Facts of vs Theory of Evolution

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Dinosaur, Jun 5, 2014.

  1. matthew809 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    480
    Evolutionists believe in a less complex, less organized, more random version of DNA code. Creationists (scientific-minded ones) believe in a more complex, more organized, and less random version of DNA language. This dramatic difference in understanding allows evolutionists to get away with contributing almost all variation or change of species to random, meaningless changes in DNA. Therefore each and every miniscule variation creates new DNA coding by accident, and every variation should then theoretically be an example of macro-evolution(at least at the DNA level). The creationist on the other hand, understands that nearly all changes in DNA code are guided (with the assistance of random variables), within predefined parameters of the DNA coding, in order to keep the species from deteriorating too quickly. Therefore, every change would be an example of micro-evolution.

    With the above in mind... the limits of change are undefined and blurry at best, due to the facts that both viewpoints are based on completely different premises. Although I think that it becomes obvious that these limits exist when you look at the results of artificial breeding programs. The more you try to change a species, the more dysfunctional it becomes as it approaches these limits.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    The evolutionists are scientists, the creationists are anti-science religionists who want to interpret what they think they know in a way that aligns with their holy book. For instance, did you know that we share most of our DNA with organisms that are very unlike us on a superficial level, like fungus and plants? You can't even define the limits you base your whole crackpot theory on. The fact is there are no such mechanisms except the limitations of time and practicality. Is it that hard to admit your grandmother was a microbe?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Motor Daddy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,425
    I think the thing that's hard to swallow for creationists is that if evolution is correct that means that creationists are wrong, that there is no God. While that in and of itself is a small technicality, the main thing that's hard to swallow for them is that they were lied to, that there will be no Heaven and happily ever after. That they were foolish to believe such non-sense in the first place. So then it becomes a choice in their mind of either sticking to their guns and believing in faith, or admitting to themselves that they were wrong. 99% of the time they will stick to their faith.

    Of course there's always that percentage of the creationists that are dishonest, and really are just in it for themselves, to take from the poor and give to themselves. They knew all along that creationism was BS, they're just in it for the $$.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. matthew809 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    480
    There are also those creationists who used to be evolutionists, but due to ever more critical thinking on the subject, began realizing that the mechanics of the TOE are just not possible in reality, and that the evidence is overwhelming for creation. There are those of us who only use the word "God" as a temporary placeholder, not a certain necessity.
     
  8. Motor Daddy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,425
    Which mechanics are just not possible in reality, and why are they not possible?

    Do you also use the word Heaven as a temporary placeholder? Can you describe what you mean when you say the word Heaven? What is "Heaven" to you?
     
  9. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,885
    Mathew809: From your Post #24
    Do you have a link citing anyone who changed his POV from evolutionist to creationist?

    Those who accept evolution are usually well educated & tend to be less oriented to religion than those who believe in creationism.

    I find it astonishing that such folks would revise their POV & accept creationism.
     
  10. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    You can't just say there is evidence, you have to give it.
     
  11. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    This may bake your noodle, then - I think DNA is complex, organized and less random than you imply. I also understand evolution to be how our phenotypes came to be.
    DNA changes that result in change to species are, by definition, not meaningless.
    Not at all. Few single variations in DNA cause significant, useful and viable changes in phenotype (i.e. "macro-evolution" which I assume you define as "big changes.")
    Again, I think that many changes in DNA coding are 'guided' (interpreted) by other structures within DNA. For example, the HOX complex that guides changes in body segmentation.
    ?? The best example we have here are dogs - and dogs are some of the most useful (and functional) species we have bred.
     
  12. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Jan Ardena:

    There's moderation. I was really wondering what the person who posted the OP of this thread intended. Clearly, it was a choice to put it in the Religion forum, and I can see an argument for why it should be there (especially given the way the discussion is going now).

    As for me stopping, I didn't. And if you want further explanation, you could try asking politely next time.


    matthew809:

    Keep the big picture in mind. Young Earth Creationists believe that all species were created at once by God at some time in the last 10,000 years or so. This belief is inconsistent with much established science - unless you believe that God is deceitful and is trying to pull the wool over our eyes by making it look like evolution happens as Darwin and his successors describe.

    The explanation you have given is quite strange, too. Why would God require built-in "random variables" in the genetic code. If God wants a change, why can't he just give the DNA a tweak with his usual magic?

    And where did you get that stuff about keeping the species from deteriorating? Do you think that God made a mistake in designing DNA that would deteriorate over time, so that he needs to tweak it to keep things working properly?

    Artificial selection for one or a few specific traits usually ends up sacrificing other useful traits. Every trait is a trade-off. Natural selection tends to keep many traits within reasonable limits, whereas selective breeding by people has particular goals.

    In my experience, creationists usually don't understand evolution and make all kinds of basic mistakes when they talk about it. "God did it" isn't a scientific theory. It has no explanatory or predictive power in a scientific sense.

    You make the claim that "the mechanics of TOE are just not possible in reality". Please tell me which mechanics in particular are impossible, and we can perhaps educate you.


    Motor Daddy:

    That's wrong. It's quite possible to believe in God and evolution at the same time. It's just impossible to accept Young Earth Creationism and biblical literalism and science at the same time.
     
  13. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,396
    ToE is Theory of Everything. Theory of Evolution is not abbreviated like that.
     
  14. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    I am afraid I am highly sceptical of your claim, at least I am sceptical that there can be more than a tiny handful of educated people who have abandoned evolution in favour of creationism. Can you provide examples of scientists qualified in the field who have made this transition?

    To be honest you sound to me as if you are just trying to promote the "Teach the Controversy" strategy of the Discovery Institute. There is no such controversy, in science. At all. The only "controversy" is one manufactured by creationists (lawyers, doctors, engineers, uneducated laymen and a sprinkling of charlatans) in public relations and in politics, especially the politics of US education. The whole thing is an extended PR stunt and has nothing to do with science.
     
  15. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    Probably true, but there are considerably fewer facts than you seem to think.

    Perhaps it is just poor phrasing on your part, but what facts of evolution are supported by the fossil record? You have not said and I am therefore unable to say whether or not your examples support those alleged facts.

    There are a plethora of fossil humans and purported human ancestors that have been variously classified as separate genera, or species, or sub-species. Arguments have raged as to whether particular specimens are direct ancestors or cousins or unrelated to the human line. Describing the hodge-podge collection as an excellent example of evolution does evolution a huge disservice.

    I haven't followed the horse story closely, but my recollection is that the official outline of the evolutionary path from Eohippus was long ago discounted as a myopic misinterpretation.

    First you need to get your facts straight and this you have singularly failed to do.
     
  16. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,885
    Ophiolite: Your Post #32 confuses me a bit.

    Are you claiming that there are no fossils indicating a progression of species? Id est: Do you believe that the modern horse & Homo Sapiens came into existence without any preexisting related species which could reasonablely be viewed as progenitors?

    Alternatively, are you claiming that the original classification of preexisting horse like creatures & preexisting hominids needs some revision while agreeing that there is a fossil record indicating a progression of related species?

    Perhaps you think my referring to the fossil record as Facts of Evolution is a claim that it is proof of evolution. Consider the following analogy
    It is my understanding that there are various fossils which indicate a progression of similar species. It is my understanding that two examples are a series of horse-like fossils & a group of hominid-like fossils. I feel justified in viewing these fossils as facts of evolution, not as proof of the mainstream theory of evolution. That theory seems to currently be the most reasonable explanation.

    If some body comes up with another explanation, I will consider it unless it is obviously nonsense. Id est: Pixie Dust explanations will not be taken seriously & analyzed for validity.

    I am aware that there are some controversies & errors in classification details relating to the above mentioned fossils. The most notable example being Piltdown Man which was a hoax, I do not remember the motivation of the hoaxer.
     
  17. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,885
    James R: You asked
    Good question: It seems to me that it could be in either Forum.
     
  18. matthew809 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    480
    Sorry for not responding specifically to any post. They're just too many for me to handle right now. But I will say this for now:

    The high credibility of the theory of evolution is maintained almost entirely because of it's huge number of believers; and it's huge number of believers are maintained almost entirely because of the theory's high credibility. Based on my own experiences with evolutionists, I see very little critical thought being applied to the ideas of the theory. In fact, critical thought seems to be discouraged due to the fact that critical thought itself can't be peer-reviewed before it is dared spoken by such an un-anointed person. Rather, I see only the same ideas being repeated down the line. The concepts involved in supporting evolution are indeed very clever, and they make a great deal of sense.... at least to a certain degree. The problem I see is that the theory is so convoluted and diffused(sometimes purposefully I think), that it actually serves to conceal the big picture and it's own inconsistencies. Much like the monetary system, hiding evolutionary theory's inner-workings by over-complication is vital to it's survival. Also, much like the fragmented progression of most evolution/creation debates on these forums, no single point is ever really resolved. The theory of evolution is floating in a chaotic sea of unresolved ideas, with some ideas momentarily floating at the surface only to be sucked under by another at the evolutionist's convenience.
     
  19. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    The basics aren't complicated. And they aren't maintained by believers, but by the overwhelming and overlapping evidence from DNA, the fossil record, and the physical morphology of living species. The trouble with being religious is you see everything as religious, and not scientific, which is a completely different thing. The details of evolution could not be discovered without critical thinking, and the complaints of creationists are full of basic errors.
     
  20. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    My apologies for any ambiguity or lack of clarity. I shall seek to remedy that here.

    I am asserting that the arrangement of fossils of horses and of humans into a supposed evolutionary trends is whimsical and naive at best. "indicating a progression of species" is much less definitive than your earlier "The facts of evolution cannot be refuted." If you change it to "suggest the possibilty of some progression of species", then we might be on common ground.

    This is completely unrelated to my objection. You assert that the hodge-podge of fossils for both horses and humans fit into a well defined sequence that "cannot be refuted". That is simply bollocks. If you want a well defined sequence of that sort then ignore the frigging vertebrates and choose ammonites, or graptolites, or brachipods, or any of a score of other phyla, or super-families.

    You cannot assign a name like "the facts of evolution" when that is prejudging the notion that evolution has occurred. If it has occurred then these would be part of the evidence for evolution. We don't, rationally, call a man a murderer until he has been convicted.
     
  21. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    Are these evolutionists actively engaged in evolutionary research? If not then you are doing the equivalent of judging football coaching methods on the basis of what is said by the lads down at the pub.

    It is true that in any field a large proportion of research involves extending the range and depth of basic principles, but a significant, if small, portion actively criticises aspects of current theory. I am confident a random walk through papers accessed on Google Scholar would show this to you. Have you attempted this?
     
  22. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,057
    It isn't quite the same thing. Science is a reiterative process, so we can start with the question, "Does evolution occur?" and gather facts, then loop back and answer, "Yes it does." Once the question is answered, the answer becomes a fact for further investigations.
     
  23. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Exactly. And that high credibility comes from evidence from a great many fields of study - archaeology, paleontology, geology, biology, genetics, behavioral studies, medicine and history.

    Here's a list of research into evolution over just six months in ONE journal:
    26 February 2014
    A predictive fitness model for influenza
    Marta Łuksza &
    Michael Lässig
    Nature 507, 57-61 doi:10.1038/nature13087

    Species coexistence and the dynamics of phenotypic evolution in adaptive radiation
    Joseph A. Tobias,
    Charlie K. Cornwallis,
    Elizabeth P. Derryberry,
    Santiago Claramunt,
    Robb T. Brumfield &

    Nature 506, 359-363 doi:10.1038/nature12874

    29 May 2014
    Evolution sparks silence of the crickets
    Katia Moskvitch
    Nature News doi:10.1038/nature.2014.15323

    23 April 2014
    Origins and functional evolution of Y chromosomes across mammals
    Diego Cortez,
    Ray Marin,
    Deborah Toledo-Flores,
    Laure Froidevaux,
    Angélica Liechti,
    Nature 508, 488-493 doi:10.1038/nature13151

    19 January 2014
    Sequential evolution of bacterial morphology by co-option of a developmental regulator
    Chao Jiang,
    Pamela J. B. Brown,
    Adrien Ducret &
    Yves V. Brun
    Nature 506, 489-493 doi:10.1038/nature12900

    Human evolution: Fifty years after Homo habilis
    Bernard Wood
    Nature 508, 31-33 doi:10.1038/508031a

    22 December 2013
    Three keys to the radiation of angiosperms into freezing environments
    Amy E. Zanne,
    David C. Tank,
    William K. Cornwell,
    Jonathan M. Eastman,
    Stephen A. Smith,
    Nature 506, 89-92 doi:10.1038/nature12872

    30 April 2014
    Niche filling slows the diversification of Himalayan songbirds
    Trevor D. Price,
    Daniel M. Hooper,
    Caitlyn D. Buchanan,
    Ulf S. Johansson,
    Nature 509, 222-225 doi:10.1038/nature13272



    Why sharks have no bones
    Brendan Borrell
    Nature News doi:10.1038/nature.2014.14487

    19 January 2014
    The evolution of lncRNA repertoires and expression patterns in tetrapods
    Anamaria Necsulea,
    Magali Soumillon,
    Maria Warnefors,
    Angélica Liechti,
    Tasman Daish,
    Nature 505, 635-640 doi:10.1038/nature12943

    11 June 2014
    The genome of Eucalyptus grandis open
    Alexander A. Myburg,
    Dario Grattapaglia,
    Gerald A. Tuskan,
    Uffe Hellsten,
    Richard D. Hayes,
    Nature doi:10.1038/nature13308

    8 January 2014
    Elephant shark genome provides unique insights into gnathostome evolution
    Byrappa Venkatesh,
    Alison P. Lee,
    Vydianathan Ravi,
    Ashish K. Maurya,
    Michelle M. Lian,
    + et al.

    Nature 505, 174-179 doi:10.1038/nature12826
    24 April 2014
    Reprieve for men: Y chromosome is not vanishing
    Josh Fischman
    Nature News doi:10.1038/nature.2014.15103

    16 February 2014
    Study revives bird origin for 1918 flu pandemic
    Hannah Hoag
    Nature News doi:10.1038/nature.2014.14723

    23 April 2014
    Climate-change adaptation: Designer reefs
    Amanda Mascarelli

    Sounds like you are saying that uneducated people are taken less seriously. That's true (in all fields, not just evolutionary biology.)


    It is a very simple and elegant theory. The details, of course, are complicated (as the details always are.)

    A great many points have been resolved, and more are being resolved all the time.
     

Share This Page