I dont believe in evolution

[Zzyzx]

.
You (generic term) dont believe in evolution because it has not been proved to your satisfaction. Correct?

Do you believe tales of human parthenogenesis (virgin birth), reanimation of long dead bodies (resurrection), Earth flooded to tops of mountains, donkeys and snakes talking, demons being cast into swine which drown themselves, faith can move mountains (literally), supernatural characters influencing human lives, etc?

Have all the latter been proved to your satisfaction? If so, what is that proof?

[1213]

I know that whales are not fish...

Well that kinda sinks your thesis, doesn't it?

Not really. The point was, if species have evolved like in the whale example, similar thing should be possible nowadays also.

but if you believe that happened, why could it not happen with mice?

But it could, just not into fishes.

Really, what would you think could be possible?

But we have empirical evidence for it. Why would that not lift it beyond baseless?

Sorry, I dont think that is true.

[1213]

It would be more like your child is unable to process meat for some reason due to a genetic disorder (mutation) that happened during reproduction. Then your child had many children who also has this mutation (it was passed on) and eventually you end up with a small population of people who can't process meat.

Even if so, it would not mean that the child is new species. And I have no reason to deny that offspring is not clones. The problem is with the claim that those small changes could and would have resulted all current species.

Again, I refer you go biology. Specifically genetic biology. You do understand that we now have the technology to examine the genome of a specimen and find common markers with other specimens right? Specifically retroviruses shared by different specimens point to a common ancestor.

I think that is wishful thinking and only an interpretation. Reason for similarities can be also common creator.

[Bust Nak]

Not really. The point was, if species have evolved like in the whale example, similar thing should be possible nowadays also.

The problem is the "simular thing" you had in mind, was land animal evolving into fishes.

Really, what would you think could be possible?

Mice evolving into sea dwelling mice.

Sorry, I dont think that is true.

So what do you classify say, the results of genetic experiments as, if not empirical evidence?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 28 by Bust Nak]

Only "may?" Actual physically demonstrable, empirical evidence doesn't count?

Empirical evidence: information acquired by observation or experimentation.

So you see, there is no "empirical evidence" for evolution in its totality. Evolution in its totality meaning, what we have classified as one species, evolving into what we have classified as another species.

In other words, there is on "empirical evidence" that the human evolved from anything, because "empirical evidence" would necessarily involve observation, or experimentation, and a human evolving from anything else, has not been observed, and there has been no experience, or experiments that have proven evolution in its totality.

Also, we may as well get the definition of a scientific fact behind us as well,

scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation

So then, a scientific fact would necessarily be an "observation" and it would not be possible to observe evolution in its totality since it is said to take millions of years, and small changes in organisms would not in any way demonstrate or prove that evolution in its totality would be a fact.

But why doesn't aforementioned empirical evidence count as measuring up to the standard to actually be considered a scientific fact? (Note the qualifier "scientific" as opposed to unqualified fact.)

Answer above.

That won't do, that stop short on affirmig that there is empirical evidence in support of evolution.

The only way evolution can be said to have empirical evidence, and to be a fact, is if the small changes in organisms are included in the definition of evolution. However, and again, these small changes do not in any way prove evolution in its totality. Rather, evolution in its totality must be, "inferred."

Well I have a problem with that.

I understand, and it is called bias, unless you can demonstrate how evolution in its totality would be a demonstrable fact.

That's where empirical evidence comes in.

Right, and neither side has any.

[Bust Nak]

Empirical evidence: information acquired by observation or experimentation.

So you see, there is no "empirical evidence" for evolution in its totality.

No, I don't see. We do have empirical evidence" for evolution in its totality, including but not limited to what we have classified as one species, evolving into what we have classified as another species.

Also, we may as well get the definition of a scientific fact behind us as well,

scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation

So then, a scientific fact would necessarily be an "observation" and it would not be possible to observe evolution in its totality since it is said to take millions of years, and small changes in organisms would not in any way demonstrate or prove that evolution in its totality would be a fact.

Why not? It's fairly easy to observing evolution in totality, a process that takes million of years, in a lab over a few years. That's how we use small changes in organisms to demonstrate that evolution in its totality as a scientific fact.

The only way evolution can be said to have empirical evidence, and to be a fact, is if the small changes in organisms are included in the definition of evolution. However, and again, these small changes do not in any way prove evolution in its totality. Rather, evolution in its totality must be, "inferred."

So infer away, that's the whole point of producing empirical evidence. It seems you have a very different idea of what empirical evidence and scientific observation is, you don't seem to be connecting "inferred" with "demonstration."

I understand, and it is called bias, unless you can demonstrate how evolution in its totality would be a demonstrable fact.

Sure, see any number of genetic experiments, fossils, and directly observed example of speication.

Right, and neither side has any.

But that simply isn't true.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Zzyzx]

I am somewhat familiar with what geneticists say about evolution

Quote:
Evolution is the process by which populations of organisms change over generations. Genetic variations underlie these changes. Genetic variations can arise from gene mutations or from genetic recombination (a normal process in which genetic material is rearranged as a cell is getting ready to divide). These variations often alter gene activity or protein function, which can introduce different traits in an organism. If a trait is advantageous and helps the individual survive and reproduce, the genetic variation is more likely to be passed to the next generation (a process known as natural selection). Over time, as generations of individuals with the trait continue to reproduce, the advantageous trait becomes increasingly common in a population, making the population different than an ancestral one. Sometimes the population becomes so different that it is considered a new species.

Not all mutations lead to evolution. Only hereditary mutations, which occur in egg or sperm cells, can be passed to future generations and potentially contribute to evolution. Some mutations occur during a persons lifetime in only some of the bodys cells and are not hereditary, so natural selection cannot play a role. Also, many genetic changes have no impact on the function of a gene or protein and are not helpful or harmful. In addition, the environment in which a population of organisms lives is integral to the selection of traits. Some differences introduced by mutations may help an organism survive in one setting but not in another"for example, resistance to a certain bacteria is only advantageous if that bacteria is found in a particular location and harms those who live there.

Are you like serious with this? Where did you get this from Jr. High Science text?

Gene and genome duplications provide a source of genetic material for mutation, drift, and selection to act upon, making new evolutionary opportunities possible. As a result, many have argued that genome duplication is a dominant factor in the evolution of complexity and diversity. However, a clear correlation between a genome duplication event and increased complexity and diversity is not apparent, and there are inconsistencies in the patterns of diversity invoked to support this claim. Interestingly, several estimates of genome duplication events in vertebrates are preceded by multiple extinct lineages, resulting in preduplication gaps in extant taxa. Here we argue that gen(om)e duplication could contribute to reduced risk of extinction via functional redundancy, mutational robustness, increased rates of evolution, and adaptation. The timeline for these processes to unfold would not predict immediate increases in species diversity after the duplication event. Rather, reduced probabilities of extinction would predict a latent period between a genome duplication and its effect on species diversity or complexity. In this paper, we will develop the idea that genome duplication could contribute to species diversity through reduced probability of extinction.

https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/23/5/887/1058364

Mutation occurs during reproduction " see above

Please read more on evolution if you are going to try to argue something about it. Jr. High comments will not suffice here.

A mutation MAY lead to antibiotic resistance. That becomes an example of evolution if the characteristic is passed on to future generations genetically.

Only a duplication and then a mutation increases the information in the genome. Anything else decreases the information in the genome, from what it was had.

Genetic change passed to following generations meets the geneticists definition. Check with geneticists " not theologians or bibliolaters

Read more, Read more please!!!!!!

No it does not. Then how does information change in the genome without a decrease in the overall information in the Genome? If you have a paper that declares something different than what I posted above, let me know.

EarthScienceguy wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

The processes involved in reproduction are not flawless. Changes (mistakes) can occur in genetic material (DNA). Those genetic changes alter the genetic makeup of offspring.


Again incorrect. It is only considered evolution if there is a duplication and then a mutation.

Correction: evolution (according to geneticists " not Apologists) is the process by which populations of organisms change over generations. Genetic variations underlie these changes

See above and read more.

EarthScienceguy wrote:

Most if not all genetic mutations are either neutral or deleterious. This build up of deleterious mutations of called genetic load. This genetic load can cause the death of organisms.

I disagree with if not all in that statement.

Back it up then. If you can. But you can't

Christianity was REJECTED in the area where events were said to have taken place. It became popular FAR away and long afterward.

In correct at least by what was reported by Roman historians at the time.

My responses are in bold font.

1. Jesus died by crucifixion. Probably

2. He was buried. Kindly back up what you claim with evidence that does not depend upon the story itself / the book telling the tale.

3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope. So goes the tale " might be true " not particularly significant; death often causes despair and loss of hope. So what?

4. The tomb was empty (the most contested). No assurance of a tomb, no assurance of empty " just some unverifiable stories by religion promoters.

5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof). So goes the tale. Can that be backed up with disconnected verifiable evidence? Or are we just to believe the story as told (or form opinions based on the story)?

6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers. So goes the tale. Back up.

7. The resurrection was the central message. Kindly back up the claim that a resurrection occurred " verifiable evidence to support the story

8. They preached the message of Jesus resurrection in Jerusalem. Jerusalem preaching evidently did not convince people of the area (Jews) who rejected it. Preaching was more successful FAR away and decades or centuries later.

9. The Church was born and grew. Christianity was evidently rejected by people of the area. Jewish people rejected the claim that Jesus was the messiah. Paul/Saul and cohorts promoted their religion (using Jesus as icon) to people ELSEWHERE " particularly in other places of the Roman empire.

10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship. The concept of worshiping on the Sabbath LONG predated Jesus

11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic). So goes the tale. Is there independent / disconnected back up " or must we depend upon the story to back up itself?

12. Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic). So goes the tale. Jesus is said to have preached Judaism. Paul/Saul evidently rejected Judaism and formed what became known as Christianity (and preached it to Romans / Gentiles).

You will need to back up your comments with some sort of evidence because all 12 of these are believed by most critical scholars

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 36 by EarthScienceguy]

You will need to back up your comments with some sort of evidence because all 12 of these are believed by most critical scholars

I find this comment from you hilarious, given that you made a comment in another thread about the purpose behind the appearance of an old sun, and yet, to date, despite numerous requests from myself, you have yet to back up the comment.

[ElCodeMonkey]

Are you like serious with this? Where did you get this from Jr. High Science text?
...
Please read more on evolution if you are going to try to argue something about it. Jr. High comments will not suffice here.
...
Read more, Read more please!!!!!!

Moderator Warning

Derogatory statements insulting the intelligence of others and demanding the action of others is not tolerated.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[benchwarmer]

It would be more like your child is unable to process meat for some reason due to a genetic disorder (mutation) that happened during reproduction. Then your child had many children who also has this mutation (it was passed on) and eventually you end up with a small population of people who can't process meat.

Even if so, it would not mean that the child is new species.

And where, pray tell, did I say these offspring would be a new species? Are you implying that if evolution as described by science is real, every mutation would cause a new species? If so, I suggest further study on the topic.

And I have no reason to deny that offspring is not clones. The problem is with the claim that those small changes could and would have resulted all current species.

Here's a question for you then. What is a species?

How many changes have to occur in an organism before something becomes a new species? Who decides? Why?

I think honestly answering the above may help understand the topic more fully. You understand that clones are not produced during reproduction and seem to be ok with genetic drift resulting in one group of organisms not behaving exactly the same as others (meat eaters and those who couldn't eat meat).

Do you think environment has any effect on the organisms that live within it? i.e. do we normally find organisms thriving in areas not suited for them? What happens when the environment changes? Do you believe that something happens that causes some organisms to continue to live in changed environments? How does all this work? God magic or something we can explain based on observation and data?

Again, I refer you go biology. Specifically genetic biology. You do understand that we now have the technology to examine the genome of a specimen and find common markers with other specimens right? Specifically retroviruses shared by different specimens point to a common ancestor.

I think that is wishful thinking and only an interpretation. Reason for similarities can be also common creator.

Clearly you didn't really understand what I said or the implications.

If we find retrovirus A at position X in the genome of species 1 and find the exact same retrovirus in the same position in the genome in species 2 we have pretty convincing evidence that these two species had a common ancestor. If we look at another species 3 we will NOT find this retrovirus and can thus conclude species 3 did not likely share the same common ancestor that species 1 and 2 had. They may all have shared ANOTHER common ancestor even further back, but the retrovirus insertion into the genome is a marker that gets passed on to offspring and thus provides a way to trace ancestry.

NOTE: I am not dismissing the possibility of some god here, I am merely pointing out that we have the technology and the ability to examine physical evidence and determine common ancestry. Unless your favorite god concept is purposely leaving physical evidence to fool everyone, I think we can safely follow the evidence where it leads.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 29 by Zzyzx]

New twist? "Evolution in its totality" means exactly what?

Well, I happen to run across this phrase when I was having this same debate with "filthy tugboat" on another thread, and I was attempting to explain to him that evolution, (meaning what we have classified as one species, evolving from what we have classified as another) would not be a scientific fact.

He continued to argue that it would be a fact, and even supplied articles in which I assume he believed that the articles were saying that evolution in its totality would be a scientific fact. However, I actually read these articles which were indeed in support of evolution in its totality, and they skate real close to the edge of claiming evolution in its totality would be a fact, but they stop short.

In fact, here is a direct quote from one of these articles, which would indeed be in support of evolution in its totality, and this is where I ran across this phrase that has saved me some typing.

Technically, evolution, in its totality, should not be called a fact; it does not quite match the generally accepted definition of a scientific fact.

So then, as you can see, this article would be in support of "evolution in its totality", and they say everything but, it would be a scientific fact, and this is where I found the phrase which has indeed helped me out.

Has anything about Christianity or the Bible been established 'in its totality'?

I thought I explained this pretty thoroughly in the other post when I said,

Like evolution (and when I refer to evolution I will be speaking of evolution in its totality) the Resurrection of Jesus would not be a demonstrable fact. Also like evolution, there may be very good, and solid reasons, along with evidence to come to the conclusion that the Resurrection may have indeed taken place.

I think this should pretty well explain that neither, evolution in its totality, nor Christianity in its totality, have been established. With this being the case, no matter where you stand on either issue, the most you can do, is to explain what you believe, and why you believe it.

What is the evidence to support resurrection beyond:

Tales of a tomb
Tales of Joseph of Arimathea
Tales of 'men' or 'angels'
Tales of a tomb being empty
Tales of people seeing the deceased

ALL unsubstantiated outside the source telling the tales.

This is the whole point. Neither, Christianity, nor evolution in its totality have been substantiated to the point that they can be demonstrated to be facts. And yet, there are those who believe evolution in its totality took place, while there are those who doubt, along with there being those who believe Christianity, along with those who doubt, and there very well may be those who accept both.

However, I would like to point out what I believe to be some faulty logic on your part, and that is when you say,

ALL unsubstantiated outside the source telling the tales.

What source are you talking about? Because you see, the Bible cannot really be said to be a source. Not the first Biblical author would have had any idea at all, that what they were writing would have been contained in what we now call the Bible.

In fact, most, if not all of what is contained in the NT would be letters that were written between different audiences at the time, with no concern, or any idea that what they were writing would have ever been read by anyone else at all, other than the original intended audience, and they surely could not have known anything at all about the Bible.

In other words, not one author contained in the Bible, would have been writing in order to be part of any sort of source, but rather considered themselves as a source.

One very good example of this, (but it is certainly not the only one) would be the letter Paul authored to, Philemon. This is a very short letter, which is only broken up into 25 verses, and takes up less than a whole page.

This letter has nothing whatsoever to do with us, because it was never intended for us. It tells us nothing about what God would want us to do. Rather, it is simply a letter, written by Paul, to someone by the name of Philemon.

However, this letter is certainly evidence of the existence of Paul. Moreover, it is certainly evidence of what he claimed to believe, and how he went about living his life. There is overwhelming evidence from this letter, along with other letters written by Paul, along with the second letter addressed to Theophilus, that Paul was indeed imprisoned, for what he was going around proclaiming.

In fact, all the letters contained in the NT would be evidence of those who wrote them, what they were proclaiming, how they lived their life, and some of these letters would demonstrate this, as being decades of their life, well into their old age.

Of course, we can insist that it all must have been based upon a lie, that they all knew it to be a lie, but this possibility would not explain everything. Moreover, if it was indeed all based upon a lie, that all these authors were aware of, then this story would be just as amazing as if they were actually reporting the truth.

I mean think about it? All these men would have been ordinary men, who knew what they were proclaiming in these letters, to only others at the time, would have been based upon a lie, knowing full well this lie would have caused them much trouble as we see in the life of Paul, and not only do they continue to proclaim these things, all the way up to things such as prison, there is evidence they did so, well into their old age.

And, these ordinary men, not only succeed in continuing with these lies in their own lifetime, they are somehow able to make this lie succeed, some 2000 years in the future, so much so, that the very man they are proclaiming, somehow is proclaimed to be "the most influential man in the history of the world" by "Time" magazine, among others.

I am telling you, either way, this is an amazing tale, and I am not sure which one would be the, most amazing.

Of course then, we can look at other possibilities such as, delusion, deception, etc., but I am here to tell you, that none of these ideas work out any better. I can tell you I have thought through all these possibilities, as I read these letters contained in the Bible, and they simply do not add up, and they end up being just as amazing as if they were reporting the truth.

As you can see, this subject becomes very in depth, and we would just be getting started here, because there would be much more to consider. I understand that it is extremely difficult to believe some of the things written in these letters that are contained in the Bible, but the fact of the matter would be, the only reason we have to doubt these things, is only, and simply the miraculous content. If you take away the miraculous content, I highly doubt anyone would give these things a second thought.

I could continue on, and on, because I love to think, and talk about these things, and have spent many hours doing so. After doing so, I will assure you that, it is not in any way as simple as many Christians make it out to be when they say things such as, "the Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it."

However, it is also not as simple as "ALL unsubstantiated outside the source telling the tales." Nor is it as simple as "these things are simply to extraordinary to believe." Because you see, there would be a lot more involved than this, and this would be simply looking for simple, and easy answers to a question that is far more complex.

With all this being said, (and again it is just the tip of the iceberg) I have no problem with those who may doubt, and even do not believe. My problem comes in with those who insist that it must and has to be false, and that there would be no reason, nor evidence to base a belief upon.

Because you see, there must, and has to be an explanation for the letters we have contained in the Bible, and simply claiming that they all must be based upon some sort of lie, simply does not explain it.

I also do not want to hear any sort of comparisons to any other religions, because there is not comparison at all. In other words, what other religion would be based upon letters written between different audiences at the time, with no concern, nor any idea, that what they were writing would have been read by anyone else, besides their original intended audience, and they certainly, could not have possibly known about any sort of Bible.

In other words, what other religion would be based upon letters that are simply evidence of those who wrote them, how they lived their life, what they were proclaiming, along with evidence of certain events in their life? It does not compare.

In the end, I am convinced Christianity is true, because of these, and many other things, but I do not insist that it must, and has to be true, nor do I insist that others must see things in the same way.

In the same way, there are many who may be convinced that evolution in its totality has indeed occurred, and I have no problem with this, as long as they do not insist that it must, and has to be true, and that I must accept it as a fact, when it has not been demonstrated to be a fact.