• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

God and Evolution

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
It's laughable how cocky people get talking about science. And half the time, they're faking like they know what they're talking about. As if being an Atheist means you're part of the science club, and all others are out. :)

...It's like how spoiled children act. :)
Landon, I have to be honest with you and say that I see this as far, far more how those who are ignorant of science talk...they dismiss the concerted effort of hundreds and hundreds of thousands of hours of dedicated research, formal evaluation of the results, as if they know what they're talking about. And the plain fact of the matter is...they simply do not know what they're talking about. Almost none of them, and I'm including you in this now, could actually write a short precis on how science works, and why it works. They simply don't accept it because it contradicts what they were told as children, and they haven't the energy to go check it out.

I always hope for better from people, but sadly, I'm too often disappointed.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I don't think the environment selects random mutations either.

I don't think scientists believe that the environment selects random mutations.
???!!!
It doesn't select mutations, but once the mutations or reproductive variation exist, so does differential fitness -- and reproductive success.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
It's laughable how cocky people get talking about science. And half the time, they're faking like they know what they're talking about. As if being an Atheist means you're part of the science club, and all others are out. :)

...It's like how spoiled children act. :)
Or how people who've had high school biology?
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Landon, I have to be honest with you and say that I see this as far, far more how those who are ignorant of science talk...they dismiss the concerted effort of hundreds and hundreds of thousands of hours of dedicated research, formal evaluation of the results, as if they know what they're talking about. And the plain fact of the matter is...they simply do not know what they're talking about. Almost none of them, and I'm including you in this now, could actually write a short precis on how science works, and why it works. They simply don't accept it because it contradicts what they were told as children, and they haven't the energy to go check it out.

I always hope for better from people, but sadly, I'm too often disappointed.

Prolly goes deeper than even that. The creationists whole
construct of reality is at stake.
To have the epiphany that they got it all wrong?
It would be like I woke up and found out I am actually
a giant cockroach.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
@ecco just disagreed with you. He said science does not believe that mutations happen at random.

I don't think the environment selects random mutations either.

I don't think scientists believe that the environment selects random mutations.

Just because you have a problem understanding the written word, does not give you an excuse to mischaracterize what I said.

Did you see the words "environment selects" in my comment? Are the words "environment selects" in your mischaracterization?

Furthermore, if you are going to refer to my comments, show my comments. That way everyone can readily see how you intentionally and deceitfully twist them.
 
Last edited:

Audie

Veteran Member
Just because you have a problem understanding the written word, does not give you an excuse to mischaracterize what I said.

Did you see the words "environment selects" in my comment? Are the word "environment selects" in your mischaracterization?

Furthermore, if you are going to refer to my comments, show my comments. That way everyone can readily see how you intentionally and deceitfully twist them.

Not everybody. Some of us put that poster
out of our misery.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
It's laughable how cocky people get talking about science. And half the time, they're faking like they know what they're talking about. As if being an Atheist means you're part of the science club, and all others are out. :)

...It's like how spoiled children act. :)

Many Christians, Muslims, and Hindus believe in science. It's not a closed club.

It's just that some people let the wall of childish fundamentalist religious beliefs prevent them from being able to learn.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Here's what UCLA Berkeley has to say on the subject.

Does @ecco have information that they don't? Love to see it, if so.


You are responding to LC's mischaracterization of what I said. Here is what I said.
I don't think the environment selects random mutations either.

I don't think scientists believe that the environment selects random mutations.

I think you have horses and carts going every which way except the right way.

There is a big difference between:
science does not believe that mutations happen at random.
-and-
the environment does not select random mutations.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
But the mutations that the environment select are considered "random". This I cannot accept, and not because religion, but because it is not logical.

Information integration is logical.
I don't think the environment selects random mutations either.

I don't think scientists believe that the environment selects random mutations.

I think you have horses and carts going every which way except the right way.

???!!!
It doesn't select mutations, but once the mutations or reproductive variation exist, so does differential fitness -- and reproductive success.

YES! That is exactly my point. The environment doesn't select mutations. I posted it in direct response to LC's assertion:
mutations that the environment select are considered "random".​
 

Cooky

Veteran Member
Landon, I have to be honest with you and say that I see this as far, far more how those who are ignorant of science talk...they dismiss the concerted effort of hundreds and hundreds of thousands of hours of dedicated research, formal evaluation of the results, as if they know what they're talking about. And the plain fact of the matter is...they simply do not know what they're talking about. Almost none of them, and I'm including you in this now, could actually write a short precis on how science works, and why it works. They simply don't accept it because it contradicts what they were told as children, and they haven't the energy to go check it out.

I always hope for better from people, but sadly, I'm too often disappointed.

The thing is, you don't understand my intentions, but you assume it "contradicts what they were told as children".

This is the root of the attitude problem that exists. And I'm not specifically talking about you, but everyone who hates thinkers, philosophers and the religious alike. Nobody should use the scientific method as the basis of how they perceive life.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
You are responding to LC's mischaracterization of what I said. Here is what I said.


There is a big difference between:
science does not believe that mutations happen at random.
-and-
the environment does not select random mutations.
Well, to be even more correct, the "environment" isn't doing any selecting at all. Any modification, however caused (randomly or not) that provides a reproductive advantage is likely to be more prevalent in future generations, and any modification that leads to reproductive disadvantage is gong to be less prevalent. And over time, those factors will lead to a large preponderance of the modifications providing reproductive advantage.
 

Cooky

Veteran Member
...I guess I should pay better attention to the forums I'm in. I didn't realize this was the Religious Debates section.

I guess that's why I'm experiencing unexpected responses.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
The thing is, you don't understand my intentions, but you assume it "contradicts what they were told as children".

This is the root of the attitude problem that exists. And I'm not specifically talking about you, but everyone who hates thinkers, philosophers and the religious alike. Nobody should use the scientific method as the basis of how they perceive life.
No, of course we shouldn't use the scientific method for how we perceive life -- if by life you mean all the moral and ethical issues we have to face. The scientific method doesn't provide ethical and moral solutions.

Look, I call myself a Humanist for a reason. I place value in all human life, and my connection to the rest of humanity. It would be impossible to develop a "Charter of Rights" (and there are many) from science. The Enlightenment started thinking about human rights because they began thinking about humans as worth something in their own right. By right of merely being human.

But to say science can't be how we perceive life is to miss an important point, which is that it would be fatal to ignore science as part of human life, because it isn't going away. Science is something that only we humans could ever have accomplished on this planet, and it would seem that, by our very nature, by nature of how our minds evolved, science was in fact inevitable. And science is both the cause and the potential solution for a whole host of really, really difficult problems that we humans are going to face, in the very near future. Problems like we've never seen before, including the damage we are doing to the very planet and its ecosystems that support our lives...and all other lives...and the unthinkable outcomes that will come (and trust me, it's coming) from the advances in Artificial Intelligence.

How do you think it feels for me, an avowed Humanist, to know that in the very near future, we are going to have created a whole new class of humans -- the "Useless Class" -- and we have no idea what that will mean, or what, if anything, we should do with, or for them.
 
Last edited:

Cooky

Veteran Member
No, of course we shouldn't use the scientific method for how we perceive life -- if by life you mean all the moral and ethical issues we have to face. The scientific method doesn't provide ethical and moral solutions.

Look, I call myself a Humanist for a reason. I please value in all human life, and my connection to the rest of humanity. It would be impossible to develop a "Charter of Rights" (and there are many) from science. The Enlightenment started thinking about human rights because they began thinking about humans as worth something in their own right. By right of merely being human.

But to say science can't be how we perceive life is to miss an important point, which is that it would be fatal to ignore science as part of human life, because it isn't going away. Science is something that only we humans could ever have accomplished on this planet, and it would seem that, by our very nature, by nature of how our minds evolved, science was in fact inevitable. And science is both the cause and the potential solution for a whole host of really, really difficult problems that we humans are going to face, in the very near future. Problems like we've never seen before, including the damage we are doing to the very planet and its ecosystems that support our lives...and all other lives...and the unthinkable outcomes that will come (and trust me, it's coming) from the advances in Artificial Intelligence.

How do you think it feels for me, an avowed Humanist, to know that in the very near future, we are going to have created a whole new class of humans -- the "Useless Class" -- and we have no idea what that will mean, or what, if anything, we should do with, or for them.

There are some useful points in this post. But with discussing science and religion, I feel like we're talking 'at' one another. I think our views are actually much closer than maybe we expected.

In any case, I shouldn't have entered into this debate. The true topic is not something I have any interest in... I got caught up in an 'aside', which should have been directed in a science sub-forum.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
No, of course we shouldn't use the scientific method for how we perceive life -- if by life you mean all the moral and ethical issues we have to face. The scientific method doesn't provide ethical and moral solutions.

Look, I call myself a Humanist for a reason. I please value in all human life, and my connection to the rest of humanity. It would be impossible to develop a "Charter of Rights" (and there are many) from science. The Enlightenment started thinking about human rights because they began thinking about humans as worth something in their own right. By right of merely being human.

But to say science can't be how we perceive life is to miss an important point, which is that it would be fatal to ignore science as part of human life, because it isn't going away. Science is something that only we humans could ever have accomplished on this planet, and it would seem that, by our very nature, by nature of how our minds evolved, science was in fact inevitable. And science is both the cause and the potential solution for a whole host of really, really difficult problems that we humans are going to face, in the very near future. Problems like we've never seen before, including the damage we are doing to the very planet and its ecosystems that support our lives...and all other lives...and the unthinkable outcomes that will come (and trust me, it's coming) from the advances in Artificial Intelligence.

How do you think it feels for me, an avowed Humanist, to know that in the very near future, we are going to have created a whole new class of humans -- the "Useless Class" -- and we have no idea what that will mean, or what, if anything, we should do with, or for them.

Too late Al Pacino was the last Humanist.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
If it isn't evolution, would you be so kind as to inform UCLA Berkeley of that "fact?"
Superbug, super-fast evolution

The site linked was created by the University of California Museum of Paleontology with support provided by the National Science Foundation (grant no. 0096613) and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (grant no. 51003439). I believe there might be a credential or 2 among them.
An evolutionist coined the term macro and micro evolution. It has fallen out of vogue with evolutionists today.

Evolution appears to be the sweep of the process going from molecule to man.

I believe in micro evolution, that is the adaption of an organism to its environment. I do not ascribe to macro evolution.

So, to the antibiotic resistant bacteria. Are they and example of molecule to man evolution ? no.

Antibiotic resistant bacteria began appearing in the late 1940´s

Antibiotic resistant bacteria come about in two ways, gene transfer between organisms (horizontal gene transfer)

Adaption

They become antibiotic resistant by the alteration of a gene changes the protein that the antibiotic binds to kill the organism . The antibiotic cannot bind to the protein, the antibiotic is useless. In an antibiotic present environment, survival of the fittest results in a population of antibiotic resistant bacteria.

However, the altered protein is less able perform itś original function. Outside of the antibiotic present environment, the bacteria is less fit to survive. Natural selection will eliminate it.

In the anthrax scare after 9/11 the antibiotic cipro was given to possible victims. Cipro belongs to a class of antibiotics called quinolones, which bind to a protein called gyrase. interfering with the ability of the bacteria to reproduce, so, it can be overwhelmed by the bodyś immune system.

The quinolone resistant bacteria have mutations in the genes encoding the gyrase protein. The bacteria survive because the cipro cannot bind to the protein.

However, the price paid for the resistance is that these bacteria reproduce more slowly, and cannot compete in a non quinolone environment.

The mechanisms of mutation and natural selection aid bacteria populations to become resistant to antibiotics BUT, the same processes result in bacteria with defective proteins that have lost their natural functions.

Evolution requires a gain of functional systems for bacteria to evolve beyond being bacteria.

Mutation and natural selection of bacteria re antibiotics results in the loss of natural functional systems.

So, antibiotic bacteria are not examples of evolution, but rather are variations within a type of organism, which Creationists readily admit occur. These bacteria have not gained anything that will help them evolve into the next type of organism.

See

¨Antibiotic resistant bacteria, how did we get to this ?" flemingforum.org,uk

¨The problem with antimicrobial resistance ¨ National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases

Heddle, Johnathon and Anthony Maxwell, ¨ Quinolone binding pocket DNA gyrase¨ Antimicrobial agents and Chemotherapy, 46 1805 - 1815 2002
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Landon, I have to be honest with you and say that I see this as far, far more how those who are ignorant of science talk...they dismiss the concerted effort of hundreds and hundreds of thousands of hours of dedicated research, formal evaluation of the results, as if they know what they're talking about.

And the plain fact of the matter is...they simply do not know what they're talking about. Almost none of them, and I'm including you in this now, could actually write a short precis on how science works, and why it works. They simply don't accept it because it contradicts what they were told as children, and they haven't the energy to go check it out.

I always hope for better from people, but sadly, I'm too often disappointed.

Good post.
 
Top