Why would God create Evolution?

[suncowiam]

Evolution is scientifically unproveable

I think dogs are the best example of this. I don't claim to be an expert but hear it out and just refute where you like...

Dogs evolved from wolves.

The breeding of dogs are acceleration of the evolution process. Instead of natural seleciton, you have man acting as the selector. Those he accepts are nurtured and bred again until he is satisfied. Now we have hundreds of breeds for various purposes. But here's the key thing, because dogs quickly evolved from wolves to be tameable, dogs have tied themselves to the hip with men. As a species, it found a host to nurture it and continue its existence. Dogs cannot survive in the wild but why does it need to now when men is the environment? So, I don't see dogs becoming extinct until men becomes extinct.

 

[Sapiens]

Evolution is scientifically unproveable

That's not the whole story.

CA202][/url]

1. Nothing in the real world can be proved with absolute certainty. However, high degrees of certainty can be reached. In the case of evolution, we have huge amounts of data from diverse fields. Extensive evidence exists in all of the following different forms (Theobald 2004). Each new piece of evidence tests the rest.
   • All life shows a fundamental unity in the mechanisms of replication, heritability, catalysis, and metabolism.
   • Common descent predicts a nested hierarchy pattern, or groups within groups. We see just such an arrangement in a unique, consistent, well-defined hierarchy, the so-called tree of life.
   • Different lines of evidence give the same arrangement of the tree of life. We get essentially the same results whether we look at morphological, biochemical, or genetic traits.
   • Fossil animals fit in the same tree of life. We find several cases of transitional forms in the fossil record.
   • The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years and inconsistent with sudden creation.
   • Many organisms show rudimentary, vestigial characters, such as sightless eyes or wings useless for flight.
   • Atavisms sometimes occur. An atavism is the reappearance of a character present in a distant ancestor but lost in the organism's immediate ancestors. We only see atavisms consistent with organisms' evolutionary histories.
   • Ontogeny (embryology and developmental biology) gives information about the historical pathway of an organism's evolution. For example, as embryos whales and many snakes develop hind limbs that are reabsorbed before birth.
   • The distribution of species is consistent with their evolutionary history. For example, marsupials are mostly limited to Australia, and the exceptions are explained by continental drift. Remote islands often have species groups that are highly diverse in habits and general appearance but closely related genetically. Squirrel diversity coincides with tectonic and sea level changes (Mercer and Roth 2003). Such consistency still holds when the distribution of fossil species is included.
   • Evolution predicts that new structures are adapted from other structures that already exist, and thus similarity in structures should reflect evolutionary history rather than function. We see this frequently. For example, human hands, bat wings, horse legs, whale flippers, and mole forelimbs all have similar bone structure despite their different functions.
   • The same principle applies on a molecular level. Humans share a large percentage of their genes, probably more than 70 percent, with a fruit fly or a nematode worm.
   • When two organisms evolve the same function independently, different structures are often recruited. For example, wings of birds, bats, pterosaurs, and insects all have different structures. Gliding has been implemented in many additional ways. Again, this applies on a molecular level, too.
   • The constraints of evolutionary history sometimes lead to suboptimal structures and functions. For example, the human throat and respiratory system make it impossible to breathe and swallow at the same time and make us susceptible to choking.
   • Suboptimality appears also on the molecular level. For example, much DNA is nonfunctional.
   • Some nonfunctional DNA, such as certain transposons, pseudogenes, and endogenous viruses, show a pattern of inheritance indicating common ancestry.
   • Speciation has been observed.
   • The day-to-day aspects of evolution -- heritable genetic change, morphological variation and change, functional change, and natural selection -- are seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent.
   
   Furthermore, the different lines of evidence are consistent; they all point to the same big picture. For example, evidence from gene duplications in the yeast genome shows that its ability to ferment glucose evolved about eighty million years ago. Fossil evidence shows that fermentable fruits became prominent about the same time. Genetic evidence for major change around that time also is found in fruiting plants and fruit flies (Benner et al. 2002).
   
   The evidence is extensive and consistent, and it points unambiguously to evolution, including common descent, change over time, and adaptation influenced by natural selection. It would be preposterous to refer to these as anything other than facts.

Links:

Theobald, Douglas. 2004. 29+ Evidences for macroevolution: The scientific case for common descent. 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Colby, Chris. 1993. Evidence for evolution: An eclectic survey. Evidence for Evolution: An Eclectic Survey

Moran, Laurence. 1993. Evolution is a fact and a theory. Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

References:

1. Benner, S. A., M. D. Caraco, J. M. Thomson and E. A. Gaucher. 2002. Planetary biology--paleontological, geological, and molecular histories of life. Science 296: 864-868.
2. Mercer, John M. and V. Louise Roth. 2003. The effects of Cenozoic global change on squirrel phylogeny. Science 299: 1568-1572.
3. Theobald, D. 2004. (see above)

 

[Bunyip]

And that's why no scientists has set out to do it---proof is only relevant in mathematics, logic, and alcohol---It's just the best darn explanation we have.

Forgive the correction, but evolution IS scientifically proveable and proven.

The Theory of Evolution is explanatory, but Evolution is a fact. Theories explain the facts.

 

[Yerda]

Forgive the correction, but evolution IS scientifically proveable and proven.

The Theory of Evolution is explanatory, but Evolution is a fact. Theories explain the facts.

What does proven mean in this context?

 

[LuisDantas]

What does proven mean in this context?

Mainly, that there were (and are still) repeated opportunities of testing its accuracy (by predicting the presence of fossils, of biological markers, of population shifts, of vestigial organs) and it has consistently shown to be up for the task.

That is the most puzzling aspect of the "controversy". So many people claim outright that Evolution is a conspiracy, a theory in crisis, a lie, whatever.

And on that... they are simply ignorant, wrong, or lying outright.

 

[Bunyip]

What does proven mean in this context?

Well nothing really, theories are explanations. So 'proving' a theory is just a misconception.

Evolution however is defined in biology as changes in allele frequency over time - a phenomenon that is observable and hence can be proven by direct observation of allele frequency changes.

I would define proven as: An established fact.

 

[Yerda]

Well nothing really, theories are explanations. So 'proving' a theory is just a misconception.

Evolution however is defined in biology as changes in allele frequency over time - a phenomenon that is observable and hence can be proven by direct observation of allele frequency changes.

I would define proven as: An established fact.

I couldn't put it better.

 

[Ouroboros]

I think dogs are the best example of this. I don't claim to be an expert but hear it out and just refute where you like...

Dogs evolved from wolves.

Exactly. And all the dog breeds have been bred by selection (not natural selection, but still selection) from genetic traits.

The breeding of dogs are acceleration of the evolution process. Instead of natural seleciton, you have man acting as the selector. Those he accepts are nurtured and bred again until he is satisfied. Now we have hundreds of breeds for various purposes. But here's the key thing, because dogs quickly evolved from wolves to be tameable, dogs have tied themselves to the hip with men. As a species, it found a host to nurture it and continue its existence. Dogs cannot survive in the wild but why does it need to now when men is the environment? So, I don't see dogs becoming extinct until men becomes extinct.

Yup.

I love my dogs by the way.

 

[suncowiam]

Exactly. And all the dog breeds have been bred by selection (not natural selection, but still selection) from genetic traits.


Yup.

I love my dogs by the way.

I love my dog too. Had another dog, a cairn terrior, that was so adorable and nice to everyone. But she was so destructive to our house when we werent home that we unfortunately had to give her to a very nice older couple.

 

[Ouroboros]

I love my dog too. Had another dog, a cairn terrior, that was so adorable and nice to everyone. But she was so destructive to our house when we werent home that we unfortunately had to give her to a very nice older couple.

Terriers are that way. They're very high energy. My brother has a terrier mix, and he won't sit still for a fraction of a second, and he chews on shoes and whatnot. It takes a lot of training to get them straight, but I'm not that patient. We have a poodle, dalmatian, and a papillon-poodle mix. They're all just loving dogs.

 

[suncowiam]

Terriers are that way. They're very high energy. My brother has a terrier mix, and he won't sit still for a fraction of a second, and he chews on shoes and whatnot. It takes a lot of training to get them straight, but I'm not that patient. We have a poodle, dalmatian, and a papillon-poodle mix. They're all just loving dogs.

My current dog is a Jack Russell Terrier. Smartest dog I've ever known. He picks up on things so fast, has lots of energy, really good with people and property. Except, he hates other white dogs and could attack them on sight. Oh well, nothing's perfect.

I don't understand cat people personally. Cats are so conceited. I feel like I'm the pet and the cat is the owner when I play with some. LOL

 

[Ouroboros]

My current dog is a Jack Russell Terrier. Smartest dog I've ever known. He picks up on things so fast, has lots of energy, really good with people and property. Except, he hates other white dogs and could attack them on sight. Oh well, nothing's perfect.

I don't understand cat people personally. Cats are so conceited. I feel like I'm the pet and the cat is the owner when I play with some. LOL

Yeah. I'm not much of a cat person either. No personal connection.

Anyway, enough sidetracking the topic. LOL!

Cats are also evidence of how selection of genetic traits can produce new breeds. How about the fur-less, bald cats? They didn't exist some hundred years ago. I don't think God suddenly had the interest to create a new cat just for people to buy and own as pets.

 

[paarsurrey]

Why would God create Evolution?

Why would G-d not create Evolution? Please
Who has put any restriction on G-d?

Regards

 

[Skwim]

Forgive the correction, but evolution IS scientifically proveable and proven.

The Theory of Evolution is explanatory, but Evolution is a fact. Theories explain the facts.

Sorry you don't understand. And being tired of explaining such things, I found a good article on the subject to bring you up to speed.

"Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof”
Why there is no such thing as a scientific proof.


Misconceptions about the nature and practice of science abound, and are sometimes even held by otherwise respectable practicing scientists themselves. . . . One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.

Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem.

In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. . . . "
source AND MORE
​

 

[Skwim]

Why would God create Evolution?

Why would G-d not create Evolution? Please
Who has put any restriction on G-d?

Regards

I believe the thinking behind the question is, why bother with such a complex, time consuming, and wasteful process when with a wave of the god wand all species could be *poofed* into existance?

 

[Ouroboros]

I believe the thinking behind the question is, why bother with such a complex, time consuming, and wasteful process when with a wave of the god wand all species could be *poofed* into existance?

I think you're right. It doesn't sit well with idea of God being a magical being who can wave his wand and make things appear in thin air.

But since we don't know God's mind or any purpose or reasoning behind creation (if there is a God), we don't know why God would or wouldn't do to create things. Just the same reason there are now several products and much of research (and games) using evolutionary algorithms because it saves time, and it makes it exciting for the designers to see what the end result is. If God is all knowing about tomorrow and all eternity, he would never be surprised or excited for something new, because he already knows what would happen. Wouldn't the greatest creation for such a God be to make a world that actually would surprise him, a world he couldn't predict? I think so.

 

[paarsurrey]

I believe the thinking behind the question is, why bother with such a complex, time consuming, and wasteful process when with a wave of the god wand all species could be *poofed* into existance?

It is not wasteful. Does science claim that Evolution is a wasteful process?

Regards

 

[outhouse]

It is not wasteful. Does science claim that Evolution is a wasteful process?

Regards

YOU cannot tell the difference between magic and reality?

 

[Ouroboros]

It is not wasteful. Does science claim that Evolution is a wasteful process?

Regards

In a sense it is there. Part of evolutionary theory is the part of diversity. Diversity is basically having a large pool of variation of genetic material, not all of it fit for future selective pressure. It's like ebb and flow, or like a pump. First charge up with a huge pool of potential alternatives, then pressure selects the most fit of them. The ones who are gone are in a sense wasted away. But no one really ever says that out loud though.

 

[Skwim]

It is not wasteful. Does science claim that Evolution is a wasteful process?

Regards

Positing that god is behind evolution and set it motion to accomplish some goal (why else bother?), in as much as there are a lot of dead-end branches that never contributed to that goal, they would amount to wasted effort and resources.