The Theory of Evolution is supported by the evidence.

[AllanV]

This thread is to discuss the Theory of Evolution. It is NOT about atheism or whether God created all things. In fact, for the purposes of this thread, let's all participants agree that God exists and created all things. The question we are addressing here, and the only question, is whether God created all living creatures and plants on earth in the way set out in the Theory of Evolution (ToE.) Even more, we're going to talk about the evidence for that theory, and why modern Biology accepts it and is based on it.

In Genesis 1:24 And God said "let the earth bring forth the living creature each after its own kind" RAV

This could be simply saying that the animals eat from the earth. If a dictionary is used to expand the meanings of each word the verse has a little more depth.

It is saying the earth had an active role in the appearing of creatures that became their own type.

I remember reading, years ago that a scientific group came to the conclusion life should not exist. It is a case of possibilities and probabilities but then it would have been tested. It would have been dismissed by most because there is life.

If they were correct though, then there must be a positive bias acting against the negative. Could there be something exerting a positive going, to push the balance in favor of life?

In my experience of God an inner pleading during a fast and a realization of my own state lead into a transformation in my mind. I became a new creature in Christ.

An inner stress because of a slow environment change or even a requirement could give in effect a positive going change in an organism. A new creature.

Science tests the physical, but they are testing the positive side and seeing the balance of that. A good test would be to stress an organism continually by an imbalance of the usual living conditions and see what happens. If there is contentment nothing will happen. If the environment is to harsh the organism will die.

Animals that are confined often do not breed but that is different. It needs to be an environment that requires an inner change within the cell to support its life or make it better. Or perhaps even added abilities to get to food or a better environment. The changes would have to be in actual genetic makeup. The offspring would show the change.

If changes did happen it would be interesting to see how fast.

Generally I would say there is a case for a change in species as described in the scripture. The pressures of the environment on the earth will bring forth creatures of their own type.

Mankind is a special case because there are extra abilities. The old testament is very hard to follow because it could almost be reading that man was already here when Adam a Son of God appeared. Genesis 6:4 when the sons of God came into the daughters of men and they bore children to them.

Therefore the flood must have been a local event to get rid of the interbred up to that time.

Science makes a case for evolution and it cannot be ignored, this is obvious. How this actually matters right now is beyond me. A lot of research is done and then rules seem to be broken for convenience or money. We are told it has taken billions of years to get where we are. Our enlightened science now decide they have the right to genetically modify over a few decades.

This is the reason for the God or evolution debate, Some men want to do it their way as mortal Gods.

 

[Danmac]

Danmac: It's helpful to establish where we're already in agreement, so we don't need to spend time on that. Doesn't that make sense? Otherwise I'll have to spend a few pages explaining the basic mechanisms of evolution. So,

DOES SPECIATION HAPPEN?

Yes it does, but only within it's kind.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Yes it does, but only within it's kind.

Are dogs and wolves different 'kinds'?

 

[Danmac]

What Darwin Got Wrong

Here is our mixed review of a book written by evolutionists against the theory of evolution. ​

Last month we were excited to read in New Scientist that evolutionists were about to publish a book questioning the power of natural selection. 1 Naturally, we pre-ordered it, and it arrived just after we published last month’s newsletter. Now we have read it, and we can tell you about it.
Here’s our conclusion for those readers who don’t have the patience to read our whole review of What Darwin Got Wrong by Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini: It presents a unique argument proving that natural selection cannot be responsible for the diversity of all life forms on Earth. It is particularly compelling given the fact that the authors do not believe in creation or intelligent design. Unfortunately, the book is difficult to read, as you will discover from the quotes in this review. So, if you don’t have the patience to read our entire book review, which explains their argument in simpler terms, then there is no chance you will have the patience to read the whole book.

What Darwin Got Wrong

 

[painted wolf]

What kind am I?

What kind am I?

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

What Darwin Got Wrong

lol... lateral gene transfer at the base of the tree does not invalidate it.
Obviously someone has not read the article in question and is just judging the article by the rather poorly chosen title.

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

Yes it does, but only within it's kind.

Thank you. Was that so hard?

So you realize that you oppose everything you have said so far in this thread? Everything you have said about mutations and so forth must be wrong, for this to be right.

See how much better it would have been if we could have figured out what we DO agree on before going further?

Now, here's your problem. Well, problems:

1. You have absolutely no idea what kind is.
2. You cannot tell whether two given organisms are the same or a different kind.
3. You have not the remotest idea how many kinds there are.
4. You have not a shred of evidence for this assertion.
5. You have no proposed mechanism to explain why this should be so.

Now that we've figured out what we agree on, let's figure out where we disagree. What is your scenario, Danmac, your hypothesis? Is it that God magically poofed two of each of something called a kind, whatever that may be, around 6000 years ago, and those kinds have been differentiating into different species ever since?

 

[Autodidact]

What Darwin Got Wrong

Here is our mixed review of a book written by evolutionists against the theory of evolution. ​

Last month we were excited to read in New Scientist that evolutionists were about to publish a book questioning the power of natural selection. 1 Naturally, we pre-ordered it, and it arrived just after we published last month’s newsletter. Now we have read it, and we can tell you about it.
Here’s our conclusion for those readers who don’t have the patience to read our whole review of What Darwin Got Wrong by Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini: It presents a unique argument proving that natural selection cannot be responsible for the diversity of all life forms on Earth. It is particularly compelling given the fact that the authors do not believe in creation or intelligent design. Unfortunately, the book is difficult to read, as you will discover from the quotes in this review. So, if you don’t have the patience to read our entire book review, which explains their argument in simpler terms, then there is no chance you will have the patience to read the whole book.

What Darwin Got Wrong

Why don't you get back to us after you read the book, Danmac.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I love it when the Creationists point out the flaws in Darwins work to "prove" evolutionary theory wrong.
Of course there are some flaws. It was written 150 years ago. Darwin did not know about DNA, or other research and findings of the 20th Century.
What the creationist seem to ignore is that the few things Darwin was mistaken about only strengthen the base of Evolutionary theory.
But the creationist will jump up and down like the apes they abhor and scream "Look, Darwin was wrong". It would be hilarious if it were not so pathetic.

 

[painted wolf]

Rather like screaming "Newton was wrong" and denying gravitational theory.

wa:do

 

[Danmac]

Are dogs and wolves different 'kinds'?

The wolf kind has many different dog breeds

 

[Danmac]

[/b]
lol... lateral gene transfer at the base of the tree does not invalidate it.
Obviously someone has not read the article in question and is just judging the article by the rather poorly chosen title.

wa:do

It is a book

 

[Danmac]

Now that we've figured out what we agree on, let's figure out where we disagree. What is your scenario, Danmac, your hypothesis? Is it that God magically poofed two of each of something called a kind, whatever that may be, around 6000 years ago, and those kinds have been differentiating into different species ever since?

Amen sister. Now were getting somewhere. That is exactly what I believe.

 

[Danmac]

I love it when the Creationists point out the flaws in Darwins work to "prove" evolutionary theory wrong.
Of course there are some flaws. It was written 150 years ago. Darwin did not know about DNA, or other research and findings of the 20th Century.
What the creationist seem to ignore is that the few things Darwin was mistaken about only strengthen the base of Evolutionary theory.
But the creationist will jump up and down like the apes they abhor and scream "Look, Darwin was wrong". It would be hilarious if it were not so pathetic.

The book addresses natural selection. Not Darwin

 

[tumbleweed41]

What Darwin Got Wrong

Here is our mixed review of a book written by evolutionists against the theory of evolution. ​

Last month we were excited to read in New Scientist that evolutionists were about to publish a book questioning the power of natural selection. 1 Naturally, we pre-ordered it, and it arrived just after we published last month’s newsletter. Now we have read it, and we can tell you about it.
Here’s our conclusion for those readers who don’t have the patience to read our whole review of What Darwin Got Wrong by Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini: It presents a unique argument proving that natural selection cannot be responsible for the diversity of all life forms on Earth. It is particularly compelling given the fact that the authors do not believe in creation or intelligent design. Unfortunately, the book is difficult to read, as you will discover from the quotes in this review. So, if you don’t have the patience to read our entire book review, which explains their argument in simpler terms, then there is no chance you will have the patience to read the whole book.

What Darwin Got Wrong

I love it when the Creationists point out the flaws in Darwins work to "prove" evolutionary theory wrong.
Of course there are some flaws. It was written 150 years ago. Darwin did not know about DNA, or other research and findings of the 20th Century.
What the creationist seem to ignore is that the few things Darwin was mistaken about only strengthen the base of Evolutionary theory.
But the creationist will jump up and down like the apes they abhor and scream "Look, Darwin was wrong". It would be hilarious if it were not so pathetic.

The book addresses natural selection. Not Darwin

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Why don't you get back to us after you read the book, Danmac.

Read the book? Are you serious?

Surely a quick visit to Answers in Genesis can tell us what we should think, without the need to actually read the book!

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Rather like screaming "Newton was wrong" and denying gravitational theory.

wa:do

Oh good Lord!

Please don't get them started on gravity. Talk about a law that needs to be repealed!

 

[tumbleweed41]

The wolf kind has many different dog breeds

Jackal "kind"?
Coyote 'kind"?
Lycalopex "kind"?
Fox "kind"?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

What Darwin Got Wrong

Here is our mixed review of a book written by evolutionists against the theory of evolution.
​

Last month we were excited to read in New Scientist that evolutionists were about to publish a book questioning the power of natural selection. 1 Naturally, we pre-ordered it, and it arrived just after we published last month’s newsletter. Now we have read it, and we can tell you about it.
Here’s our conclusion for those readers who don’t have the patience to read our whole review of What Darwin Got Wrong by Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini: It presents a unique argument proving that natural selection cannot be responsible for the diversity of all life forms on Earth. It is particularly compelling given the fact that the authors do not believe in creation or intelligent design. Unfortunately, the book is difficult to read, as you will discover from the quotes in this review. So, if you don’t have the patience to read our entire book review, which explains their argument in simpler terms, then there is no chance you will have the patience to read the whole book.

What Darwin Got Wrong

I did a little digging, and this entire review of the book is loaded with garbage. Just to give you a taste of what I'm talking about, check this out.

In the title of the review, Do-While Jones (the author of the review) claims that the book was "written by evolutionists against the theory of evolution." This title is an intentional effort to make it appear as though the authors of the book hold credentials that they do not have. Jerry Fodor is a philosopher that specializes in the philosophy of language and the philosophy of mind. The other author of the book (Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini) is a professor at the University of Arizona, specializing in "language and mind, judgement and decision making". He did earn a doctorate in physics, from the University of Rome (1968).

Neither one of the authors has a background in biology. They are simply two guys that wrote a book attempting to discredit the theory of evolution.

The rest of the review (linked by Danmac) written by Do-While Jones is as biased as it can be. Virtually every single comment he makes is both biased and perjorative, exposing the reviewer's agenda for what it is.

I went the extra mile, taking the time to visit Do-While Jones' homepage. It appears that Mr. Jones is an electrical engineer that focuses on computer programming languages.

Basically, this guy does everything he can to hide the fact that he has no background in biology, while stressing that he (like the authors of the book) are "scientists". It is a very transparent appeal to authority, with the twist of hiding the fact that the "authority" in question really isn't an authority on the subject matter being discussed.

Pitiful.

 

[painted wolf]

It is a book

Regardless, doesn't change the fact that much of what the book discusses does not invalidate evolution one iota. Natural selection is not the only mechanism behind evolution and hasn't been for a very long time. The book is flawed by a lack of understanding about the details of evolution.
What they seem to think is ground breaking has long been known as genetic drift, lateral gene transfer, founder effect and so on.
Ironically the book is not anti-evolution...yet it is being spun as such by the unscrupulous.

wa:do