Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Miles]

.

Came across this little gem a bit ago and thought I'd share.




Thoughts?

.

[bluegreenearth]

I mean, I know us religious folks aren't as bright as you naturalists are, but we will do our best to try to follow along you guys here.

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with the latter part of that statement because your descriptions of the evolutionary process are patently wrong and demonstrate no apparent effort to study the subject to the necessary level of understanding.

I concur and there are a significant number of extremely "bright" naturalists who identify as religious.

[We_Are_VENOM]

I mean, I know us religious folks aren't as bright as you naturalists are, but we will do our best to try to follow along you guys here.

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with the latter part of that statement because your descriptions of the evolutionary process are patently wrong and demonstrate no apparent effort to study the subject to the necessary level of understanding.

And there you have it. Time and time again, it never, ever, EVER fails....and I've said this NUMEROUS times on this great forum and will continue to do so..

It never fails; 90% of the time someone expresses disbelief in the ToE, the person will eventually get accused of not understanding the theory.

"That's not what evolution says"

"You just don't understand evolution"

As if the evolutionists are sooooo smart, bright, and academic...and the disbeliever is so dumb, ignorant, and uneducated.

The theory isn't that difficult of a concept to grasp. You believe that reptiles are the evolutionary predecessors of birds...and that whales were once land dwelling mammals. I, however, do not accept the theory.

Now, how you believe things got to that "point" (biologically) is irrelevant...my point is; it did not HAPPEN at all, and is a blatant false theory, PERIOD.

I do not accept the theory based on the strong evidence against it, and the weak evidence for it. So please do not mistake my belief in the ToE on ignorance.

And if this continues to be the case, I will begin to accuse non-Christians of not believing because they are ignorant of what Christianity means..and you will get a lot of..

"You just don't understand what Christianity is!!" from me.

Trust me, it is coming.

[The Barbarian]

The current evidence suggests that certain organisms are discontinuous with other organisms. For example, snakes have unique characteristics that set them apart as a taxon, making them discontinuous with other organisms and classified as an apobaramin.

Sounds like a testable belief. Let's have a look...

A transitional form between lizards & modern-day snakes found
Coniophis represents a functional chimera, combining a snake-like body with a lizard-like head
A transitional snake — an intermediate form between lizards and the highly evolved snakes seen today — has been finally identified.
https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/a-tra ... 682986.ece

[The Barbarian]

It never fails; 90% of the time someone expresses disbelief in the ToE, the person will eventually get accused of not understanding the theory.

"That's not what evolution says"

"You just don't understand evolution"

Sounds like a testable issue. First, what do you think the scientific definition of biological evolution is?

I've seen all sorts of weird misconceptions about the theory from creationists. But there are some who do understand the theory pretty well. I'd like to hear what you think evolutionary theory says about the mechanisms for evolutionary change.

I do not accept the theory based on the strong evidence against it, and the weak evidence for it. So please do not mistake my belief in the ToE on ignorance.

Consider the testimony of a YE creationist who is very familiar with the theory and the evidence for and against it:

Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact.
Dr. Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09 ... 16-222.pdf

Another YE creationist's view:
Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution.Dr. Todd Wood, The Truth About Evolution
http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/t ... ution.html

Tell us about it.

[brunumb]

And there you have it. Time and time again, it never, ever, EVER fails....and I've said this NUMEROUS times on this great forum and will continue to do so..

It never fails; 90% of the time someone expresses disbelief in the ToE, the person will eventually get accused of not understanding the theory.

It's not the expression of disbelief that garners the response, it is their expression of what is involved in the process of evolution. When someone describes the mechanism in such a way that it is not consistent with what the theory actually says, one has to conclude that they either do not understand the process or they are deliberately misrepresenting the theory.

The theory isn't that difficult of a concept to grasp. You believe that reptiles are the evolutionary predecessors of birds...and that whales were once land dwelling mammals. I, however, do not accept the theory.

You have not expressed what the theory of evolution involves. It is not just what someone believes in the same way that creationists believe that God did it. If the change in species over time through natural selection had ever been refuted, the theory of evolution would not be as strong as it is today. Advances in technology have allowed greater scrutiny of all the evidence we have and the support just steadily grows. Some people with deep religious convictions are just not prepared to examine the evidence with open minds. Their belief in the creation mechanism is based on nothing more than a few pages in an ancient book of dubious authorship. Hardly compelling evidence.

Now, how you believe things got to that "point" (biologically) is irrelevant...my point is; it did not HAPPEN at all, and is a blatant false theory, PERIOD.

That is purely an opinion and is not supported by any evidence.

I do not accept the theory based on the strong evidence against it, and the weak evidence for it. So please do not mistake my belief in the ToE on ignorance.

There is no evidence contradicting the theory of evolution. If there was, the nature of the scientific method would require it to be abandoned or modified in order to resolve the issues. That has not happened. The theory grows stronger every day as more and more supporting evidence emerges. Anyone who could refute the theory with contradictory evidence is in line for one of the most significant awardings of a Nobel prize.

And if this continues to be the case, I will begin to accuse non-Christians of not believing because they are ignorant of what Christianity means..and you will get a lot of..

Ironically, repeated studies have demonstrated that atheists on the whole have a better knowledge of the Bible than Christians. That is understandable given that there are huge numbers of atheists who were once devout Christians, many for a very long time. How one can understand their religion without having depth of knowledge of their own holy book is a bit of a mystery.

[Kylie]

I mean, I know us religious folks aren't as bright as you naturalists are, but we will do our best to try to follow along you guys here.

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with the latter part of that statement because your descriptions of the evolutionary process are patently wrong and demonstrate no apparent effort to study the subject to the necessary level of understanding.

I concur and there are a significant number of extremely "bright" naturalists who identify as religious.

But I have to wonder where they go when their religion and the science contradict. How many evolutionary biologists are young Earth creationists?

[bluegreenearth]

But I have to wonder where they go when their religion and the science contradict. How many evolutionary biologists are young Earth creationists?

Well, many are not young Earth creationists.

[We_Are_VENOM]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #145]

My understanding of the theory is basically what the theory says; a reptile evolved into a bird, and that whales were once land dwelling animals.

Not buying it. Not on naturalism. Nope.

[Kylie]

But I have to wonder where they go when their religion and the science contradict. How many evolutionary biologists are young Earth creationists?

Well, many are not young Earth creationists.

That's my point. When it comes to getting results, people will abandon religion in favour of science every single time.

[Purple Knight]

The OP is not a perfect question because it sets this expectation that the balance scale is set up evenly, like so.



But I can't just make up any old thing and challenge you to disprove it. In light of that, the side that the OP depicts with only the Bible on it (the "Evidence Against" side) actually starts with quite a bit of weight as it applies to evolution not being true. People must prove their theories.

Most people think evolution has been sufficiently proven and I agree. There are still objections where certain holes need to be filled in (for example, I listened to an interesting video the other day that claims there was not enough time since life first formed to account for all the beneficial mutations we see) but I'm an old-fashioned sceptic in that I believe what I see. And since I have bred animals myself and noticed that I can select for certain traits and change the animal, you will pry evolution from my cold dead brain and good luck even then. Do I know exactly how each necessary enzyme and step in forming a functioning circulatory system evolved? Of course I don't, but I believe what I see, and if I know I can breed a cat with shorter fur, it's ridiculous to me to think that Nature can't do the same thing in a more barbaric fashion by simply warming up the environment and causing the animals that lose the least heat to roast.

I admit there are holes where not every possible tiny thing is 100% explained. You can put that in the Evidence Against pile. But from my experience, when people look at something they can't explain right away and say, "that can't happen" they are talking out of their bums. There was a thread on this very forum that claimed this little female-only fish should be dead due to the buildup of bad mutations, but I pointed out that the assumption that the fish can only clone itself based on the fact that its daughters are apparent clones is a rubbish assumption because if the fish reproduces through meiosis, but we are still dealing with a homozygous fish, you will look at the daughters and see clones unless a mutation has occurred. This happens to be my field and I found where they went wrong. That means that no matter which side you're on, you don't have to trust when somebody says, "based on X model, Y can't happen," because they're talking out of their bums since we know we don't know everything, therefore the model can't account for everything.