Evolution

[keithprosser3]

Given the nature of reproduction and of natural selection isn't evolution inescapable?
How can evolution not happen?

[JohnA]

What is your definition of faith, a faith based belief?
If you have evidence, then why have faith?
Are you trying to say your faith based belief is an error because you have evidence that can replace your faith?

You ask again? Look at post 220.

Evidence to REPLACE faith? Okey-dokey

Again, .. Faith without evidence is not faith, it is religion.
Following religious indoctrination is not faith either, it is called walking in darkness, .. it is blindness which causes fear.

Am waiting for your response to this:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 518#612518


Are you saying that you are not religions, have no faith? If so, why do you hold a faith based belief in your god then?

[goodwithoutgod]

Given the nature of reproduction and of natural selection isn't evolution inescapable?
How can evolution not happen?

It is a fact that life on this planet is evolving right now, and most likely always has been. Always amuses me when I get prove evolution from a creationist, it isn't like the evidence is a national secret hidden away in a vault. For example from the University of California, Berkeley:

The human ABO blood group system is controlled by alleles at a single locus on chromosome 9. The alleles encode glycosyltransferases, which add different sugar residues to the terminal part of the oligosaccharide core, thus generating the A or B antigens; an allele encoding enzymatically inactive protein is responsible for the blood group O. The A and B antigens are present not only in humans, but also in many other primate species and it has been proposed that the AB polymorphism was established long before these species diverged. Here we provide molecular evidence for the trans-species evolution of the AB polymorphism. Polymerase-chain reaction (PCR) amplification and sequencing has revealed that the critical substitutions differentiating the A and B genes occurred before the divergence of the lineages leading to humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. This polymorphism is therefore at least 13 million years old and is most likely maintained by selection. Comparison of the sequences derived from different species indicates that the difference in enzymatic activities between the A and B transferases is caused by two single nucleotide substitutions responsible for Leu-Met and Gly-Ala replacement at positions 265 and 267 in the polypeptide chains, respectively.


The genetic code, formerly thought to be frozen, is now known to be in a state of evolution. This was first shown in 1979 by Barrell et al. (G. Barrell, A. T. Bankier, and J. Drouin, Nature [London] 282:189-194, 1979), who found that the universal codons AUA (isoleucine) and UGA (stop) coded for methionine and tryptophan, respectively, in human mitochondria. Subsequent studies have shown that UGA codes for tryptophan in Mycoplasma spp. and in all nonplant mitochondria that have been examined. Universal stop codons UAA and UAG code for glutamine in ciliated protozoa (except Euplotes octacarinatus) and in a green alga, Acetabularia. E. octacarinatus uses UAA for stop and UGA for cysteine. Candida species, which are yeasts, use CUG (leucine) for serine. Other departures from the universal code, all in nonplant mitochondria, are CUN (leucine) for threonine (in yeasts), AAA (lysine) for asparagine (in platyhelminths and echinoderms), UAA (stop) for tyrosine (in planaria), and AGR (arginine) for serine (in several animal orders) and for stop (in vertebrates). We propose that the changes are typically preceded by loss of a codon from all coding sequences in an organism or organelle, often as a result of directional mutation pressure, accompanied by loss of the tRNA that translates the codon. The codon reappears later by conversion of another codon and emergence of a tRNA that translates the reappeared codon with a different assignment. Changes in release factors also contribute to these revised assignments.

The lines of evidence for evolution can be broken down into 4 groups.
a) Fossil evidence: The fossil record provides snapshots of the past that, when assembled, illustrate a panorama of evolutionary change over the past four billion years. The picture may be smudged in places and may have bits missing, but fossil evidence clearly shows that life is old and has changed over time.

b) Homologies: Evolutionary theory predicts that related organisms will share similarities that are derived from common ancestors. Similar characteristics due to relatedness are known as homologies. Homologies can be revealed by comparing the anatomies of different living things, looking at cellular similarities and differences, studying embryological development, and studying vestigial structures within individual organisms. Frogs, birds, rabbits and lizards all have different forelimbs, reflecting their different lifestyles. But those different forelimbs all share the same set of bones - the humerus, the radius, and the ulna. These are the same bones seen in fossils of the extinct transitional animal, Eusthenopteron, which demonstrates their common ancestry.

c) distribution in time and space: Understanding the history of life on Earth requires a grasp of the depth of time and breadth of space. We must keep in mind that the time involved is vast compared to a human lifetime and the space necessary for this to occur includes all the water and land surfaces of the world. Establishing chronologies, both relative and absolute, and geographic change over time are essential for viewing the motion picture that is the history of life on Earth.

d) Chronology utilizing relative and numerical dating methods.

All available evidence supports the central conclusions of evolutionary theory, that life on Earth has evolved and that species share common ancestors. If you want to deluge yourself with data, there are copious amounts of websites, check out berkeley's evolution page, it even has pictures

[Sonofason]

Here again, .. first I use logic; "if we humans design and create,"

First?!? This was your first step? I have a hard time believing you.

Hi Clownboat!

Well yes, first as I said: first I use logic; "if we humans design and create,", .. that's a logical first step reasoning don't you think? How else would I come to the logical conclusion that; ".. then whatever we didn't create, a Creator God must have done it!"

Plus, I see no logic in this statement. To be logical, it should infer something. It just states something that every human on earth already knows (that we design and create).

Again, .. The evidence is as you said; "what every human on earth already knows (that we design and create)"

Come on now, .. so what's the next logical question? "If we create, then who created the far more complex things we didn't create?" .. right?

Then I use science; ".. then everything that we didn't design and create, .."

This really was step two? Again, I find this hard to believe. It also infers nothing.

Logic, the systematic use of symbolic and mathematical techniques to determine the forms of valid deductive argument.
the quality of being justifiable by reason : there's no logic in telling her not to hit people when that's what you're doing.

.. like a piece of rope nailed to a piece of board called the "Weather Rope" which tells the weather. You leave it outdoors, and if the rope moves back and forth, it is windy. If it's wet, it is raining. If it's ripped off the nail, RUN, .. it's a tornado, .. or, the kids took it. There is faulty logic also, never the less it's logic.

"...then if everything that we didn't design and create..." Yes? Yes? I'm all ears, don't leave me hanging.

Come on, you can do it, ... I know you can Clownboat, "...then if everything that we didn't design and create..." .. then what? It Appeared out of nothing?
See what I mean, .. you have to use logic, "Then a Creator God did it!" It's really not that hard.

And finally I come up with a rational conclusion: "Must have come by a Creator with very high intelligence who designed all this!"

Finally?!? As in, this was your last step?

My guess is that first you had a belief (step 3), from there stemmed steps one and two.

Either way, neither of your first two premises infer an intelligent creator.

Well, for us Believers who are not burdened down with religious indoctrinations, it's really easy because our faith is not built on fairytales, .. but evidence.

Then I search for further evidence of this Creator and found the Bible. In there it reveals more logical conclusions like; "We were created in God the Creators image!" Well now that explains a lot, .. wouldn't you agree?

I agree that you found the Bible. The process that you claim for doing so is in question, not to mention your claimed premises don't lead to the conclusion that you found.

The Bible was always there, I even read it but it did not make much sense to me, until my continuos search for truth, God opened the Bible for me. It was like a light that went on, and all of a sudden it was filling in the gaps that science left open. It was like that Johnny Cash song: "I see the light, .. I see the light, .. no more darkness, .. no more night, .. Praise the LORD, .. I see the light!"

For this reason, it appears that you have specific beliefs first and foremost. From there you infer design and a creator.

Are you kidding me, .. who doesn't have specific beliefs first and foremost? Only some people just keep jumping around from one religion to the next. From Former Christian, to Atheist, to Evolutionist, to New Ager and so on.

There is just too much bad design in nature to be lead to an intelligent creator behind it all (as in directly behind it).

Aaahh.. yess. And this is where you much better designers come in, right? With your Genetically Modified animal/humans with a face like a pig, a body of a rat, hooves like a horse, which die soon after birth screeching like a pig, turning and twisting in unimaginable agony as he/it slowly dies to the horror of everyone. You may call this a better design, and even a victory if he/it lives for a few days, but we Believers don't. And neither does your Creator my friend Clownboat! God will not tolerate this level of wickedness for too much longer, .. The Day of Reconing is at hand.

Let's break it down shall we?

Arian:
A) if we humans design and create
B) then everything that we didn't design and create
Therefore: Must have come by a Creator with very high intelligence who designed all this!
(This really is more of a sentence broken up by A, B and therefore, rather than two premises pointing to a conclusion)

A) Yes, humans can design and create. So what? Some things humans designed and created, and other things happen naturally, like snowflakes and weather systems. Your, "if humans design and create" is therefore a meaningless premise.

B) "then everything that we didn't design and create".... This is also a meaningless premise. It's almost like you are trying to suggest that things humans didn't design, like snowflakes, the weather, sand dunes etc.... must have come from something that you have yet to link to this premise.

But wait! Where are you going with all of this? That's right, all along you have been asserting your conclusion into your premises (even though they are faulty).

C) Your therefore fails. Your faulty premises don't point to an intelligent creator. We understand how snowflakes form. They are not designed, nor created. Thus, even though your premises are faulty, your conclusion can be shown to be in error.

This does not mean there is not a god of some sort out there. This only shows that your current argument is not logical and should be discarded due to that fact.
Perhaps try:
Premise A
Premise B
Therefore...

Like:
A) Humans are complex
B) Evolution explains how humans became complex.
Therefore, evolution is a good reason for accepting why we exist.

Clownboat, that is not a logical conclusion. I have already proven that. The conclusion that you have drawn from the premises is false. Evolution is a good reason for accepting why human beings are complex. It does not logically follow from these two premises why we exist. Evolution does not explain why we exist.

[Goat]

Clownboat, that is not a logical conclusion. I have already proven that. The conclusion that you have drawn from the premises is false. Evolution is a good reason for accepting why human beings are complex. It does not logically follow from these two premises why we exist. Evolution does not explain why we exist.

Why must you assume there is a 'why'? Can you show me evidence there is a 'why'. Personal testimony is not evidence, but merely opinion.

[10CC]

[Replying to post 231 by Sonofason]

Coz if we didna exist we wouldn't be having this much fun!

[JohnA]

[Replying to post 231 by Sonofason]
Am glad you accept Evolution.


The way I read your post was that it's saying that science can not explain why the universe or live exists.

All I can say is that it can not be any other way, if it was then we would not observe the universe at all - so it does not matter, the questions is redundant.

Postulating a god as the explanation why anything exists does not answer it either, because you have no choice to ask then why does the god exist. If you say it can not be any other way, then why propose a god then? Why not stop at the universe, at least we CAN and DO observe it.

[Sonofason]

Clownboat, that is not a logical conclusion. I have already proven that. The conclusion that you have drawn from the premises is false. Evolution is a good reason for accepting why human beings are complex. It does not logically follow from these two premises why we exist. Evolution does not explain why we exist.

Why must you assume there is a 'why'? Can you show me evidence there is a 'why'. Personal testimony is not evidence, but merely opinion.

I assume there is a why because my experience tells me that there is always an explanation for everything.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 235 by Sonofason]

Is there an explanation for god's existence?

[Goat]

Clownboat, that is not a logical conclusion. I have already proven that. The conclusion that you have drawn from the premises is false. Evolution is a good reason for accepting why human beings are complex. It does not logically follow from these two premises why we exist. Evolution does not explain why we exist.

Why must you assume there is a 'why'? Can you show me evidence there is a 'why'. Personal testimony is not evidence, but merely opinion.

I assume there is a why because my experience tells me that there is always an explanation for everything.

Does your experience tell you that, or is that a preconception on your part. Please, describe to me your experience that there is an explanation for everything, and then, more importantly, show that there is a valid explanation, rather than just an ad hoc one.

To me, your sentence translates to 'because i say so', and I don't accept that as a valid explanation.

[Sonofason]

[Replying to post 235 by Sonofason]

Is there an explanation for god's existence?

Of course there is.