If you accept microevolution

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
jamesmorlock
Scholar
Posts: 301
Joined: Thu May 26, 2011 4:26 am
Been thanked: 1 time

If you accept microevolution

Post #1

Post by jamesmorlock »

Simply because they are identical.

Consider an analogy:

Imagine that you can travel across the universe by walking. You have an infinite amount of time to do this, but you must make your journey by taking small steps. You have no destination, but you can go anywhere and you must never stop walking.

A thousand years pass. Where are you now? Further.
A million years pass. Where are you now? Even Further.
A billion years pass. Where are you now? Far, far away.

For every iteration of time, you will have traveled further and further. It is inevitable, for every small step takes you further. It is not possible to not travel far.

Microevolution is the small step. Macroevolution is the collective of small steps over a large period of time.

When walking for billions of years, how can you not be far away from your starting point?
"I can call spirits from the vastie Deepe."
"Why so can I, or so can any man: But will they come, when you doe call for them?"
--Henry IV

"You’re about as much use as a condom machine in the Vatican."
--Rimmer, Red Dwarf

"Bender is great."
--Bender

User avatar
brunumb
Prodigy
Posts: 3993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 3100 times
Been thanked: 1688 times

Re: If you accept microevolution

Post #341

Post by brunumb »

Tcg wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 10:36 pm I have experienced the reality that god/gods don't exist.
But that could just be the product of self delusion and confirmation bias.
Oh...... wait...... ;)
Christianty: 2000 years of making it up as you go along.

User avatar
John Bauer
Apprentice
Posts: 182
Joined: Wed May 29, 2019 11:31 pm
Has thanked: 122 times
Been thanked: 64 times

Re: If you accept microevolution

Post #342

Post by John Bauer »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2021 1:03 pm
[Evolution] is about the necessity of unbelievers to explain the origins of species without invoking God—because if you negate God's existence, evolution is the only game in town.
First, when it comes to scientific theories, evolution is truly the only game in town. There are other theories or ideas, of course, but they are not scientific. Creationism, for example, is a theological idea rooted in Scripture; because it is neither falsifiable nor even testable, it is not scientific. But creationists shouldn't want it to be scientific, for creationism has a higher commitment.

Second, unbelievers are not the only ones who understand and accept evolution—so do most of the 2.5 billion Christians in the world. None of them are driven to explain the origin of species apart from God, much less negate his existence. In other words, your criticism of evolution ignores the vast majority of those who accept it.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2021 8:06 pm I [have a] beef with the concept of theistic evolution—although this is more of an "in house" debate between believers [...]
And what is that beef, exactly?

User avatar
John Bauer
Apprentice
Posts: 182
Joined: Wed May 29, 2019 11:31 pm
Has thanked: 122 times
Been thanked: 64 times

Re: If you accept microevolution

Post #343

Post by John Bauer »

Dimmesdale wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 1:20 pm
Most certainly evolution should not be taught as fact in public schools. As theory, okay, but not as fact. [...]
Should we teach the heliocentric theory as fact in public schools?

Dimmesdale wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 1:22 pm
Okay, so [evolution is] NOT a fact. Thank you.
A fact is that which is the case (true, exists, happened), attested by direct observation, as opposed to inference or conjecture.

"Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them." Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Discover (May 1981), pp. 34–37. Emphasis mine.

The fact that life evolves is pretty much impossible to deny—from intraspecific variation in a species population (microevolution) to interspecific variation through allopatric or sympatric speciation events (macroevolution)—but there is plenty of latitude when it comes to explaining how and to what extent it does so. "Explaining" is precisely the role of a scientific theory. All sides of the origins debate must contend with the same massive and ever growing body of evidence, the data or facts, for life's evolution, proposing empirical and testable theories to explain them in a self-consistent model that corresponds to the world we observe around us. And one side of this debate is doing that quite capably.

Furthermore, it can sometimes happen that a theory becomes regarded as a fact. The evidence supporting a theory can become so extensive and comprehensive [1] that we end up reaching a point where rival theories are rendered basically implausible by an insurmountable burden of proof. So those promoting rival Theory B would be confronted with the arduous task of showing that the relevant facts have never really supported the current Theory A after all, and also that rival Theory B better and more competently explains that evidence—and more. For example, there was a time in our history when a heliocentric theory was proposed to explain the relevant facts we could observe of our solar system. It was, and still is, "just a theory." But now, after five hundred years of amassing ever more evidence, including the countless proven predictions based on that theory and space-borne instrument data consistent with it, this theory has become regarded as essentially a fact. I should think that any sufficiently educated person would admit, "It is a fact that the planets orbit the sun." And rival theories—if there are any—are faced with an insurmountable burden of proof.

Dimmesdale wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 1:22 pm
What is the use of "knowledge" that is unsure of itself? [...] Knowledge is certain.
All knowledge is "unsure of itself." No item of knowledge is, or even can be, certain—especially if the world is a place of all-pervasive illusion.

-----
Footnotes:

[1] The evidence supporting a theory is enormously compelling when it was something previously unknown but predicted by the theory and subsequently discovered.

Dimmesdale
Sage
Posts: 726
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 7:19 pm
Location: The Temple of Logic
Has thanked: 26 times
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: If you accept microevolution

Post #344

Post by Dimmesdale »

John Bauer wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 7:15 am

All knowledge is "unsure of itself." No item of knowledge is, or even can be, certain—especially if the world is a place of all-pervasive illusion.
Wholeheartedly disagree! Knowledge to be knowledge must be infallible. Otherwise it is at best just a useful fiction.

Knowledge is possible even in our setting. We may be drowning in an ocean of lies, but a life-preserver of truth can nonetheless break through the chaos, and we CAN recognize it as such the moment we hold onto it. Things come together, cohere, and we see reality as it is. Though I'll admit the 'how' of this I do not yet know how to articulate.

Dimmesdale
Sage
Posts: 726
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 7:19 pm
Location: The Temple of Logic
Has thanked: 26 times
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: If you accept microevolution

Post #345

Post by Dimmesdale »

John Bauer wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 7:15 am
Dimmesdale wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 1:20 pm
Most certainly evolution should not be taught as fact in public schools. As theory, okay, but not as fact. [...]
Should we teach the heliocentric theory as fact in public schools?
We should teach in the sense that: this is the case according to the model that our senses interpret. We should teach our current "science" in that fashion. We shouldn't absolutely claim this is the way it is. We should simply say "this is according to how we interpret our instruments."

Dimmesdale
Sage
Posts: 726
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 7:19 pm
Location: The Temple of Logic
Has thanked: 26 times
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: If you accept microevolution

Post #346

Post by Dimmesdale »

Tcg wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 10:36 pm
Dimmesdale wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 1:50 am
Tcg wrote: Sat Mar 13, 2021 11:28 pm
Dimmesdale wrote: Sat Mar 13, 2021 9:41 am
In my worldview, illusion is all-pervasive, but it is not total. It is controlled by God. God is the source of truth and the dispeller of illusion. If we submit to him, our illusion is lessened.
How do you know that the bolded unsupported assertion is not also an illusion?


Tcg
Experience.
So you claim that your experience is perfectly free of illusion and all you can provide as evidence that this is true is that it is your experience?

I have experienced the reality that god/gods don't exist. It looks like we are now at a stalemate unless you can provide some verifiable evidence that your experience outweighs mine. What have you that qulifies?


Tcg
Ultimately, I think we are at a stalemate. IF we take experiences to be all equal. I think that some experiences are qualitatively in another league of their own. But in order to know that you have to experience them firsthand. If you do not experience them firsthand, but only read about them, or think about them, you aren't given the full deal; you won't be convinced.

I don't know how to argue at this point so I believe we are indeed at a stalemate. I cannot prove to you that an experience is an indicator of an obvious truth, anymore than you can prove to a solipsist that his experience of another person is an obvious truth. That is YOUR experience, not his. I personally know the truth, but I can't force it on anyone. I can only hopefully plant a seed of curiosity and hope it grows in someone's brain.

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Guru
Posts: 1165
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Re: If you accept microevolution

Post #347

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

John Bauer wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 7:06 am
First, when it comes to scientific theories, evolution is truly the only game in town.
I do not believe evolution is a viable scientific theory, for reasons previously mentioned.
John Bauer wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 7:06 am Second, unbelievers are not the only ones who understand and accept evolution—so do most of the 2.5 billion Christians in the world. None of them are driven to explain the origin of species apart from God, much less negate his existence. In other words, your criticism of evolution ignores the vast majority of those who accept it.
Well, I doubt a "vast majority" of Christians accept the ToE..second, evolution is much easier to except (imo), if there was a divine hand behind it. Certainly, a reptile can evolve into a bird if God ordained it to be the case.

The question then becomes; did God ordain it to be the case. I say no.
John Bauer wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 7:06 am
And what is that beef, exactly?
The beef is the fact that I don't believe that God created species the way that theistic evolutionists believe. If this is being taught in Churches (which I doubt), then it is a false teaching...and I am against false doctrine.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

User avatar
Miles
Prodigy
Posts: 3394
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 266 times
Been thanked: 941 times

Re: If you accept microevolution

Post #348

Post by Miles »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:55 pm
Well, I doubt a "vast majority" of Christians accept the ToE..second, evolution is much easier to except (imo), if there was a divine hand behind it. Certainly, a reptile can evolve into a bird if God ordained it to be the case.
Then consider this 2018 poll.


Image

At the very best, only 38% who identified as white evangelical Protestants bought into creationism, while a huge majority of other Christians think evolution is the reason for the diversity of life on the planet.
Considering that Christians make up 65% of the US population, this comes down to 4.57 times as many us Christians believe in evolution as those believing in creationism. OR creationists make up only 21.88 % of the Christian population while evolutionists make up 78.2 %, which I would say qualifies as the "vast" majority.

Creationism just ain't selling.


.

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 7162
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 1292 times
Been thanked: 1516 times

Re: If you accept microevolution

Post #349

Post by Tcg »

Dimmesdale wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:46 pm
Tcg wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 10:36 pm
Dimmesdale wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 1:50 am
Tcg wrote: Sat Mar 13, 2021 11:28 pm
Dimmesdale wrote: Sat Mar 13, 2021 9:41 am
In my worldview, illusion is all-pervasive, but it is not total. It is controlled by God. God is the source of truth and the dispeller of illusion. If we submit to him, our illusion is lessened.
How do you know that the bolded unsupported assertion is not also an illusion?


Tcg
Experience.
So you claim that your experience is perfectly free of illusion and all you can provide as evidence that this is true is that it is your experience?

I have experienced the reality that god/gods don't exist. It looks like we are now at a stalemate unless you can provide some verifiable evidence that your experience outweighs mine. What have you that qulifies?


Tcg
Ultimately, I think we are at a stalemate. IF we take experiences to be all equal. I think that some experiences are qualitatively in another league of their own. But in order to know that you have to experience them firsthand. If you do not experience them firsthand, but only read about them, or think about them, you aren't given the full deal; you won't be convinced.
The same is true of my experience. If you haven't experienced my experiences firsthand, you can't possibly evaluate them properly. You aren't convinced by my experiences and I'm not convinced by yours. This is why verifiable evidence is what we should seek.


Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

User avatar
John Bauer
Apprentice
Posts: 182
Joined: Wed May 29, 2019 11:31 pm
Has thanked: 122 times
Been thanked: 64 times

Re: If you accept microevolution

Post #350

Post by John Bauer »

Dimmesdale wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:35 pm
We should teach in the sense that: this is the case according to the model that our senses interpret. We should teach our current "science" in that fashion. We shouldn't absolutely claim this is the way it is. We should simply say "this is according to how we interpret our instruments."
That's a very carefully worded sentence which doesn't appear to answer my question. Again, after five hundred years of meticulous data collection, observation, and testing, the heliocentric theory has become regarded as essentially a fact, such that any sufficiently educated person is right to admit that it is. This is just one example of a theory so thoroughly tested and supported that it's properly regarded as a fact (i.e. something that is actually the case).

Post Reply