will the infamous evolution debate be revived yet again?
Printable View
will the infamous evolution debate be revived yet again?
Let's hope not. Last time I bore witness to one, it degenerated into a bunch of arguing and intolerance in others beliefs. Though it's arguable such as already occured here, at least it's been relatively civil thus far. :P
Sorry if I brought it up. I just saw that, and I had to say what I knew as fact, not beleived.
Knowitman, I share many of those same beliefs with you, however I would argue to the end of time that it isn't fact. Well, the way you used the word is rather messy. I assume you mean fact as in it can be proven. Which I would argue it cannot.
And I don't mind those sort of debates, that last one sprung some interesting ideas. I don't know that I would take part in another one though.
Don't apologise. I'm just wary of the discussion from both ends, as last time I bore witness to one, it turned bloody. @_@Quote:
Originally Posted by knowitman
EDIT: Though admittedly that was several months back, and the member pool has changed quite a bit since then. Maybe this time will proove to be different...
i agree. Evolution is very very flawed. There is absolutely NO proof for it. although in labs, scientists have been able to "prove" microevolution, there is 0 proof for anything that changes the way a organism is.Quote:
Originally Posted by knowitman
quote from an article:
"Even on a theoretical level, it does not seem possible for mutations to account for the diversity of life on earth, at least not in the time available. According to Professor Ambrose, the minimum number of mutations necessary to produce the simplest new structure in an organism is five (Davis, 67-68; Bird, 1:88), but these five mutations must be the proper type and must affect five genes that are functionally related. Davis, 67-68. In other words, not just any five mutations will do. The odds against this occurring in a single organism are astronomical.
Mutations of any kind are believed to occur once in every 100,000 gene replications (though some estimate they occur far less frequently). Davis, 68; Wysong, 272. Assuming that the first single-celled organism had 10,000 genes, the same number as E. coli (Wysong, 113), one mutation would exist for every ten cells. Since only one mutation per 1,000 is non-harmful (Davis, 66), there would be only one non-harmful mutation in a population of 10,000 such cells. The odds that this one non-harmful mutation would affect a particular gene, however, is 1 in 10,000 (since there are 10,000 genes). Therefore, one would need a population of 100,000,000 cells before one of them would be expected to possess a non-harmful mutation of a specific gene.
The odds of a single cell possessing non-harmful mutations of five specific (functionally related) genes is the product of their separate probabilities. Morris, 63. In other words, the probability is 1 in 108 X 108 X 108 X 108 X 108, or 1 in 1040. If one hundred trillion (1014) bacteria were produced every second for five billion years (1017 seconds), the resulting population (1031) would be only 1/1,000,000,000 of what was needed!
But even this is not the whole story. These are the odds of getting just any kind of non-harmful mutations of five related genes. In order to create a new structure, however, the mutated genes must integrate or function in concert with one another. According to Professor Ambrose, the difficulties of obtaining non-harmful mutations of five related genes "fade into insignificance when we recognize that there must be a close integration of functions between the individual genes of the cluster, which must also be integrated into the development of the entire organism." Davis, 68.
In addition to this, the structure resulting from the cluster of the five integrated genes must, in the words of Ambrose, "give some selective advantage, or else become scattered once more within the population at large, due to interbreeding." Bird, 1:87. Ambrose concludes that "it seems impossible to explain [the origin of increased complexity] in terms of random mutations alone." Bird, 1:87.
When one considers that a structure as "simple" as the wing on a fruit fly involves 30-40 genes (Bird, 1:88), it is mathematically absurd to think that random genetic mutations can account for the vast diversity of life on earth. Even Julian Huxley, a staunch evolutionist who made assumptions very favorable to the theory, computed the odds against the evolution of a horse to be 1 in 10300,000. Pitman, 68. If only more Christians had that kind of faith!
This probability problem is not the delusion of some radical scientific fringe. As stated by William Fix:
Whether one looks to mutations or gene flow for the source of the variations needed to fuel evolution, there is an enormous probability problem at the core of Darwinist and neo-Darwinist theory, which has been cited by hundreds of scientists and professionals. Engineers, physicists, astronomers, and biologists who have looked without prejudice at the notion of such variations producing ever more complex organisms have come to the same conclusion: The evolutionists are assuming the impossible. Fix, 196.
Renowned French zoologist Pierre-Paul Grass・has made no secret of his skepticism:
What gambler would be crazy enough to play roulette with random evolution? The probability of dust carried by the wind reproducing Dﾜrer's (Matt, I can't get the 'u' to go small for me there!) "Melancholia" is less infinitesimal than the probability of copy errors in the DNA molecule leading to the formation of the eye; besides, these errors had no relationship whatsoever with the function that the eye would have to perform or was starting to perform. There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it. Grass・ 104"
the whole thing can be found at http://www.carm.org/evolution/evodds.htm
furthermore, i'd like to say that this isnt about proving God, but instead about putting your faith in Him. If you were in a burning building, with no way out, except an open window, and you were on the 5th floor, would you jump? There is no way to prove that you will live, but since you have faith that there is a chance taht you will live this way, you will jump. If you have any faith at all, that there is a chance that God and Jesus is possible, you should try reading the bible, praying, etc.
I was born athiest into an athesit family, in an athiest country. I am now a devoted Christian. Why? Am i stupid? no. I get great grades. Am i crazy? No, i dont think so...i am very logical and do things if they seem to be the best choice. Am I just lookin for a crutch to fall on? No, because of Jesus and my Faith, my life is much harder, since peopel challenge me and prosecute me for it.
Why should we believe? because at first, from a pure statistical point of view, Jesus and the Bible have a better chance of being true than athiesm. It took me 4 years of being introduced to the bible before i decided to give it a try. and boy, did my life change. Its something that cannot be described, as knowitman said, its something that only can be known thourgh experince. and experince can only be gained if you truly open your heart adn give it a try.
well the theory of evolution is juat as flawed as the theory of creationisim, because evoloution is just microevolution appilied to a large scale while creationisim is just the faith of things we dont understand applied to the same large scale as evoloution, so really there both on the same ground, its just a preference.
hmm....sorry...double post...and yea...i talked about evolution debate cause it took me like an hour to type all that...so i didnt see this agreement to stop talking about it
Good quote there. I really don't like it when people brag about how completely easy/perfect/joyful their life is because of their faith in God. The level that it effects your life is something much deeper than that, which has nothing to do with the physical world but with spirituality.Quote:
Originally Posted by sniperrfl1011
Life isn't automaticly easy after becoming a Christian. In many ways it is harder. You live your life to a stricter standard and you face a lot of persecution. In the end it is worth every moment though. The Bible says Heaven is so beautiful and perfect that words can't describe it. It is nothing like here on earth.
excatly! so why do we believe? its because God has made himself real to us, we see that He is there, and we have experienced what it is like to have Him dwell within us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaenn
As christians, we are not taking the easy way out, we are choosing the hard and winding and narrow road, with many obstacles
I guess this where EGGO comes in and ends everything...bottom line: Evolution is both fact and theory. How? From my report with a friend:
The Fact
Life evolves. That is a fact. One of the simplest definitions of evolution is the change in the frequency of genes in a species over time.
For example, imagine if you will a rabbit farm high on a mountain. The farmer buys a thousand rabbits, some have longer fur and some have shorter fur - it's a quite mixed group of rabbits. The length of the fur on the rabbits is determined by their genetic makeup. Some have genes for long fur, some for shorter. Now, this farm (or ranch, if you prefer) is in an area that gets extremely cold for most of the year. The rabbits survival depends upon having enough fur to keep them warm. Those with short fur will freeze to death and die (our fictional farmer doesn't have much business sense).
Because of the situation these unfortunate creatures are in, they are subject to natural selection. There is a selection pressure for longer fur. More baby rabbits are born than can possibly survive in the environment. This is an important part of the process. Their genetic makeup is a determining factor in their survival. Rabbits that die of cold will not pass on their short-fur genes to their offspring (as they won't have any), whereas rabbits with long fur will be more resistant to the cold and therefore much more likely to reproduce, passing on their genes for long fur.
Over many generations, the farm will consist almost entirely of long-fur rabbits. The frequency of genes for short fur has decreased, and the frequency of genes for long fur has increased. Far fewer short-haired rabbits, and eventually none at all, will be born - their genes will have been lost from the gene-pool.
Some rabbits may have developed genetic mutations which further increase the length of their fur. These mutations will clearly give those rabbits an advantage in their environment, and those beneficial mutations will spread through the gene pool of the population. Mutations that are detrimental to the survival rate will clearly be lost quickly, as those unfortunate rabbits will have a reduced chance of surviving long enough to mate. In this way, useful mutations stay on in the population. It's a positive feedback loop - this is the second important thing to remember.
These rabbits have evolved. It's really that simple.
Evolution is a directly observable phenomenon. There is no debate among scientists as to whether or not evolution occurs, any more than there is debate about the Earth orbiting the Sun. Gene pools change - evolution happens. This is obviously a rather contrived example, but it serves to demonstrate some of the basic principles.
Now, objectors will say "Ah, but they're still rabbits, aren't they? That's not the same as amphibians turning into reptiles, and then mammals, is it? That still doesn't explain how a human can evolve from an ape-like ancestor, does it?"
Yes, it does. The change from mixed-fur rabbits to long-fur rabbits (in this example) is often referred to as micro-evolution - a minor change within a species. Larger changes are known as macro-evolution, and take far longer to occur, but the process involved is exactly the same - genes changing over time. It is a cumulative process - the minor changes build up over many generations into major changes. Given time, the descendants of these rabbits could become an entirely novel species of rabbit, and eventually a creature that can no longer be called a rabbit.
To say that you accept micro-evolution but not macro-evolution is akin to saying that it is possible to walk to the end of your street, but it is somehow impossible to walk to the next town. The process involved, putting one foot in front of the other, a single step at a time, is exactly the same although the end results may be completely different.
Evolution is a fact. This is not open to debate.
The Theory
Darwin's Theory Of Evolution is not evolution. In the same way, the theory that the Earth orbits the Sun is not the Earth orbiting the Sun - it is a description and explanation of it.
The theory of evolution is an explanation of the facts of evolution.
If nobody had ever developed the theory, it would not change that fact that living things evolve over time - evolution happens whether there is a theory or not.
Furthermore, Darwin's theory of evolution may be totally, hopelessly and utterly wrong. Even if it were, and Darwin and every biologist who had contributed to the theory since were incorrect, evolution would still exist and continue. Evolution is totally independent of the theory of evolution. The theory is simply an attempt to explain the observed facts of nature that we call "evolution".
If another theory came along to replace the theory of evolution, it would have to explain the facts at least as well as Darwin's theory has done for the last 150 years. No such replacement has ever been produced.
If there is a debate or controversy within the scientific community about the theory of evolution, creationists see this as evidence that "evolution is in crisis". Nonsense - it is merely that scientists disagree (often bitterly) over details of the theory of evolution. That evolution actually happens is beyond question, but the theory of evolution is - and always should be, like every other scientific theory - probed, tested and scrutinised. Again, even if the theory were to collapse, that would still not magically disprove evolution or cause species to cease evolving.
Evolution is not about the origins of life on Earth. Evolution is about the development of living things over time. The study of the origins of life is known as "abiogenesis" and any web search engine will find you many examples of current literature on the subject.
Evolution is not about the Big Bang theory, nor the formation of the Sun and Earth. These are subjects for cosmology, not biology. Some creationist websites like to put up list of supposedly tricky questions for evolutionists - if you read them carefully you often find lots of questions that actually have nothing at all to do with biological evolution.
Evolution is not random. Evolution is often mistakenly compared to "a hurricane blowing through a junkyard and building a fully functional Boeing 747". This is incorrect, as evolution is a very slow, gradual process directed by the actions of natural selection (as shown above in the rabbit farm). Mutations may indeed be random events, but whether or not they remain in the gene pool is certainly not random, as it depends on how those genes affect the creature's survival in the environment. It works as a positive feedback loop.
Evolution is not about attempting to prove that the Bible, Qu'ran, or any other holy book is false. It is simply the study of living things and how they develop over time. Whether or not that conflicts with a particular interpretation of a particular scripture is not a consideration. There is no conspiracy amongst scientists to disprove the teachings of any of the thousands of religions who happen to make claims about the processes of life.
Evolution is not about monkeys turning into men, or showing that humans are "merely" animals. Evolution does show that humans developed from an ape-like ancestor, along with other modern apes such as the chimpanzee. We did not develop from apes, but alongside them, in the same way that different branches grow from the same trunk of a tree. The development of humans is one minor aspect of the study of evolution, but most biologists will find more interesting creatures to study.
So to those of you who said that Evolution is a flawed theory, you can shut up now. :-)
wouldnt that make evolution just another faith then? seeing as how there is no real evidence to support macroevolution, it would be faith in that we were lucky enough to beat the odds, which were expertly stated by sniperrfl1011
No as faith != theory
Faith most of the time looks up to a higher being but there is Zen and others i really cant be bothered in thinkin off themQuote:
Originally Posted by EffigyOfDoom