The Theory of Evolution

[MagusYanam]

I posted this definition on another board, but it applies equally well here. This definition was first propounded in four points by Barbara Kingsolver in her book 'Small Wonder', which goes a little more in depth. In summary, these were Darwin's hypotheses:


- Every organism produces more offspring than will actually survive to reproduce.

- There are natural variations among these offspring.

- Specific traits are inherited - passed down to following generations.

- In each generation those that live to reproduce do so because they possess some advantageous trait that others don't, and because they survive, the next generation is more likely to inherit this trait. Ergo, the occurrence of that trait will eventually increase in the population.


That's it, folks. Simple, elegant and (as Ms. Kingsolver would say) irrefutable. These are observations made by a keen observer, Charles Darwin, and study has confirmed that this is indeed the way nature seems to work.

An Episcopalian myself, I cannot find any reason why this simple statement of fact should be detrimental to mine or anyone's faith in its acceptance. God's genius in the creation of such an efficient and elegant system in the world is self-evident, all the more so if it took hundreds of millions of years. My question is, then, why do creationists find these hypotheses so damaging to their respective faiths?

[Jose]

Welcome to our little group, MagusYanam! Y'know, I've often wondered about this exact question. Nothing in those four simple statements contradicts anything biblical (or, as far as I know, of any other religion). It must have something to do with the sentiment expressed in the 1860's by the wife of the Bishop of Worcester: "Descended from apes! My dear, we will hope it is not true. But if it is, let us pray that it will not become generally known."

But then, what Ms Kingsolver stated is a description of microevolution, which creationists are now willing to accept. They're still worried about the implications of microevolution occurring over a long time period, though.

Well, this is an interesting question. We'll see what answers our friends offer.

[YEC]

MagusYanam,
Sounds like a definition of Micro-Evolution.
That is the selection of already present genes. You know, like the finch...a bigger beak but no mutations required to make this bigger beak.

In the end, the finch remained a finch.

[bigmrpig]

MagusYanam,
Sounds like a definition of Micro-Evolution.
That is the selection of already present genes. You know, like the finch...a bigger beak but no mutations required to make this bigger beak.

In the end, the finch remained a finch.

All offspring are the same was what produced them. Finches produce finches.
Evolution doesn't say anything against that. Even a finch born with a mutation is still a finch. You cannot identify a species change as it happens, only in hindsight.

A species change isn't important to the theory of evolution anyway. Modern humans will always be modern humans. We are modern humans now. In a million years, our bones will not be modern humans. The humans of that time will be, and we will be called some other name. The judgement of the changes of species can only be made in hindsight.

I don't know if this is what you were looking/asking for, but asking for an evolutionist to produce evidence of something species changing through evolution in your/my lifetime, it is impossible, just by the fact that we can't identify a new species until it has made the sufficient and quite numerable changes needed to be substantially different than whatever came before it.

A finch now will be completely different from a finch of 2 million years from now (assuming finches will not go extinct), but generation by generation, most mutations would be undetectably small, and so generation by generation, each would be the same species as the last.

A species name is used for humans to differentiate these 2 completely different finches, even though they had the same ancestors. The different in species can only be discovered and viewed in hindsight.

[YEC]

bigmrpig,
With alll due respect, I'm still waiting for the evos who post on ths forum to present evidence that random mutations have the ability to add up over time and produce the morphological changes in the different kinds of animals we see all around us.

There is the claim that mutations do occur and that they do add up...but so far no proof.
No discussion of how it actually occurs.

It seems as if the T.O.E is based upon speculative assumptions disquised as science, packaged behind a thin veneer of untruths and force fed to our school age children as fact.

I call it the HOAX of the century.

[bigmrpig]

bigmrpig,
With alll due respect, I'm still waiting for the evos who post on ths forum to present evidence that random mutations have the ability to add up over time and produce the morphological changes in the different kinds of animals we see all around us.

There is the claim that mutations do occur and that they do add up...but so far no proof.
No discussion of how it actually occurs.

It seems as if the T.O.E is based upon speculative assumptions disquised as science, packaged behind a thin veneer of untruths and force fed to our school age children as fact.

I call it the HOAX of the century.

Assuming the proof you want can exist (which I don't know if it can, although evolution can exist without irrefutable proof of it), what would you want?

Patterns of DNA? I don't understand what you're asking for. We've shown you the gradual changes in skulls. Proof that mutations occured can only come from DNA from direct parent/child skulls, and the odds off finding two such skulls are obviously horrendous. But this does not prove that it did not happen.

We also, obviously, do not have complete gene pools for any species (modern of past) and therefore cannot detect what exactly is a mutation and what is simply a gene that we haven't seen before. Again, this doesn't equal proof that evolution occurs, or that it doesn't.

The T.O.E. is speculative assertions, because it is the only working theory we have come up with that has no gaping flaw in it (other than irrefutable proof), and it is not disguised as science; you even called it the T.O.E. Theory of evolution. Not law of evolution.

Calling it "untruths" is taking quite a step, however, as we cannot prove it, it has not been disproven either. Your use of the word speculation was much more appropriate.

And I ask you, why would this be a hoax? Why would anyone want children to believe evolution over creationism if it were untrue? To be anti-Christian? What would the goal of being anti-Christian be? Calling it a hoax seems to be the biggest speculative assumption I've heard on the matter of evolutionism yet.[/i]

[MagusYanam]

According to 'Small Wonder', that *was* Darwin's Theory of Evolution in its entirety. I assume by 'micro' and 'macro'-evolution, you mean the conclusions that can be drawn from observing living organisms and those that can be drawn from studying the fossil record, respectively.

That evolution happens as described by Darwin there can be no doubt - it is an observed and apparently measurable phenomenon. I assume the issue with evolution in general, then, is with regard to the fossil record.

I have been unable to understand, however, what issues there are even in this regard, since the evolutionary model seems to fit best what data we have.

[YEC]

Patterns of DNA? I don't understand what you're asking for. We've shown you the gradual changes in skulls. Proof that mutations occured can only come from DNA from direct parent/child skulls, and the odds off finding two such skulls are obviously horrendous. But this does not prove that it did not happen.

A gradual change in skulls? Were those changes actually a result of mutations?

Maybe you missed my EVOLUTION MADE EASY POST http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=1112 where I showed that gradual changes to a skull..doesn't mean they were caused by a mutation.

Then again if yu actuallly have some sort of transitional linage...please post it again. I believe I have never had this discussion with you and would be interested in why you think that the differances MUST be a result of random mutations causing morphological mutations.

[YEC]

"MagusYanam" posted: According to 'Small Wonder', that *was* Darwin's Theory of Evolution in its entirety. I assume by 'micro' and 'macro'-evolution, you mean the conclusions that can be drawn from observing living organisms and those that can be drawn from studying the fossil record, respectively.

That evolution happens as described by Darwin there can be no doubt - it is an observed and apparently measurable phenomenon. I assume the issue with evolution in general, then, is with regard to the fossil record.

Do you have an example of this measurement that shows Macro-Evolutionism?
You made mention of it in your post just above and I would really like to see the information.

I have been unable to understand, however, what issues there are even in this regard, since the evolutionary model seems to fit best what data we have.[/quote]

[bigmrpig]

Patterns of DNA? I don't understand what you're asking for. We've shown you the gradual changes in skulls. Proof that mutations occured can only come from DNA from direct parent/child skulls, and the odds off finding two such skulls are obviously horrendous. But this does not prove that it did not happen.

A gradual change in skulls? Were those changes actually a result of mutations?

Maybe you missed my EVOLUTION MADE EASY POST http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=1112 where I showed that gradual changes to a skull..doesn't mean they were caused by a mutation.

Then again if yu actuallly have some sort of transitional linage...please post it again. I believe I have never had this discussion with you and would be interested in why you think that the differances MUST be a result of random mutations causing morphological mutations.

I don't think they must be a result of random mutations, but I do believe they can. And I don't think that's an arguable point that they can have developed through mutations. I'm just saying that missing key evidence does nothing to disprove the theory of evolution, especially since such perfect conditions are required to create fossils that innumerable species' have likely been lost forever without any evidence of their existence.

But we do know that mutations occur. And we do know that genes are passed down to offspring. And we do know that mutations are carried in the genes, and there is no reason that an organism with a mutation wouldn't be able to pass it on, assuming it didn't already kill it.

So why wouldn't this be able to happen enough to change an organism completely?

Although, looking back at the orginal question proposed, we are quite off topic...