Why don't you accept the evolution theory?

[mr.guy]

Isn't only logical to conclude that if there are alot of a certain type of species compared to one with very little, you would find more fossils of one as opposed to the other?

Precisely how many more?

This would apply to transitory fossils as well. Why would you need to be a paleontologist or geologist to conclude this?

What's the difference between a "transitory" fossil and any other sort?

If evolutionist did have some credible transitional link you would know about it, it would be in museums and the news.

This isn't the netherlands, and you'd be surprised about what doesn't make the news in this part of the world.

Every major scientific journal and science publication would be shouting it at the top of their lungs declaring evolution is king.

King? Would Kansas crown a monkey, then?

 

[waacman]

It's called random muation because mutation is a random process. Like crushing a boulder will result in lots of randomly sized pieces. But, pour those pieces in a rapidly moving stream and they will seperate non-randomly, the smaller ones being swept further, to increased order by size. So it is with descent with modification by natural selection. Two processes: random mutation plus selective environmental pressure sorting out the beneficial mutations.

I would have to disagree with your example of crushing a boulder, first the weaker links at the atomic level of the stone would be broken first, so thats not random, and the resulting particles that you would pour into a rapidly moving stream would be dictated by fluid dynamics and bouyancy laws so you could safely ascertain that the smaller rocks would go further and the larger ones would settle more quickly, so that wouldn't be random either.

What I was refering to was the idea that everything can be reduced to a mathematical equation or formula. Nothing is random. It is dictated by natural laws and given the proper observational data we could reduce anything to that. How did that mutation occur? What made those genes or cells mutate? Something must have caused it to happen?

 

[Booko]

I would have to disagree with your example of crushing a boulder, first the weaker links at the atomic level of the stone would be broken first, so thats not random, and the resulting particles that you would pour into a rapidly moving stream would be dictated by fluid dynamics and bouyancy laws so you could safely ascertain that the smaller rocks would go further and the larger ones would settle more quickly, so that wouldn't be random either.

What I was refering to was the idea that everything can be reduced to a mathematical equation or formula. Nothing is random. It is dictated by natural laws and given the proper observational data we could reduce anything to that. How did that mutation occur? What made those genes or cells mutate? Something must have caused it to happen?

You appear to be stuck in 19th century science. Determinism died in the 20th century, starting with Heisenberg. On the atomic level predictability is limited to probabilities. This leaves plenty of room for randomness.

At any rate, you appear to be making a leap from the physical to the metaphysical, when you say, "Something must have caused it to happen." Well...so what? There are plenty of purely physical causes for mutations.

And how would any of this preclude the notion that evolution happens?

 

[waacman]

You appear to be stuck in 19th century science. Determinism died in the 20th century, starting with Heisenberg. On the atomic level predictability is limited to probabilities. This leaves plenty of room for randomness.

At any rate, you appear to be making a leap from the physical to the metaphysical, when you say, "Something must have caused it to happen." Well...so what? There are plenty of purely physical causes for mutations.

And how would any of this preclude the notion that evolution happens?

I by no means favor Reductionism or Deterministic thinking. I was attempting to come from the current scientific way of thinking. So what exactly replaced Determinism then? It's still more alive then you might think.

Perhaps I should have been clearer on my wording. When I said that something must have caused it to happen I was still refering to laws and scientific formula/equations, not to God or a higher being.

For now things in the atomic and subatomic levels are considered random prob b/c we don't have an accurate method of measuring it. Like all other things in the science world though, we might eventually find it to not be so random after all.

So, what are these "purely physical causes for mutations"?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You appear to be stuck in 19th century science. Determinism died in the 20th century, starting with Heisenberg.

You appear mired in 21st century confusion. There is a difference between determinable and determined. You might wish to look here.

 

[Opethian]

You might want to go debate in my free will thread if you want to debate determinism and its effect on humans.

 

[Booko]

You appear mired in 21st century confusion. There is a difference between determinable and determined. You might wish to look here.

Thanks for the link, Jayhawker.

 

[Booko]

I by no means favor Reductionism or Deterministic thinking. I was attempting to come from the current scientific way of thinking. So what exactly replaced Determinism then? It's still more alive then you might think.

Perhaps I should have been clearer on my wording. When I said that something must have caused it to happen I was still refering to laws and scientific formula/equations, not to God or a higher being.

Thanks for clearing that up. I wasn't at all sure, and it's the place so many people go that I figured it was a possibility. And it seems I've been rather sloppy myself, so sorry about that.

For now things in the atomic and subatomic levels are considered random prob b/c we don't have an accurate method of measuring it. Like all other things in the science world though, we might eventually find it to not be so random after all.

It's possible, though even if random turns out to be pseudorandom that doesn't necessitate accepting the existence of a Designer, as said Designer would still remain empiracally undetectable.

So, what are these "purely physical causes for mutations"?

Any ionizing radiation. Ultraviolet radiation is probably the most familiar one (cf. "skin cancer"). X-rays, alpha and gamma radiation are also causes for mutations.

There are any number of known mutagens. Some classes of chemicals are known to be mutagenic. Acids, polycyclic hydrocarbons, bromides, for a start anyway.

Oh yeah, and free radicals also (thinks of scene in James Bond movie, "I'm to eliminate all free radicals. Sounds dangerous, James!")

 

[lunamoth]

Any ionizing radiation. Ultraviolet radiation is probably the most familiar one (cf. "skin cancer"). X-rays, alpha and gamma radiation are also causes for mutations.

There are any number of known mutagens. Some classes of chemicals are known to be mutagenic. Acids, polycyclic hydrocarbons, bromides, for a start anyway.

Oh yeah, and free radicals also (thinks of scene in James Bond movie, "I'm to eliminate all free radicals. Sounds dangerous, James!")

Quite right Booko. Our DNA accumulates mistakes during cell replication all of the time, but fortunately for us these are often caught before they are made into permanent mutations in our somatic cells (thank God for the exquisite double helix in which this vital information is carried in redundancy in every cell!). Sometimes, however, they are not, and then we get things like cancer. And when the DNA repair mechanisms become faulty, all hell breaks loose and we get diseases like xeroderma pigmentosum. The effect on the population gene pool, however, only occurs when mutations arise in the germ cells, egg and sperm, and so can be passed on to subsequent generations. Probably the vast majority of these random, non-beneficial mutations can not result in a viable pregnancy, and so are not continued. Nuetral or only mildly non-beneficial mutations can persist silently in the population, however, and these become a source of variation for selection favoring the mutant type when the environment changes (and this does not have to mean drastic global climate change. It could be something like competition from an invading species).

2 c,
lunamoth

 

[Scuba Pete]

The theory of evolution offers an explanation to the question "How did life come to be?"

No it does not. The theory of evolution offers an explanation of how life has DIVERSIFIED after it started. It does not attempt to reveal the origin of life, only of species. Indeed, it cannot reveal such.

 

[Runt]

No it does not. The theory of evolution offers an explanation of how life has DIVERSIFIED after it started. It does not attempt to reveal the origin of life, only of species. Indeed, it cannot reveal such.

I know, I should have phrased that post better. I did not mean to imply that evolution is the mechanism by which life arose. I wrote the post thinking of a conversation one of my best friends and I had a few years ago. She informed me that she didn't believe in evolution, and I was shocked; at the time it was almost like hearing her say that she didn't believe the earth revolved around the sun. When I asked her why, she explained that the theory of evolution conflicted with bible teachings. It seemed---to her---to imply that God was not needed as a Creator, and she just couldn't accept this.

Now, I personally believe that natural law is sufficient to explain how life arose from lifeless matter, but I understand where theists are coming from and I see no particular conflict between the theory of evolution and creationism. Cannot God have created the mechanisms by which life arose and disersified, then let things run on their own from that point on? I understand this is a very deist viewpoint, but it seems conceivable to me.

 

[Fluffy]

You appear to be stuck in 19th century science. Determinism died in the 20th century, starting with Heisenberg. On the atomic level predictability is limited to probabilities. This leaves plenty of room for randomness.

Due to a information barrier not due to a non-deterministic universe. Quantum physics can be reconciled with determinism although it is true that the majority of scientists follow a probabilistic world view now.

 

[Opethian]

Could you explain to me a probalistic worldview? (just interested, not to debate or anything)

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Cannot God have created the mechanisms by which life arose and disersified, then let things run on their own from that point on? I understand this is a very deist viewpoint, but it seems conceivable to me.

Of course it is, but the world of the conceivable is enormous. It is a world of fact and fiction with the former constituting the tiniest minority of conceivable narratives.

One narrative suggests that God created a cosmos that perfectly emulates one in which the God-postulate is unnecessary. The question is: to which camp of narratives does this suggestion likely belong ... and why?

 

[Fluffy]

Could you explain to me a probalistic worldview? (just interested, not to debate or anything)

It can vary. That adopted by some in response to quantum physics involves the idea that on a very very small scale, there are no certainties and therefore something can happen spontaneously. However, the likelihood and number of these uncaused events are so small that they do not make a significant impact on larger scales (thereby allowing physical laws and equations to hold).

The term could also apply to a worldview that totally rejected determinism. For example, I would have a probabilistic world view if I thought that if I did something, anything might happen since the "result" would be unrelated to my action since I would not believe in the concept of cause and effect.

 

[Runt]

Of course it is, but the world of the conceivable is enormous. It is a world of fact and fiction with the former constituting the tiniest minority of conceivable narratives.

One narrative suggests that God created a cosmos that perfectly emulates one in which the God-postulate is unnecessary. The question is: to which camp of narratives does this suggestion likely belong ... and why?

You're preaching to the choir hon. I don't even believe in God. Since I can't prove that God doesn't exist, I'm just trying to suggest to the theists following the conversation that evolution and creationism need not be mutually exclusive.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You're preaching to the choir hon. I don't even believe in God. Since I can't prove that God doesn't exist, I'm just trying to suggest to the theists following the conversation that evolution and creationism need not be mutually exclusive.

Perhaps they just don't appreciate seeing their God marginalized ... and, I love it when you call me "hon".

 

[Opethian]

Let's try to get a bit more back on topic, if any people here that don't accept the evolution theory have some arguments as to why they don't, please post .

 

[roli]

It just seems to me that it would not only be insulting to my intelligence but contrary to any rational thought I have operated on during my entire life in regards to understanding the process behind intelligent design of all things, excluding creation, as to make my point and that all things require certain principals be implemented and achieved before the final product is developed,made created,such as logic,design,orginization,materials,procedures,steps,production,planning of anything.
All I set my eyes upon,from pencils to passsenger jets,computers etc. require these principals to exist and regardless of our experience ,knowledge or understanding of how a pencil is made ,we still have our reasoning, rational thought and some brains to know that a pencil had to of been designed,planned by more highly inclined and equiped men than ourselves. Not that we could'nt create a pencil,we just don't have the capability and resources available
It is therefore illogical and unresonable for anyoneto think any device gadget,tool,machine or any inanimate object self evolved over a period of time .

If evolutionists believe in evolution and not creation,keeping in mind nothing they ever perceive with their eyes at present in the inanimate arena, such as mentioned above cars,pencils, devices, any objects,tools machines etc.just evolved, not because I or another Christian said it, rather by logic and intelligent design they know things were made.
Than it must be equally said by the same principal they use to assert such logicical conclusions that all things have been made,why than do they make exceptions with human origin.
It seems to me to be a contridiction of logic and even a double standard on their part. As they believe and admit on the principals of design were essential regarding the creation of all things, from the simplistic, to the sophisticated of inanimate objects and that by common sense and logic they had a maker(man of course) through those essential principals such as,logic,planning ,design,engineering,thought objective and purpose,why than do they strangely take a different and radicle opposiotional view on human origin.
Could there be a bias position present that has a underlying motive to attack the very moral fibre of society and life as we know,by destroying the foundation of Christianity and God.
It takes more faith to believe that my car could evolve from a chemical explosion in my garage 20 yrs ago,and that I have still to see any physical change in it's reconsturction or evolutionary process,than to believe GM built me a car.
But I know it will take 200,000,000 yrs and than my car will be reconstructed.
My question why did the (macro)evolution stop all of a sudden.
I mean there are no monkeys in the process of becoming human,reptiles progressing into mammals or whatever,or else the world would quickly know about it,but I KNOW THERE IS A GOOD EXPLAINATION as to why it all stopped.
That in itself becomes another hole in the theory, and yet another thread I'm sure.
We don't refute the creation process of any other thing in this world because we have accepted the fact that it is totally illogical to think otherwise but when it comes to creation ,well there is an acception,is it more to do with morality,God,sin,judgement heaven hell etc. than creation or evolution.
I mean what other purpose would could there be for the heart of man to devise such attacks against God,creation,Jesus, if it were not to silence the convicting conscience of everyone who lives in defiance with him.
If we can disprove Him than it all comes crashing down and we can live an ammoral society and as we see fit.
But that inner voice of conscience will cause man to carrying on with all sorts of refutable rethoric to defame and disprove God ,but it has been going on for centuries yet nothing has changed in the circular reasoning depatrment and never will

 

[scitsofreaky]

Roli, how is it logical to deduce that since the things we designed are (intelligently) designed, all things must have been (intelligently) designed?

My question why did the (macro)evolution stop all of a sudden.

It stopped?

I mean there are no monkeys in the process of becoming human,reptiles progressing into mammals or whatever,or else the world would quickly know about it,but I KNOW THERE IS A GOOD EXPLAINATION as to why it all stopped.

You are assuming the ladder view of evolution, where fish turn into amphibian, amphibians into reptiles, reptiles into mammals, mammals into monkies, monkies into humans. This is patently wrong existing in ID propaganda. I suggest reading about what evolution is instead of just arguments evolution.