that cannot be changed, which prevents variation outside of "kinds". There is no such distinction - all DNA is merely DNA. There is no "genetic barrier" that prevents above-species level evolution.
You are correct. But since Darwin's time, we HAVE seen one species evolve into multiple other species. Above species-level evolution has already been well documented.
This is perhaps only because "kind" is an ambiguous word that you can make mean whatever you want. If it meant "species", we would show you above species-level evolution, but then you could simply say "they may be different species, but they're not the same kind".
Because why should we assume design when there is no evidence for it?
The evidence, and the theory that explains the evidence, and the test that confirm the explanation.
That is like asking "how many links are in a chain?" There are as many transitional life forms that have lived as there have been... Well.. Life forms that have lived. Part of the confusion is that a "transitional" form doesn't literally mean "a point between A and B". Every life form is a transitional life form; you are a transition between your parents and your children, your children are a transition between you and your grandchildren.
What is it that you expect to see that is missing? We have thousands of transitional fossils.
Well, no. Evolution is an observed and well-explained fact. It's not a stretch to believe something that has mountains of evidence supporting it.
Nobody "assumed" evolution to be true. It was a conclusion reached through a prolonged and rigorous examination of the evidence. There is no ideological requirement, from any group, for evolution to be true.
Because all evolution requires to be true is reproduction with variation, environmental attrition and lots of time. These things all demonstrably exist, and there are hundreds of thousands of individual pieces of evidence all clearly and uniformly pointing us in the direction of it being true. Intelligent design, by contrast, requires us to believe things that have never been tested, evidenced or observed in any manner.
Isn't that precisely what you do every time you talk about the creation of the Universe or Noah's ark? At least the evolutionary model is drawn from the facts we have available to us.
This seems an unusual thing to say. Of course species only breed within the species - one of the primary defining characteristics of a species is their inability to breed with other species. If they could interbreed, then they wouldn't be different species (or, at least, they would be closely genetically related).
Or, because of what I said above, which is based on the evidence we find in the study of genetics.
Because anything that can be shown for convenience through computer generated images MUST be false? You don't appear to be conducting your research in an even-handed and respectful manner.
There are plenty of texts on the origin of bird nests. Here's one I found from a simple Google search: http://ebooks.cambridge.org/chapter.jsf?bid=CBO9781139106788&cid=CBO9781139106788A079
A complex subject, but here is at least a start, with references to plenty of other sources:
Not random chance - mutation plus natural selection. Most caterpillars have evolved a colouration that matches some aspect of their surrounding environment, but I suggest consulting someone who is more of an expert on insect biology than most people are on here. I'm having difficulty finding sources.
I'm finding your attitude to this subject quite jarring. If you honestly think that a suitable argument for oveturning the leading scientific theory in biology, which stands on over 100 years of testing, revision, and evidence gathering, is nothing more than "But why are but why are caterpillars pretty?" then I seriously think you need to readjust your perspective on this issue. You have no cause to laugh at the evidence put in front of you when you when every single one of your refutations amounts to either a misunderstanding of the biology or not knowing some extremely specific and vague aspect of biological life.
Evolution doesn't work like that. Do you honesty think evolution expects a creature from a completely different species to be able to evolve into another existing species? That's not what evolution says, and never has said. Why on earth would you think it?
Leaving aside the fact that it would not happen, this question is akin to asking "if Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?"
We don't have any person's "word" for it. It is simply what the evidence indicates. At some point in the geological column, we stopped finding fossils of horses, and started finding fossils of very horse-like creatures that had a very similar structure but no longer seem to exist and have a very similar genetic makeup to modern horses. Then we stopped finding them and started finding other, slightly less similar horse-like creatures, etc.
So? Why should we take the Bible's word for anything? We're talking science.
Why should they? Other primates evolved under different conditions, with different environmental and biological factors forcing there evolution. There is no reason to assume that primates - or any other species - should develop more human abilities any more than there is reason to believe humans will develop more characteristics akin to other apes. Which is a shame, as I'd love to have feet that could grip branches.
Sure, but then so is the gap between goldfish and dolphins, or eagles and pigeons. Our intelligence is just the result of the particular evolutionary path our particular species went down.
Presumably about as long as it would take humans to develop echo-location, or the ability to smell blood from a mile away, or fly.
Honestly, a quick Google search would most likely answer most of these questions.
Only because you apparently haven't bothered to see if there actually ARE answers to your questions. The only person who appears to be glossing over things is you.
Normally, here I would explain at length why we don't accept science on faith, but instead I'm reminded of the words of the founder of the rationalist website Less Wrong; Eliezier Yudkowsky, which I think lays a sufficient smackdown on claims of this type:
Your inability or unwillingness to see things from another perspective does nothing to tarnish the truth of it.
Because evolution doesn't even remotely work like that. Evolution requires subtle variations, not randomly throwing things together.
But you do admit that mutations CAN BE beneficial, right? Imagine a single mutation - say,that gives a particular forest-dwelling mouse a slightly darker fur that camoflaged it very slightly better than its relatives - that only very marginally increased the possibility of that one creature living on and producing offspring by .1%. Now imagine that mouse having three or four offspring, all carrying that same mutation, each having a .1% increased chance of survival, and then those offspring producing more. Eventually, that small percentage begins to make a big difference in the bigger picture. It's nor about the survival of individual animals - it's about the survival and propagation of particular genetic traits.
Wrong. A detrimental mutation will reduce survival chances, but hardly ever to zero. Naturally, statistics dictate - as explained above - that negative mutations tend to be filtered out by natural selection.
That is just outright false. The vast majority of mutations and neutral, and do not impact the survivability of an organism.
Yeah, go figure that a word can mean more than just one thing.
You know that's a straw-man.
We have objective empirical evidence concerning the existence of man, god is still nothing but a figment of mans imagination where objective empirical evidence is concerned.
If you are going to hold up humans as "proof" of design you will have no choice but to acknowledge that the designer of humans was not all that intelligent.
For all the whining you do about how your ad naseum already refuted and defeated questions are not addressed it is rather hypocritical of you to only acknowledge his repeated post by whining about it being posted more often than you like.
No, it is just stretching the imagination further. All life did not begin as a single cell and magically transform itself undirected into all the life forms we see on earth. How is that not as fanciful as claiming that an unseen intelligence directed it all with purpose? This is what you are failing to grasp. The overall concept requires a vivid imagination.
But will they remain true to their kind? Or will they become something else entirely?
Well, the waters weren't muddy at all until someone came along and wanted to eliminate the Creator. He observed a bunch of birds and tortoises on an island that were different to the ones on the mainland and assumed that everything must have come into existence by a process of small changes over millions of years. Weight of numbers and eager interpretation of the evidence to substantiate the belief made it all seem so plausible. Add to that the prestige that science gained over uneducated religionists who scoffed at the science and it became embedded.
Eliminate the creator?
So that is what history looks like in your world.
Ah.
The Creationist God isn't smart enough to use Evolutionary algorithms to create life. He has to handcraft every detail like the carpenters in the old days only.
Interesting how you are so high on your horse you cannot see that you shoot yourself in the foot more often than not.
BS. I was trying to be nice and have a decent conversation with you. That kind of comment is rude.
It's tragicomical. It's so silly that it's sad.
A good reflection is to look at the other thread about contradictions in the Bible. Fascinating how tall the walls are when it comes to translation and source text, but no sincerity or attempts to understand the full science of this topic.
LOL!
Obviously you didn't read I what I replied....I actually agreed with most of it.
I am not a creationist....but I can't swallow the whole macro-evolutionary argument either. I take the middle ground, which is much more reasonable in my view and fits the facts rather than the speculation. Do you understand that?