What are the "facts" of Evolution?

[tumbleweed41]

How are we in modern times any different than the people of ancient civilizations?

Just a little bit, after all, if we are talking about the oldest know "ancient civilizations" being only about 10,000 years ago, we see very small changes in physiology. Such as a decrease in average height, heightened immunology, ability to digest certain sugars, a transition in diet to a more vegetarian base (more cereal grains than meat) and greater genetic diversity.

Considering that modern humans (homo sapiens) have only been around for about 200,000 years, a very short time on the evolutionary scale, the visible physiological differences would be barely noticeable.

Compare that to Ardipithecus, which lived around 4.4 million years ago, and the next identifiable hominid species to arrive, the Australopithecus, around 3.6 million years ago. That's nearly a million years of evolution between two distinctly physiological different species.

10,000 years is just a blink of an eye in comparison.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

This is a split thread from this thread:http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...15706-if-theory-evolution-true-what-does.html What are the "facts" of Evolution? . . Make a list please.

This is an odd request......but I'm only going to give you one from the list because it's irrefutable....

Decent with Modification.
Evolution 101: Descent with Modification

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I have reservations about ToE because its a "modern trend."

To me, its plausible that God/Creator is the author of all biological life.

But you asked about Evolution and not Abiogenesis.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

To me, its plausible that God/Creator is the author of all biological life.

Many Christians believe that God founded the Life Project and set evolution up as his manager.

By the way, I hope you've asked yourself why conservative Christians are the only group which resists the science of evolution and why -- as someone else noted -- they don't resist Plate Tectonics or other science. The resistance is purely theological, just as they once resisted heliocentrism.

I think we should always embrace science and then figure out why God did what our eyes and rationality tell us that He did. Otherwise, we can become confused.

 

[jarofthoughts]

I have reservations about ToE because its a "modern trend."

Keep in mind that almost all the useful information and knowledge that we have accumulated has been gathered in the last hundred years or so.
Bronze age people have very little, if anything at all, to teach us.

To me, its plausible that God/Creator is the author of all biological life.

Based on what probability calculation?

 

[jarofthoughts]

The problem with the ToE is that it provides an alternative explanation of how we came into being. Before Darwin, there was no very good explanation of where all that wonderful biological diversity came from. How could such intricate, complex "designs" have emerged without the guiding hand of an intelligent agency of some sort? Darwin answered that question. Plate tectonics can explain earthquakes and mountains, but it does not provide a comprehensive alternative explanation of our very existence.

That, of course, presupposes that our existence somehow is important.
I mean, it is important to us, naturally, but one the scale of the universe, not so much...

 

[Valjean]

If you ask me, it's all about arrogance, egotism and insecurity.

Insignificance and purposelessness are deeply disturbing to us. We invent diverse mythologies of significance -- the paragon of animals, the center of the universe and the cynosure of all heavenly eyes. Why, the entire planet exists solely for our benefit and is given into our keeping.

Any evidence to the contrary threatens our world-view and self image. Resistance to same is an ego defense.

 

[Anonymouse]

Natural selection weeds out bad mutations....

TRANSLATION: All the mutations not fast enough to outrun death.

 

[lunamoth]

If you ask me, it's all about arrogance, egotism and insecurity.

Insignificance and purposelessness are deeply disturbing to us. We invent diverse mythologies of significance -- the paragon of animals, the center of the universe and the cynosure of all heavenly eyes. Why, the entire planet exists solely for our benefit and is given into our keeping.

Any evidence to the contrary threatens our world-view and self image. Resistance to same is an ego defense.

I think is starting to get on the right track; humans are not the center of the universe and our theology should better reflect this. However, it's an over-correction to go on to say that we are insignificant. We are deeply connected to the whole of creation, spiritually and physically.

 

[jarofthoughts]

I think is starting to get on the right track; humans are not the center of the universe and our theology should better reflect this.

This presupposes that we need theology at all.

We are deeply connected to the whole of creation, spiritually and physically.

This presupposes that there is something spiritual.

 

[lunamoth]

This presupposes that we need theology at all.



This presupposes that there is something spiritual.

Yes. So?

 

[jarofthoughts]

Yes. So?

In presupposing them you consider them valid without justification.
I was just pointing that out.

 

[lunamoth]

In presupposing them you consider them valid without justification.
I was just pointing that out.

I have 'justification' for my theology, thank you.

And, it is rather trollish, at a Religious Education forum, to pounce on every post that mentions God or theology or faith and ask for "justification."

Cheers

 

[doppelganger]

That, of course, presupposes that our existence somehow is important.
I mean, it is important to us, naturally, but one the scale of the universe, not so much...

And therein lies the rub. This "fact" is why Creationism exists. And it's also why all of the other observable facts about the natural world are irrelevant unless they can be pressed into service of a story that makes the purpose of humanity in general and the individual human in particular seem more important.

 

[painted wolf]

The Basic Facts (there are a lot of facts in evolution!):

Mutations and sexual recombination alter genes.
These changes are usually neutral, sometimes negative and occasionally beneficial.

Species produce more offspring than the environment can support.
With such high competition most offspring will die before being able to reproduce.
Individuals with traits that are beneficial have a greater chance of surviving to reproduce.
Competition between reproductive adults further reduces the number of individuals that get to reproduce and pass on genes.
Thus, beneficial traits have an increased chance of being passed on to the next generation.

Over many generations, the dominant traits of a population will change as conditions favor one trait as beneficial over another.

Different populations of the same specie can experience different selective pressures, leading to different changes in dominant traits.

Over time these differences, if not reduced by interbreeding, will lead to populations no longer being able to interbreed either by reduction of fertility or failure to recognize each other as the same species.

When this happens new species arise.

wa:do

 

[jarofthoughts]

I have 'justification' for my theology, thank you.

And, it is rather trollish, at a Religious Education forum, to pounce on every post that mentions God or theology or faith and ask for "justification."

Cheers

This tread is about the facts of Evolution, which makes it science, which means that claims should be substantiated.

 

[painted wolf]

This tread is about the facts of Evolution, which makes it science, which means that claims should be substantiated.

No, it means we are talking about evolution not atheism.

wa:do

 

[Biblestudent_007]

And therein lies the rub. This "fact" is why Creationism exists. And it's also why all of the other observable facts about the natural world are irrelevant unless they can be pressed into service of a story that makes the purpose of humanity in general and the individual human in particular seem more important.

Creationism is also modern trend.

How are we any different from people of ancient civilizations? . .

 

[jarofthoughts]

No, it means we are talking about evolution not atheism.

wa:do

Not sure what atheism has to do with this.

I was merely pointing out that there was no justification for those claims, as I would have done with the same fervour if someone had, for instance, claimed that group selection is viable, or any equally unsupported claim.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Creationism is also modern trend.

Not true.
A couple of centuries ago creationism was the only game in town.

How are we any different from people of ancient civilizations?

We know more than they did.
And we apply that knowledge.