question for those who reject biological evolution

[TagliatelliMonster]

I reject the theory as put forth by Darwinists. You don't need to really know anything else except read the books and concepts that have changed over the years.

You are just repeating your claims that facts have changed.
@Astrophile asked you what facts you are referring to.

Why won't you directly answer the question?

It starts to look as if you can't...

 

[Audie]

You are just repeating your claims that facts have changed.
@Astrophile asked you what facts you are referring to.

Why won't you directly answer the question?

It starts to look as if you can't...

One prob. is facts don't change.

 

[leroy]

One of the purposes of science is to provide the steppingstones for finding solutions to problems, such as treatments for illnesses.

Scientific knowledge derived from the observations and discoveries pertaining to evolution has actually served practical and beneficial purposes, such as genomic medicine, dealing with resistance to antibiotics, development of vaccines, discovery of drugs and treatments for cancer, infectious diseases, etc. It has even been useful in agriculture for dealing with resistance to insecticides and herbicides.

What I would like to know, from those who reject biological evolution, is this: would you turn down a treatment for an illness that was only possible to develop using scientific knowledge from biological evolution? Why or why not?

Well, the claim “organisms change and adapt” is obviously true and leads to many benefits such as better crops, vaccines, and drugs and all the other mechanism that you mentioned

But the claim:

Complex organs like the human eye evolved from simpler organs though a process of random variation + natural selection is at best a “plausible but hypothesis” that has no bearing in curing cancer, nor any of the other benefits that you mentioned………… when people reject evolution they usually refer to this type of thing

would you turn down a treatment for an illness that was only possible to develop using scientific knowledge from biological evolution? Why or why not?

No, I wouldn’t cancel my treatment, because those treatments are based on assumptions and claims that are likely to be true……….. but the truth of these claims and assumptions don’t imply that the Darwinian theory of evolution is true

In other words.

1 Evolionists claim X Y and Z

2 Science shows that X is true

3 Therefore evolutionists arbitrary assume that Y and Z most also be true

 

[leroy]

This does not answer my question. I asked what things you were taught in school as facts about evolution that were eventually changed. I did not ask what your reasons are for rejecting evolution.

I personally was told in school that:

1 The appendix is useless

2 that Junk DNA is useless

3 that embryos repeat the evolutionary history (we start as fish we end up as human)

4 That there is a geologic column (a place where you can “see” all the eras if you keep digging

5 that our DNA is 98% identical to chimps

6 that there is only “one” missing link…… (only one missing fossil in the “monkey to man evolution”

Etc

These are things that are obviously false and that typical students learn, or atleast learned in the 90s and early 2000s.............I hope that these has changed and that students no longer learn this falshoods

 

[leroy]

Off topic for my thread, but interesting question for another thread.

However, I'll just go ahead and give you my response to this right now - I was raised to believe in God, taken to Bible study classes & church every week. I was quite devoutly religious at that time in that I believed in God without question, but as I grew up and learned science, and compared how science involved showing nature, the universe, and reality through observation, experimentation, critical thinking - while religion didn't do any of that, it was not difficult for me to make the choice between religion and science. I chose science, and lost interest in having a belief in God, just like I did with the Easter bunny, the tooth fairy, a jolly guy on a sled that flies who goes to every home delivering presents, etc.

Now I see religion as serving no good purpose for humanity & as something that today is only used control, manipulate, and brainwash people. It's one thing if someone wants to believe in things like the existence of an all-powerful being, but when their religious beliefs lead to the disruption, obstruction, and destruction of science, knowledge, truth, the technology that can help humanity, etc., that - obviously - is a problem for humanity.

I can understand how someone who believes in God would be totally fine with biological evolution as simply being a perfectly good explanation for the process that God used to create us, but I don't get it with someone who believes in God being driven to deny science and refuse a treatment for an illness. If a belief in God is causing someone to refuse a treatment for an illness, then it seems like it would be in their best interest to stop believing in God, or at least stop believing in God in that way.

What scientific discovery, Paper, experiment etc. convince you that there is no God?

Is there any arguments based on science against the existence of God?

 

[leroy]

I have looked at pictures of cells and see how these cells multiply and then branch off to perform various duties. It is simply too fantastic, imo, to believe that all came about by "natural forces," or in other words, evolution.

Don’t worry, you are not alone, nobody, except for internet atheist “know” how this process could have evolved.

Sadly these people won’t share the secret and will end up saying “we know that it evolved, because I say so”

 

[leroy]

But this is just personal incredulity, probably based on lack of understanding of the mechanisms involved.
Like stage magic, if you don't understand how the trick is done, it seems like genuine magic.

It is not personal incredulity, no scientist knows nor claims to know how can this process evolved…….. you and your atheist friends form this forum seem to be the only ones who know the secret.

¿ how does a cell in the embryo know that it is suppose to be become an neurone?

¿how does the cell know that it is suppose to go to the brian?

And even more important

¿how did this mechanism evolved?..........which genes had to mutate? What type of mutation where involved? What was the selective benefit of each mutation?..............you have no idea, but you won’t admit it.

 

[metis]

Can one as a theist provide any evidence that God planned it all? If yes, please show us.

 

[Pogo]

Well, the claim “organisms change and adapt” is obviously true and leads to many benefits such as better crops, vaccines, and drugs and all the other mechanism that you mentioned

But the claim:

Complex organs like the human eye evolved from simpler organs though a process of random variation + natural selection is at best a “plausible but hypothesis” that has no bearing in curing cancer, nor any of the other benefits that you mentioned………… when people reject evolution they usually refer to this type of thing



No, I wouldn’t cancel my treatment, because those treatments are based on assumptions and claims that are likely to be true……….. but the truth of these claims and assumptions don’t imply that the Darwinian theory of evolution is true

In other words.

1 Evolionists claim X Y and Z

2 Science shows that X is true

3 Therefore evolutionists arbitrary assume that Y and Z most also be true

Wrong, cancer is literally an evolution of a cell and understanding how and why that can happen is fundamental.

The world is still safe.

 

[Pogo]

I personally was told in school that:

1 The appendix is useless

2 that Junk DNA is useless

3 that embryos repeat the evolutionary history (we start as fish we end up as human)

4 That there is a geologic column (a place where you can “see” all the eras if you keep digging

5 that our DNA is 98% identical to chimps

6 that there is only “one” missing link…… (only one missing fossil in the “monkey to man evolution”

Etc

These are things that are obviously false and that typical students learn, or atleast learned in the 90s and early 2000s.............I hope that these has changed and that students no longer learn this falshoods

Pandas and People must have been your textbook because these are all PRATTS.

 

[leroy]

Wrong, cancer is literally an evolution of a cell and understanding how and why that can happen is fundamental.

The world is still safe.

You are just playing semantics.

Weather if you what to call it evolution or assign a different label is irrelevant to me……… the facts are

1 I reject the claim that complex systems evolved from simpler systems as a result of random variation + natural selection

2 I can reject 1 and accept cancer treatments without being intellectually inconsistent

 

[Pogo]

You are just playing semantics.

Weather if you what to call it evolution or assign a different label is irrelevant to me……… the facts are

1 I reject the claim that complex systems evolved from simpler systems as a result of random variation + natural selection

2 I can reject 1 and accept cancer treatments without being intellectually inconsistent

Oh I am not saying you can't reject reality and except for gene therapy treatment of cancer treatment is not the same as understanding the cause and mechanism.

 

[Astrophile]

This is way beyond me. On the subject of believing that evolution and that of evolution starting with abiogenesis is the way life developed is not something I agree with, based on the amazing things I see around me. Just recognizing all the "information" within the first cell within the womb is too amazing for human thoughts in my opinion. I did not always believe this way. I believe now that God created the heavens and the earth.

If you knew the Bible you would have quoted Matthew 13: 31-32 about the amazing amount of 'information' in a tiny mustard seed.

 

[Astrophile]

I reject the theory as put forth by Darwinists. You don't need to really know anything else except read the books and concepts that have changed over the years.

Although evolutionary concepts have changed over the years, the essential components of the neo-Darwinian theory remain valid. Living things have changed over the last 3.8 billion years through a process of descent with modification driven by natural selection of small changes in their genomes. Probably, although not certainly, all living things are descended from a small number of ancestors that lived during the Archaean eon. Are you saying that these essential components of the theory have changed radically over the years?

 

[Astrophile]

I personally was told in school that:

1 The appendix is useless

2 that Junk DNA is useless

3 that embryos repeat the evolutionary history (we start as fish we end up as human)

4 That there is a geologic column (a place where you can “see” all the eras if you keep digging

5 that our DNA is 98% identical to chimps

6 that there is only “one” missing link…… (only one missing fossil in the “monkey to man evolution”

Etc

These are things that are obviously false and that typical students learn, or at least learned in the 90s and early 2000s.............I hope that these has changed and that students no longer learn this falsehoods

I am surprised that you were taught items 3 and 6 during your schooldays, in the 1990s and early 2000s. So far as I can remember, Haeckel's 'Principle of Recapitulation' was regarded as doubtful when I first started taking an interest in science, during the 1950s. Also by the 1990s it was clear that the evolutionary history of the hominids was a branching tree rather than a straight line from monkeys to humans.

As for point 4, there is a geological column. Since there are only three Phanerozoic eras (Palaeozoic, Mesozoic, and Cenozoic), it is easy to find rocks from all the eras. There are eleven geological periods in the Phanerozoic eon (Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, Carboniferous, Permian, Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous, Paleogene and Neogene) and I have seen rocks from all of them, as well as Precambrian (Proterozoic and Archaean) rocks, without going outside the United Kingdom. The only large gap in the large gap in the British geological record is the absence of the Miocene (Lower Neogene) epoch, which is neither an era nor a period.

 

[YoursTrue]

Although evolutionary concepts have changed over the years, the essential components of the neo-Darwinian theory remain valid. Living things have changed over the last 3.8 billion years through a process of descent with modification driven by natural selection of small changes in their genomes. Probably, although not certainly, all living things are descended from a small number of ancestors that lived during the Archaean eon. Are you saying that these essential components of the theory have changed radically over the years?

I am saying that there are obviously tiny genetic changes in human genealogy. Science can usually determine what the genetic lineage is in humans, at least, for many. But again -- humans remain humans -- yes, gorillas remain gorillas and dogs remain dogs, so far. Perhaps you know -- has science been able to explain by examining DNA how birds evolved supposedly from dinosaurs, as DNA changes can be detected in humans?

 

[Pogo]

I am saying that there are obviously tiny genetic changes in human genealogy. Science can usually determine what the genetic lineage is in humans, at least, for many. But again -- humans remain humans -- yes, gorillas remain gorillas and dogs remain dogs, so far. Perhaps you know -- has science been able to explain by examining DNA how birds evolved supposedly from dinosaurs, as DNA changes can be detected in humans?

Birds are still dinosaurs (theropod) always have been and always will be no matter what they evolve into.
This is the confusion, things do not stop being what they are now with further evolution. Birds, dinosaurs, fish, cows and humans are all vertebrates. Sort of like kinds, vertebrate kind which will only ever give birth to vertebrates and never to arthropods.
If the world floods and humans survive, we may well have flippers like seals, but we will still be humans.

 

[YoursTrue]

I am surprised that you were taught items 3 and 6 during your schooldays, in the 1990s and early 2000s. So far as I can remember, Haeckel's 'Principle of Recapitulation' was regarded as doubtful when I first started taking an interest in science, during the 1950s. Also by the 1990s it was clear that the evolutionary history of the hominids was a branching tree rather than a straight line from monkeys to humans.

As for point 4, there is a geological column. Since there are only three Phanerozoic eras (Palaeozoic, Mesozoic, and Cenozoic), it is easy to find rocks from all the eras. There are eleven geological periods in the Phanerozoic eon (Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, Carboniferous, Permian, Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous, Paleogene and Neogene) and I have seen rocks from all of them, as well as Precambrian (Proterozoic and Archaean) rocks, without going outside the United Kingdom. The only large gap in the large gap in the British geological record is the absence of the Miocene (Lower Neogene) epoch, which is neither an era nor a period.

My very up-to-date healthcare provider told me (and I believe him) that medical procedures have changed drastically since 1960. We did not discuss this at depth but I am sure, from my own reading about medical procedures, that he is right. So what was taught, believed and practiced by trained doctors in the past is not necessarily practiced today.

 

[Pogo]

My very up-to-date healthcare provider told me (and I believe him) that medical procedures have changed drastically since 1960. We did not discuss this at depth but I am sure, from my own reading about medical procedures, that he is right. So what was taught, believed and practiced by trained doctors in the past is not necessarily practiced today.

Which is a totally different subject.

 

[YoursTrue]

Birds are still dinosaurs (theropod) always have been and always will be no matter what they evolve into.
This is the confusion, things do not stop being what they are now with further evolution. Birds, dinosaurs, fish, cows and humans are all vertebrates. Sort of like kinds, vertebrate kind which will only ever give birth to vertebrates and never to arthropods.
If the world floods and humans survive, we may well have flippers like seals, but we will still be humans.

I am speaking about DNA evidence. Not feathers in stone or fossils. I think you are evading the reasoning about DNA. There is no evidence. If there were, just like human DNA investigation, that would be a closer call.