The Truth about Evolution

[Hemodoc]

Well, it is a very complex subject scientifically and theologically. This prior debate only went 7 pages, only a minor discussion compared to some on IHD.

[Bill Peckham]

Well, it is a very complex subject scientifically and theologically. This prior debate only went 7 pages, only a minor discussion compared to some on IHD.

You certainly did your part Peter - I think I counted two seven post runs and at least one six    and only four pages if you're logged in

[Hemodoc]

Well, it is a very complex subject scientifically and theologically. This prior debate only went 7 pages, only a minor discussion compared to some on IHD.

You certainly did your part Peter - I think I counted two seven post runs and at least one six    and only four pages if you're logged in

True Bill, it is my favorite topic, much more so than dialysis and I have gone on ad nauseum on many dialysis issues as well. Not many take the opposing side of the issue as well so there are usually several posts to reply to at one time.

[iKAZ3D]

Dear Monrein,

I am not sure how his major evidences of evolution are proof that it occurred and that creation did not occur.

The Strong Case for Evolution

On the basis of the above definitions, it is possible to make a very strong case for the scientific validity of evolution. Consider the following facts, all of which have been confirmed overwhelmingly by the established processes of science:

1. There is enormous variety in the plant and animal kingdoms. Some species of plants and animals have much more complex organic structures than other species.

2. All living things must come from at least one living parent (i.e., life does not arise spontaneously out of non-life).

3. The simplest forms of plant and animal life were on earth long before the more complex forms (as confirmed by the geological succession of fossils).
If they were the simplest forms, how the hell are we here today? They evolved into creatures of today. Dinosaurs into crocodiles, lizards, amphibians of the world, etc, Pterodactyls into birds, and Megazostrodons into house cats and rodents.
I am not sure how he believes that this is proof of evolution.  In addition, his comment to origins was essentially, why do we have to have beginning?

Those who wish to focus on this point might also like to consider the following questions: Why does life have to have an origin?  Could it not have always existed somewhere in this universe or a parallel one?  Why does there have to be a "first cause" at all?
All things should have an origin. You just can't accept ours.

I will pass on trying to refute his arguments that he made.  They really are not based on testable scientific principles.

On the other hand, he did enter into an area of great interest to me, that of the Grand Canyon.  How old is the grand canyon?    That is a wonderful issue to explore with much information that can be confirmed objectively.  It also ties into the next step in the alleged evolution from eukaryotes during the Cambrian explosion.  Understanding geologic time scale and how it was derived and its limitations is actually one of the next areas I wanted to look at.

[jbeany]

iKAZ3D, the excessive font and color sizes are against the site rules.  Stop using them for every comment, please.

jbeany, Moderator

[iKAZ3D]

iKAZ3D, the excessive font and color sizes are against the site rules.  Stop using them for every comment, please.

jbeany, Moderator

Sorry, I only saw color, and that says avoid as much as possible. I use the red to highlight a specific point in a quote to respond to.

[jbeany]

There's a reason for the rules, really.  A lot of members are visually impaired, and the colors and drastic changes in font size can play havoc on what they are seeing when they use software that enlarges the entire screen.  It's fine to use them occasionally, to emphasize a point, or to bold out a reply in a quote, but keep the uses to a minimum, please, and thanks.

[iKAZ3D]

There's a reason for the rules, really.  A lot of members are visually impaired, and the colors and drastic changes in font size can play havoc on what they are seeing when they use software that enlarges the entire screen.  It's fine to use them occasionally, to emphasize a point, or to bold out a reply in a quote, but keep the uses to a minimum, please, and thanks.

Oki  

[Hemodoc]

Dear Monrein,

I am not sure how his major evidences of evolution are proof that it occurred and that creation did not occur.

The Strong Case for Evolution

On the basis of the above definitions, it is possible to make a very strong case for the scientific validity of evolution. Consider the following facts, all of which have been confirmed overwhelmingly by the established processes of science:

1. There is enormous variety in the plant and animal kingdoms. Some species of plants and animals have much more complex organic structures than other species.

2. All living things must come from at least one living parent (i.e., life does not arise spontaneously out of non-life).

3. The simplest forms of plant and animal life were on earth long before the more complex forms (as confirmed by the geological succession of fossils).
If they were the simplest forms, how the hell are we here today? They evolved into creatures of today. Dinosaurs into crocodiles, lizards, amphibians of the world, etc, Pterodactyls into birds, and Megazostrodons into house cats and rodents.
I am not sure how he believes that this is proof of evolution.  In addition, his comment to origins was essentially, why do we have to have beginning?

Those who wish to focus on this point might also like to consider the following questions: Why does life have to have an origin?  Could it not have always existed somewhere in this universe or a parallel one?  Why does there have to be a "first cause" at all?
All things should have an origin. You just can't accept ours.

I will pass on trying to refute his arguments that he made.  They really are not based on testable scientific principles.

On the other hand, he did enter into an area of great interest to me, that of the Grand Canyon.  How old is the grand canyon?    That is a wonderful issue to explore with much information that can be confirmed objectively.  It also ties into the next step in the alleged evolution from eukaryotes during the Cambrian explosion.  Understanding geologic time scale and how it was derived and its limitations is actually one of the next areas I wanted to look at.

Actually, you were criticizing the bolded comments of someone else who wrote The Strong Case for Evolution.  My comments were below the bolded areas.

[skg]

No, my question wasn't about you or the posters or about my self.  It was why do these obviouslly high powered scientist devote so much effort to it.  I mean what do they expect from it.  It really was a serious question but perhaps I don't know how to express it.  They are so intelligent then there must be something others than knowing or makes me work on these theories.

Forget it.  Not a deep question .. Is it the same reason that someone writes a symphony?  That's be a good answer if it is true.

Yes, its fun to know.  Maybe I'm confused since I don't have the cuuriosity about scientific matters that I should.  Don't try to answer as I'm not even sure what or why I am asking it.

Actually, I think it's a great question and very deep. And I like your suggestion - that it is the same reason someone writes a symphony.

But I don't think it is Just a question for "high powered scientists" - I think it is a meaningful question for anyone.

So, I'll answer for myself. I'm driven to understand things, to take things apart to see what makes them tick - sometimes to fix something, other times to create something new that was based on or inspired by something I've learned about. WRT evolution, I've spent a fair amount of time looking into evolutionary programming. A program simulates a process which mimics natural selection with some sort of "fitness" test to see what elements are propagated to the next generation. Such programs can be used to solve all sorts of design problems. Incredibly complex solutions can arise from simple representations "evolved" over many generations. It's also called evolutionary algorithms or genetic programming.

Among other things, such work demonstrates how powerful evolutionary processes can be.

cheers,
skg

[Hemodoc]

No, my question wasn't about you or the posters or about my self.  It was why do these obviouslly high powered scientist devote so much effort to it.  I mean what do they expect from it.  It really was a serious question but perhaps I don't know how to express it.  They are so intelligent then there must be something others than knowing or makes me work on these theories.

Forget it.  Not a deep question .. Is it the same reason that someone writes a symphony?  That's be a good answer if it is true.

Yes, its fun to know.  Maybe I'm confused since I don't have the cuuriosity about scientific matters that I should.  Don't try to answer as I'm not even sure what or why I am asking it.

Actually, I think it's a great question and very deep. And I like your suggestion - that it is the same reason someone writes a symphony.

But I don't think it is Just a question for "high powered scientists" - I think it is a meaningful question for anyone.

So, I'll answer for myself. I'm driven to understand things, to take things apart to see what makes them tick - sometimes to fix something, other times to create something new that was based on or inspired by something I've learned about. WRT evolution, I've spent a fair amount of time looking into evolutionary programming. A program simulates a process which mimics natural selection with some sort of "fitness" test to see what elements are propagated to the next generation. Such programs can be used to solve all sorts of design problems. Incredibly complex solutions can arise from simple representations "evolved" over many generations. It's also called evolutionary algorithms or genetic programming.

Among other things, such work demonstrates how powerful evolutionary processes can be.

cheers,
skg

Well evolutionary program is beyond my pay grade, but let's take a look at the issue of mutations and natural selection. Mutations are the backbone of evolutionary theory on which natural selection is supposed to operate. The problem is two-fold.

First, evolutionists have a great deal of trouble describing actual positive mutations. The Hemoglobin mutations are often used as an illustration of a beneficial mutation, but anyone who has taken care of patients with sickle cell disease understands the terrible consequences of this so called beneficial mutation. This would have to include the number of children die in utero from sickle cell as well.

Today, with effective treatments that have evolved for malaria, it is even less impressive.

Secondly, the issue of natural selection leads to stasis and preservation of species and goes against preserving change in a breeding population. This goes back once again to the issue of the lack of transitional fossils found in paleontology. If evolution theories are going to represent accurately the evidence, then stasis of species, lack of beneficial mutation examples, lack of fossil records and transitional species must be accounted for.

Stephen J. Gould attempted this, but one issue he does not address well is the mechanism of his Punctuated Equilibrium theories.  Rapid changes of DNA leading to a beneficial mutation that is then preserved in the breeding population leading to macroevolutionary changes involves quite a bit of speculation.

Here is a Christian view of the difficulties of Punctuated Equilibrium.

http://www.gotquestions.org/punctuated-equilibrium.html

I will give one of the most recent "examples" of a beneficial mutation dealing with the AIDS virus. Interestingly, one of the main authors is Stephen J. Obrien who I know personally. He is an alumni from my undergrad college and I worked with him as a summer intern at his viral genetics lab a LOOONG time ago. I have kept in touch with Dr. Obrien over the years from time to time since his mentoring was very important in my final career choice.

In any case, here is his discovery of a gene mutation that may improve survival with HIV. Yet, he classifies it as a "neutral" mutation believed to be present for 5000 years. Even if it does give a survival advantage today for HIV, it does not explain the persistence of this gene in the time before HIV came into the human population.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1275522/pdf/pbio.0030378.pdf

[Hober Mallow]

As Joseph Campbell said, there is no conflict between religion and science; the conflict is between the science of today vs. the science of four thousand years ago. Religion which refuses to accept the science of the day is dead, because it no longer reflects an accurate picture of the world as it is. The symbols no longer click, and one then concretizes the symbols and interprets them as historical events which a person must either "believe" or reject; in either case, the spiritual component is lost.

[Hemodoc]

As Joseph Campbell said, there is no conflict between religion and science; the conflict is between the science of today vs. the science of four thousand years ago. Religion which refuses to accept the science of the day is dead, because it no longer reflects an accurate picture of the world as it is. The symbols no longer click, and one then concretizes the symbols and interprets them as historical events which a person must either "believe" or reject; in either case, the spiritual component is lost.

Hmmm, you don't speak well of either true science or true religion. I assure you the Bible is not at all outdated, but I suspect I will never convince you of that fact.  Have a great day, probably not much to debate.