What idea in it makes you not think of evolution as true? And poll

[exchemist]

I wish people would put a differentiation between believing in microevolution and macroevolution. I believe in microevolution but not macroevolution. A deer-like animal never evolved in to a whale, for example. Life has only been on this planet for a few thousands years.

The reason people don't make this differentiation is because such a distinction is irrelevant to the evolutionary process, except insofar as one can speak of small changes (micro) that can over longer timescales accumulate into larger ones (macro).

It's true that some creationists try to square the circle by admitting micro-evolution happens (you do have to be pretty daft to deny that, after all, when we can see it happening before our eyes in things like the Omicron variant of Covid), while still denying that new species can arise this way. But while that apparent compromise may stop you looking silly to the average person, it is still pretty silly to anyone who knows any of the relevant science. We know the age of the rocks from radiometric dating, we know how long it took for the Atlantic Ocean to open, we can even detect the magnetic stripes on the ocean floor where each reversal of the magnetic poles took place. And there is piles of other evidence too.

 

[exchemist]

All life changes over time. This idea is not very controversial in my opinion.

The issue revolves around origins and the idea that all life sprang into being from a single source, randomly created in the primordial ooze.

That is a highly improbable scenario. Back in the day when this idea was presented it was believed that individual living cells were structurally very simplistic. We now know that isn't the case.

The use of the word "random" here is inappropriate. Biochemistry is not random.

 

[AshT]

The use of the word "random" here is inappropriate. Biochemistry is not random.

Exactly, it's not random. It can't be. The complex structures that exist, all of which have to exist together in order to function, present in living cells, takes randomness out of the equation. Biochemistry is a science, conducted by humans, but doesn't explain the phenomenon. It can explain the physics around a cellular membrane being constructed of phospholipid bilayers but isn't an explanation for how the engineering occurred without an engineer.

 

[exchemist]

Exactly, it's not random. It can't be. The complex structures that exist, all of which have to exist together in order to function, present in living cells, takes randomness out of the equation. Biochemistry is a science, conducted by humans, but doesn't explain the phenomenon. It can explain the physics around a cellular membrane being constructed of phospholipid bilayers but isn't an explanation for how the engineering occurred without an engineer.

There are many phenomena of nature that science has yet to explain. If that were not so, nobody would be doing any science research. So lack of current explanations tells you nothing, except that it is hard problem to solve. We know that.

I do hope you are not one of these "tornado in a junkyard" types. The point about the theory of evolution is that it is not random, because nature makes selections from the random variations that occur, according to which variations reproduce most successfully. So the tornado-in-a-junkyard analogy misses the entire point about the theory.

But as for abiogenesis, that's a slight different story, I would agree, since the problem to be solved is how enough of the biochemistry came together before there was a mechanism for reproduction of any kind. We have pieces of the puzzle but it is tough because of the lack of fossil evidence. There have however been some very informative posts on this forum on this subject in the past. It would take me a while to search them out, but suffice it to say that biochemists have made quite a lot of progress.

 

[ratiocinator]

I wish people would put a differentiation between believing in microevolution and macroevolution. I believe in microevolution but not macroevolution.

There is no difference. Macroevolution isn't a different process, it's just lots of microevolution.

Life has only been on this planet for a few thousands years.

That would make your god a liar.

 

[ratiocinator]

The complex structures that exist, all of which have to exist together in order to function, present in living cells, takes randomness out of the equation.

I'm not aware of any hypothesis of abiogenesis that makes a cell the first thing that can reproduce and hence be subject to natural selection.

 

[AshT]

There are many phenomena of nature that science has yet to explain. If that were not so, nobody would be doing any science research. So lack of current explanations tells you nothing, except that it is hard problem to solve. We know that.

I do hope you are not one of these "tornado in a junkyard" types. The point about the theory of evolution is that it is not random, because nature makes selections from the random variations that occur, according to which variations reproduce most successfully. So the tornado-in-a-junkyard analogy misses the entire point about the theory.

But as for abiogenesis, that's a slight different story, I would agree, since the problem to be solved is how enough of the biochemistry came together before there was a mechanism for reproduction of any kind. We have pieces of the puzzle but it is tough because of the lack of fossil evidence. There have however been some very informative posts on this forum on this subject in the past. It would take me a while to search them out, but suffice it to say that biochemists have made quite a lot of progress.

I hope I sound more intelligent than a "tornado in a junkyard" type. I don't have any issue with Evolution. My issue is with origins. Not too disregard your opinion. You sound intelligent and I respect your opinion. The best we can do, at this point, with a lack of hard data is make creative assumptions about how life started. I am a fan of creative thinking. But creative thinking is theory, not fact and is a space where there should be plenty of room for various possibilities.

In my personal humble opinion the level of complexity we see in even the simplest living organisms suggests engineering and implementation. Its like a book. You look at its information and construction and come to a conclusion that it was designed with intent and created with purpose. Studying Biology, not a biologist, just some college courses, RNA, DNA, Golgi Apparatus, Endoplasmic Reticulum, Ribosomes, Mitochondria, etc, suggest this to me.

I will admit that this point of view fits comfortably with my Christian world view and admit I have a certain amount of bias on the topic as a result. Lucky for me I have yet to hear an alternative that really challenges that position but I like to believe I would not rule out alternative explanations based on my world view alone.

 

[Lain]

Its like a book.

That reminds me of one of my favorite sayings/conceptions of Scripture: all of nature is like a picture-book and the Scriptures are the words by which we can read it.

 

[exchemist]

I hope I sound more intelligent than a "tornado in a junkyard" type. I don't have any issue with Evolution. My issue is with origins. Not too disregard your opinion. You sound intelligent and I respect your opinion. The best we can do, at this point, with a lack of hard data is make creative assumptions about how life started. I am a fan of creative thinking. But creative thinking is theory, not fact and is a space where there should be plenty of room for various possibilities.

In my personal humble opinion the level of complexity we see in even the simplest living organisms suggests engineering and implementation. Its like a book. You look at its information and construction and come to a conclusion that it was designed with intent and created with purpose. Studying Biology, not a biologist, just some college courses, RNA, DNA, Golgi Apparatus, Endoplasmic Reticulum, Ribosomes, Mitochondria, etc, suggest this to me.

I will admit that this point of view fits comfortably with my Christian world view and admit I have a certain amount of bias on the topic as a result. Lucky for me I have yet to hear an alternative that really challenges that position but I like to believe I would not rule out alternative explanations based on my world view alone.

I'm very relieved to hear you are not a tornado in a junkyard type. I get so weary of those people.

As a person with a science background, it seems obvious to me that our best hope of understanding nature is through the scientific method, employing methodological naturalism, which has been so brilliantly successful since the Renaissance. That applies to abiogenesis as much as to any other difficult problem in science. Consequently I have no time for a God of the Gaps*, as it strikes me as no better an explanation than medieval attributions of thunderstorms, earthquakes and epidemics to "acts of God", viz. the joker one can be tempted to play when one has no idea what is going on.

It seems to me that if one looks for God in nature, the best place to look is in the underlying order there seems to be: in common parlance the "laws" of nature (though really the "laws" are man-made descriptions of parts of the order that we have uncovered.) Science can't tell us why this order is there: it just is, apparently.

* A term coined by Prof. Charles Coulson, a mathematician and Methodist lay preacher, whose lectures I attended as a student.

 

[Segev Moran]

I think the question in title is enough
But I'll explain, I only saw when reading the Bible (I'm in Isaiah now, its a big journey!) the opening part as a story about how everything is, like people who said "because a huge snake died we have this huge river now" or maybe "because perseus took fire we have fire" an old explanation that made a God involved to do a ritual with but just a story

People do not just see like that way and why?
Do you accept evolution as truth? It's the poll

I vote yes

It seems Evolution is far more probable than instant kinds.
Unlike what many think, Evolution doesn't contradict the story of creation.
The Jewish teachings actually suggested it far before it was accepted as an idea worth checking by science.

 

[rational experiences]

An ape isn't a theist machine scientist.

Hu man's are.

You discuss development.

Your claim a human proves their intelligence by an ape not being a scientist.

Yet what is a scientist?

A human who studies researches what topic they choose.

So your mind says I have dominion over all things

Yet in theory claim everything else owned dominion over a human first.

Human consciousness non existent.
Human life non existent.

By thesis a human thinker only.

Biology says I intricately study bio human for human healing.

They live in an exact same human conditions as all humans

Sex brings forth the created baby owning body change.

Sex is the answer why the baby exists.

You seek the answer why it was changed....that made the full human presence disappear.

Then you claim I study microbial bodies separately just in water.

What is missing?

Science says it does not know.

You look at water separately not human. First answer a human life is not in the state you study.

In water there is no human presence says your intelligence.

So you take your research to the being status. Exact advice answered human body status is missing.

Then you dug up dead human's.

You advise the thinking ability these humans compared to our living human are deformed.

You know deformity lives survives as it still uses healthy cells to exist.

So you quantify the reason. Some status was different in the past.

The bible a book of history written by irradiated minds told you.

Babbling they say today. Isn't coherent. Strangely advised. The Reason was they were irradiated. Changed depraved behaviour was the evidence.

As a beings life is mainly placid except when hierarchy is challenged in the group or in need of food sustenance.

So if bible advice says the type of non mutated healthy human existence is not very old. Then today we know it is real. As DNA proves it has not yet healed itself from expressing mutations.

The status end of mutation was dependent on....

Ice existing by cold gas balanced atmosphere. So ice remains a solid.

It was a new introduced earth solid.

Atmospheric amassing changes ground pressure O holding the cell for dependency on the atmosphere pressure. Was the teaching. You were advised four balanced sea son followed saviour ice.

Cells O existing in water based on O earths spatial highest pressure the circle.

Why water ground returned by pressure changed in balanced cold gas heavens..less reactive and higher oxygenation O cell pressure. Advice was given back removed non present DNA expressions.

Hotter water changed earth pressures in the heavens owned giant celled creatures.

Is the truth.

They however died as they were cold blooded.

Ice keeps our blood holy and O cell present by gods O earth body existing.

Hence if you keep eradicating destroying it's God flesh we O the substance will all die by causes.

Was the religious healer science notification.

Science says by first see observation only all bodies are exact. Are natural. Are instant by presence. Egotism owns no place in humans existing.

Words of God explanation is not a definition. It says higher human reckoning is first by words only not maths.

Why a human was not allowed to argue as human is an equal life form first. No thesis the warning said.

O God earth body spatial pressure held...o.little cell is by gods image for human health.

Th O The numbers added + to remove O gods earth flesh stone body.

Advice TH is is je Sus King of Kings.

A King by thought owned all riches
A king by thought became a poor man sacrificed.

Lost civilization and the human slaves his natural family were set free. After the destruction.

Was exact human only advice.

 

[AshT]

I'm very relieved to hear you are not a tornado in a junkyard type. I get so weary of those people.

As a person with a science background, it seems obvious to me that our best hope of understanding nature is through the scientific method, employing methodological naturalism, which has been so brilliantly successful since the Renaissance. That applies to abiogenesis as much as to any other difficult problem in science. Consequently I have no time for a God of the Gaps*, as it strikes me as no better an explanation than medieval attributions of thunderstorms, earthquakes and epidemics to "acts of God", viz. the joker one can be tempted to play when one has no idea what is going on.

It seems to me that if one looks for God in nature, the best place to look is in the underlying order there seems to be: in common parlance the "laws" of nature (though really the "laws" are man-made descriptions of parts of the order that we have uncovered.) Science can't tell us why this order is there: it just is, apparently.

* A term coined by Prof. Charles Coulson, a mathematician and Methodist lay preacher, whose lectures I attended as a student.

I think we are talking about different things. I would not suggest changing the scientific method. The question was about belief. So I presented a nuanced answer that I have no issue with evolution with the exception of origins and provided my rational as to why.

I'm my humble opinion, when asked about what I believe, it is more related to my world view and how I rationalize that view.

I admitted some bias, which we all harbor biases, in my case related to my religious beliefs. But I can tell you with absolute certainty that I did not see lightning, and not knowing what it was, attribute it to God.

My personal religious beliefs are a bit more sophisticated than that.

 

[rational experiences]

Man living standing on planet earth.

No science practiced or yet theoried.

Looks at the ethereal higher known conscious states. Balanced. Gas conditions. The non substance.

Said it was the highest life protection.

Said cooling was a motion of circulating hot and cold bodies of gases in the great deep of space upon the water oxygenated face that he lived beneath.

O circulating cooling was movement G O spiral within. Cooling notice above us. Never changing. Cooling protection.

Modern day radiation from earth body as I the intensity magnetisation quoted it as.....O G spiral O split by I into DD back to O. G O D movement as GOOD. Our lifes protection.

As ice the saviour owned cooling of earths God body change.

God described in theism holy spirit in the heavens.

Man's machine scientific confession. I changed the earth body. It's pressures. It's cooling model. It's holiness and I activated tectonic plate earthquake lightning storm losses.

The heavens fell as burning gas spirit.

So ice had to compensate for the evils I caused. Ice melted. I released a greater mass of radiation by unsealing the earth.

Huge storm reactions ensued as earth released huge masses of unnatural ground radiation.

I told you all what I caused. I activated disaster.

Said the human scientist.

Why any man whose intelligence proved criminally advised about gods changes was put in gaol. As they were a danger to society. By understanding how to.

A fact of highly astute human law legal representatives the church body.

 

[Hidingfromyou]

All life changes over time. This idea is not very controversial in my opinion.

The issue revolves around origins and the idea that all life sprang into being from a single source, randomly created in the primordial ooze.

That is a highly improbable scenario. Back in the day when this idea was presented it was believed that individual living cells were structurally very simplistic. We now know that isn't the case.

Highly improbably events happen, given enough time.

 

[rational experiences]

In our past researched science was kept hidden as knowing our occult brother he always takes medical biolgical human advice and uses it against us.

As if it is updated science wisdom.

So men studying why life got sacrificed before is no different todays advice in biological medical evidence today.

DNA human and animal life in phenomena attacks. New mutations being expressed. Unnatural deaths.

Radiation effects causes by false introduced man's law held mass. By machine conditions.

We have seen the cold metal balls. They are so light the vacuum can suck them out.

When kept inside our atmosphere the continued gas burning fallout re ignites them.

Father said in the past the radiation balls cut the earth like a knife. Sun attack on earth. Volcanic event emerged the moon with ice came....water flood sealed the earth but left it weakened.

As seams.

Why science infer SEWN. South east west north. The bible review. The seals.

When water mass evaporated. It was in two places above in heavens as below opened earth....the mountains losing held ground pressure sprang up. As the Rock face had been sliced open.

Why all mountains aren't volcanos.

Evidence of science causes as copying after is squared edged block cuts. On the sea bed edge and on rock face sea land edges.

As man's science applied Phi squared itself.

Why land mass on the edge of continents can slice off in modern UFO attacks by lines opened in the heavens and fall into opening ground volcanic sea tectonics.

Father said it was known by science that underground flowing fresh water from ice melt gets sucked into volcanic splits sealing it. So above the methane warnings gas comes out first in the sea bed.

Why green related to CH Christ teachings.

America Japan areas are the worst plate affected.

Then the water ice cold beneath to above warmed sea opens the Eddie's. Ships or planes flying into the gas gain instant energy loss. As fuel is removed from existing by a methane only content. They then get sucked down into the opened crevice. Sealed.

No evidence. Is not time shifting. Man's science thesis infers it's time shifting. In relativity it is mass shifting.

As the sun shifted earths mass first by space law.

KRA the baboon review was DNA human to beast reviewed human and animal life attacked..... said the ARK had caused it. UFO event.

ARK....KRA. reflected upon.
RA being sun radiation thesis.
K the origin symbol science constant.

Why man of science changed it to ARC.

Why science says science of the past nearly eradicated the human life back to only a baboon living species. As DNA evidence.

As blood cell and bone form changed its human identity. Stephen Haw King warning to science.

Was already studied in medical science of the past and notified to authorities.

In our dark ages the life mind human irradiated behaviours gave science of today ideas that man of old was not technically advanced. When he was.

In modern science themes you prove you are not as wise today about what you knew before.

Only mind conscious changes can own the reason why.

O God was science of planet earth.

Naming earth in science had been forbidden.

We now are at man's place Biden. Having ignored the forbidden status.

Reasoning Phi and D AVI D.

DD God in heavens stopped the ground from opening by cooling and pressure.

Signs still seen in crop circles. Attack was stopped by cooling.

Earth had not yet stopped fall out.

D AVI D was still fighting the God war against atmospheric expansion of irradiated heating.

So DD was no longer rationally functioning when science reintroduced nuclear ground dust converting.

The reason we started going back in time to increased life sacrificed is that burning asteroids Satan star fall had removed earths gas mass protection of the past saviour.

The warning to scientists.

It was Romes owned attack advice that updated the future testimonies why trump was named in the warnings.

Man after all gave his own man life names. Christian catholic English movement married by ceremony to give last name titles by records.

The reason why and how come we are self advised today.

 

[AshT]

Highly improbably events happen, given enough time.

Sure they do. Given enough time, sea currents and electricity eventually elements will form a Golgi Aparatus which will start packaging proteins.

Highly improbable is a polite way of saying the odds are beyond impossible even over extreme time periods.

Most people fall into one of three camps.

1. They believe in unguided creation in spite of the improbability.
2. They are unwilling to speculate.
3. They believe there was intelligence involved in the design which itself creates a paradox. Where did the designer come from?

There is really no easy or safe choice. It comes down to what you choose to believe and how you justify your choice.

 

[rational experiences]

Sure they do. Given enough time, sea currents and electricity eventually elements will form a Golgi Aparatus which will start packaging proteins.

Highly improbable is a polite way of saying the odds are beyond impossible even over extreme time periods.

Most people fall into one of three camps.

1. They believe in unguided creation in spite of the improbability.
2. They are unwilling to speculate.
3. They believe there was intelligence involved in the design which itself creates a paradox. Where did the designer come from?

Sea currents are witnessed by humans living only.
Electricity was theoried invented by humans for machine life.
Proteins already exist.

When a human scientist mind says I came from an innocent baby. He should practice what he preaches.

Babies innocence.

When you pretend you are the creator who wants. The Machine you designed built controlled by man's thoughts reacted to be given back its life after it dies. As it uses up your resource.

You changed a meaning....life will own an eternal one life after human death to now I will force give it to my machine. By artificial coerced machine intent.

Yet in theory your machine is dead no resource.

In layman's terms is a confession stating you will all as humans be eradicated humans. I must give my machine given death as resource loss to a rebirth and reincarnated eternal machine life.

 

[AshT]

Sea currents are witnessed by humans living only.
Electricity was theoried invented by humans for machine life.
Proteins already exist.

When a human scientist mind says I came from an innocent baby. He should practice what he preaches.

Babies innocence.

When you pretend you are the creator who wants. The Machine you designed built controlled by man's thoughts reacted to be given back its life after it dies. As it uses up your resource.

You changed a meaning....life will own an eternal one life after human death to now I will force give it to my machine. By artificial coerced machine intent.

Yet in theory your machine is dead no resource.

In layman's terms is a confession stating you will all as humans be eradicated humans. I must give my machine given death as resource loss to a rebirth and reincarnated eternal machine life.

I've recently tried a number of religion based forums seeking intelligent conversation around life's impossible questions. And in every one of them there have been trolls attempting to clutter up and pollute the threads with pointless, meaningless garbage in an apparent attempt to frustrate people into abandoning thier attempts of establishing human interactions in an age where people are becoming increasingly isolated.

What I can't understand is why. I can think of conspiracy theories where the wealthy and powerful seek to create great enough social disintegration to sieze power but its hard to believe that individuals would buy into this even if they are getting paid. It would be too easy to know where you are on the spectrum of right and wrong.

The alternative is there are lots lonely and angry people out there who can't bear the idea of other people conversing and do what they can to shut it down.

Both seem unlikely but one must be true as I can't think of a third option and the only thing that is certain is that the phenomenon is real.

 

[exchemist]

Sure they do. Given enough time, sea currents and electricity eventually elements will form a Golgi Aparatus which will start packaging proteins.

Highly improbable is a polite way of saying the odds are beyond impossible even over extreme time periods.

Most people fall into one of three camps.

1. They believe in unguided creation in spite of the improbability.
2. They are unwilling to speculate.
3. They believe there was intelligence involved in the design which itself creates a paradox. Where did the designer come from?

There is really no easy or safe choice. It comes down to what you choose to believe and how you justify your choice.

That's false. Highly improbable most certainly does not mean impossible. (I have no idea what "beyond impossible" means). Highly improbable, in a scientific or mathematical sense, just means it takes a huge number of tries before it is likely to have occurred. In science, highly improbable events are responsible for a number of observed phenomena. All you need is a very large multiplier of the number of "throws of the dice". That could be due to a large number of throws taking place all the time, as with events at the atomic scale (e.g. radioactive decay of long-lived radioisotopes), or to a large number of throws taking place over a very long period of time. Current estimates are that life took about 500 million years to arise on the early Earth. That's time for an awful lot of throws of the dice.

Your caricature of a Golgi apparatus being formed by "sea currents and electricity" is a bit of a disappointing Aunt Sally. I had hoped you would do better. If you are as knowledgeable about biology as you would have us believe, you should be able to understand the posts from @sayak83 in the following thread, posted a while ago, that go into some details of the biochemistry of life and how building blocks could have arisen: Science of Abiogenesis:- By popular demand

Post 22 in particular is very interesting, but so are some of the other he has posted.

If we are intellectually serious, this is the level at which we should be discussing abiogenesis, rather than throwaway remarks about electricity, surely?

 

[Clara Tea]

I didn't vote (strike that).

The theory is correct in the main, but it is not impossible that new ideas might be added later. For example, the theory says that the tree of life descended from a single last universal common ancestor. If were later shown that a second population gave rise to another tree of descendants not yet identified or recognized as such, does that make the present theory wrong, or just incomplete? I'd say the latter.

But the basic idea that the life we see on earth developed over geological time through the process of applying natural selection to genetic variation isn't going anywhere. So while I see evolutionary theory like any other scientific theory - tentative and amenable to modification pending new discoveries rather than proven or the truth - I also consider the theory correct and having been demonstrated to be so by courtroom standard - beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no reasonable doubt that the theory is wrong, just an unreasonable one, that all that evidence doesn't represent the naturalistic process that Darwin described, but is a deception by a superhuman power and intelligent designer that went to that trouble to fool us. That only logically possible, but extremely unlikely, and can be dismissed as not a reasonable doubt. Unless you can come up with an alternate explanation for these mountains of data suggesting naturalistic evolution beside superhuman deception, it's one of those.

So what I don't like about the first choice is that I don't like the word truth any more than proof. The theory is correct. It unifies mountains of data from a multitude of sources, accurately makes predictions about what can and cannot be found in nature, provides a rational mechanism for evolution consistent with the known actions of nature, accounts for both the commonality of all life as well as biodiversity, and has had practical applications that have improved the human condition in areas like medicine and agriculture. That's how we identify correct ideas. They work. They are useful in the ways just outlined. And how we identify incorrect ideas as well. They don't work. They don't do these things. Think creationism or astrology, both founded on false premises, and neither useful for predicting or explaining anything.

What I don't like about the last option is that it is wishy-washy about evolution, as if this ide is just a placeholder until a better theory comes along. That's not going to happen. That's no longer possible. The present theory will become more fleshed out over time, but not upended. Like the heliocentric theory and the germ theory of disease, though we don't like to use the word proven in science if it is to mean the same thing a proven in mathematics, still none of these theories is going anywhere.

My answer would have been that the theory is correct and that it will likely be augmented over time.

OK, having said all that, I will vote. And I will combine those categories in my mind, as I assume that most people who voted for either of those options mean approximately what I do, and could have chosen both of them like I did. Presently, its 11 yeses and best ideas, and 1 no.

Lets not leave out the fact that DNA proves a clear link between all life. This, of course, proves that life evolved once (unless the other life died out). Isn't it odd, that on a planet where life, as we know it, which has perfect conditions for life to exist, only produced one instance of life (that evolved into others) in the billions of years of its existence. SETI found no radio signals linked to life (a few might not be explained, but lets not leap to a conclusion based on that). While most astrophysicists are awe struck by the myriads of planets and potential places to find new life, and they are certain that it is out in the universe other than earth, somewhere. Yet, we have not yet found any sign of it. Maybe Earth is the only place that life was created?