Why the theory of evolution is so important

[Wild Fox]

Why is the theory of evolution so important?

The earth being the center of the universe may have been the first major conflict between religion and the developing science but the theory of evolution now remains the center for conflict. So why is this theory so important to discuss?

I am proposing three reasons

1. Unlike any other explanations for the how life came about evolution is the only one discovered rather than created in the past. Developed over time through careful observation despite what one would desire to believe. The theory crosses all nationalities and religions. As the evidence increased it developed increasing more depth rather than contradiction. It is our one explanation not depended on faith but one what is measured and observed.

2. As important, the theory of evolution shows just how we are related to all life in this world. Different than many creations stories that separate humans from all other life, evolution shows we come from shared ancestry and shared genetics most of which are well preserved through all life forms. All life has differences which make them unique yet evolution we share too much with other life forms to see ourselves as separate.

3. Most important of all the theories Evolution and Ecology intertwine and show just how much we are intimately interconnected. No organism lives alone but all are interdependent and developed the intimate relationships in time shaped by the environmental opportunities and selective pressures. Humans and animals cannot exist without plants cannot, flowers without pollinators fail to reproduce, bacteria are essential for digestion for so many animals, and trees communicate and support each other through fungi. Evolution theory with Ecology theory in combination are the only explanation for this relationship and to ignore this interdependence is to face the fate of so many creatures before us – extinction.

 

[MJFlores]

Why is the theory of evolution so important?

The earth being the center of the universe may have been the first major conflict between religion and the developing science but the theory of evolution now remains the center for conflict. So why is this theory so important to discuss?

I am proposing three reasons

1. Unlike any other explanations for the how life came about evolution is the only one discovered rather than created in the past. Developed over time through careful observation despite what one would desire to believe. The theory crosses all nationalities and religions. As the evidence increased it developed increasing more depth rather than contradiction. It is our one explanation not depended on faith but one what is measured and observed.

2. As important, the theory of evolution shows just how we are related to all life in this world. Different than many creations stories that separate humans from all other life, evolution shows we come from shared ancestry and shared genetics most of which are well preserved through all life forms. All life has differences which make them unique yet evolution we share too much with other life forms to see ourselves as separate.

3. Most important of all the theories Evolution and Ecology intertwine and show just how much we are intimately interconnected. No organism lives alone but all are interdependent and developed the intimate relationships in time shaped by the environmental opportunities and selective pressures. Humans and animals cannot exist without plants cannot, flowers without pollinators fail to reproduce, bacteria are essential for digestion for so many animals, and trees communicate and support each other through fungi. Evolution theory with Ecology theory in combination are the only explanation for this relationship and to ignore this interdependence is to face the fate of so many creatures before us – extinction.

This is an interesting video about evolution:

There is an assumption made in most schools, universities and even in the production of documentaries on nature, that all scientists are unanimous in their belief that life as we know it on earth, evolved over time from rudimentary non-life into viruses and cells that then, over eons of time, developed into the lifeforms we know today. Is this assumption correct? Does science support Evolutionary Theory?

 

[sayak83]

This is an interesting video about evolution:

There is an assumption made in most schools, universities and even in the production of documentaries on nature, that all scientists are unanimous in their belief that life as we know it on earth, evolved over time from rudimentary non-life into viruses and cells that then, over eons of time, developed into the lifeforms we know today. Is this assumption correct? Does science support Evolutionary Theory?

Yes the assumption is correct. And science unambiguously support evolutionary theory. Next?
For Darwin Day, 6 facts about the evolution debate

 

[Wild Fox]

This is an interesting video about evolution:

There is an assumption made in most schools, universities and even in the production of documentaries on nature, that all scientists are unanimous in their belief that life as we know it on earth, evolved over time from rudimentary non-life into viruses and cells that then, over eons of time, developed into the lifeforms we know today. Is this assumption correct? Does science support Evolutionary Theory?

Amazing! The same unsupported statements made over and over (as if repeating the same thing alone will make it believable) with nothing to support the video at all. Whether 1000 scientists who do not study evolution have any doubts at all (which is unclear from those who are reported to have signed) there numbers are dwarfed by those that do. But here we go back to the same problem, those scientists arguing against evolution are doing so with mathematical models and opinions only against overwhelming evidence that enhance supports the theory with every new finding. As I stated, evolution is the only explanation with any evidence. It is as much of a science as any other but I you reject science then you can have that opinion.

 

[MJFlores]

Amazing! The same unsupported statements made over and over (as if repeating the same thing alone will make it believable) with nothing to support the video at all. Whether 1000 scientists who do not study evolution have any doubts at all (which is unclear from those who are reported to have signed) there numbers are dwarfed by those that do. But here we go back to the same problem, those scientists arguing against evolution are doing so with mathematical models and opinions only against overwhelming evidence that enhance supports the theory with every new finding. As I stated, evolution is the only explanation with any evidence. It is as much of a science as any other but I you reject science then you can have that opinion.

I don't want to use math and calculus but if you insist...

Don't ask me for follow up questions because I did not do the math.
They did.

 

[Wild Fox]

I don't want to use math and calculus but if you insist...

Don't ask me for follow up questions because I did not do the math.
They did.

And I have read their math but it is not based on accurate assumptions. Math may be fine for simple physics problems (although that math is beyond my ability) the math fails completely in complex biological systems. So all those amazing claims are based on assumptions which are made up and not based on evidence. There are so many reasons why these mathematical equation are incorrect and nonpredictive. Sciences of ecology and evolution try to apply mathematical models but they all fall short of real predictions. You will have to do better than that and provide real evidence which of course you do not have.

 

[Deeje]

Why is the theory of evolution so important?

.....why is this theory so important to discuss?

I am proposing three reasons

1. Unlike any other explanations for the how life came about evolution is the only one discovered rather than created in the past. Developed over time through careful observation despite what one would desire to believe. The theory crosses all nationalities and religions. As the evidence increased it developed increasing more depth rather than contradiction. It is our one explanation not depended on faith but one what is measured and observed.

1. Darwin "discovered" adaptation.....the ability for a single species to adapt to a changed environment. Producing new varieties in one species is not grounds for assuming what science cannot ever substantiate with its current evidence, that we all come from a common ancestor. Science assumes this with very little actual substantiated evidence.

2. As important, the theory of evolution shows just how we are related to all life in this world. Different than many creations stories that separate humans from all other life, evolution shows we come from shared ancestry and shared genetics most of which are well preserved through all life forms. All life has differences which make them unique yet evolution we share too much with other life forms to see ourselves as separate.

The creation account links all of the natural world because we are all made out of the same basic materials....we all breathe the same air, and ingest food, drink water, and process it to maintain our life. Life is designed to be self-regenerating with little or no assistance from its Creator.

Giving the humans unique characteristics to enable them to act as the Creator's representatives in caring for God's creation does not make us superior....it just gives us greater responsibility and accountability.

We demonstrate every day that we can barely take care of ourselves, let alone our planet and its other inhabitants.

3. Most important of all the theories Evolution and Ecology intertwine and show just how much we are intimately interconnected. No organism lives alone but all are interdependent and developed the intimate relationships in time shaped by the environmental opportunities and selective pressures. Humans and animals cannot exist without plants cannot, flowers without pollinators fail to reproduce, bacteria are essential for digestion for so many animals, and trees communicate and support each other through fungi.

But none of it was planned .....it all just happened by accident.....how many fortunate flukes does it take to run out of zeros in the statistics? What you have written there screams evidence for intelligent design and guidance for the whole process.There are no fortunate flukes in your scenario.

Evolution theory with Ecology theory in combination are the only explanation for this relationship and to ignore this interdependence is to face the fate of so many creatures before us – extinction.

They are the only explanations for those who are spiritually blind IMO. If there is no Creator whose immense power created this Universe, then extinction is all we can look forward to.....OTOH if there is a Creator who had a purpose in our being here, then we can count on the fact that he did not create any of it for nothing and we will see his hand in matters before we mess things up completely.

 

[Spirit of Light]

As a Buddhist i can not dismis the evolution theory even i might not be totally agree with darwin I guess there will always be some form of evolution in living beings over longer time But even i have not seen a creator God, i can not fully rule out that somewhere there can have been a God creating something. Buddha according to his teachings did not recognise a creator God.

 

[Deeje]

This is an interesting video about evolution:

There is an assumption made in most schools, universities and even in the production of documentaries on nature, that all scientists are unanimous in their belief that life as we know it on earth, evolved over time from rudimentary non-life into viruses and cells that then, over eons of time, developed into the lifeforms we know today. Is this assumption correct? Does science support Evolutionary Theory?

"A typical cell is only one thousandth of an inch [0.03 mm] across! In that infinitesimal space, complex functions vital to life are occurring. (See diagram, pages 8-9.) Little wonder that it has been said: “The bottom line is that the cell—the very basis of life—is staggeringly complex.”

The cell can function only as a complete entity. Thus, it cannot be viable while being formed by slow, gradual changes induced by evolution.

A mousetrap, for example is a simple apparatus which can function only when all its components are assembled. Each component on its own—platform, spring, holding bar, trap hammer, catch—is not a mousetrap and cannot function as such. All the parts are needed simultaneously and have to be assembled for there to be a working trap. Likewise, a cell can function as such only when all its components are assembled"....which leads to the problem of “irreducible complexity.”

"Darwin knew that his theory of gradual evolution by natural selection faced a big challenge when he said: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”—Origin of Species.

Another example of irreducible complexity is a process most of us take for granted when we cut ourselves—blood clotting. Normally, any liquid will immediately leak out of a punctured container and will do so until the container is empty. Yet, when we puncture or cut our skin, the leak is quickly sealed by the formation of a clot. However, as doctors know, “blood clotting is a very complex, intricately woven system consisting of a score of interdependent protein parts.” These activate what is called a clotting cascade. This delicate healing process “depends critically on the timing and speed at which the different reactions occur.” Otherwise, a person could have all of his blood clotting and solidifying, or on the other hand, he could bleed to death."

Is Evolution’s Foundation Missing? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

Why do we never see these examples raised?

 

[Wild Fox]

1. Darwin "discovered" adaptation.....the ability for a single species to adapt to a changed environment. Producing new varieties in one species is not grounds for assuming what science cannot ever substantiate with its current evidence, that we all come from a common ancestor. Science assumes this with very little actual substantiated evidence.



The creation account links all of the natural world because we are all made out of the same basic materials....we all breathe the same air, and ingest food, drink water, and process it to maintain our life. Life is designed to be self-regenerating with little or no assistance from its Creator.

Giving the humans unique characteristics to enable them to act as the Creator's representatives in caring for God's creation does not make us superior....it just gives us greater responsibility and accountability.

We demonstrate every day that we can barely take care of ourselves, let alone our planet and its other inhabitants.



But none of it was planned .....it all just happened by accident.....how many fortunate flukes does it take to run out of zeros in the statistics? What you have written there screams evidence for intelligent design and guidance for the whole process.There are no fortunate flukes in your scenario.



They are the only explanations for those who are spiritually blind IMO. If there is no Creator whose immense power created this Universe, then extinction is all we can look forward to.....OTOH if there is a Creator who had a purpose in our being here, then we can count on the fact that he did not create any of it for nothing and we will see his hand in matters before we mess things up completely.

Actually it is the spiritually blind which do not recognize the truth of our world by ignoring the world itself. No evidence for the creator only faith. Extensive evidence of how nature continues to diversify without the intervention of a creator. You words are empty because they are not supported by evidence only your opinions of what you want to believe. So make all your empty statements but they will not support what is real in our world.
If the Creator is going to come in and fix matters before we mess it up completely then that creator is running out of time fast yet no hint that the creator is doing anything to stop us from causing our own extinction.

 

[Wild Fox]

As a Buddhist i can not dismis the evolution theory even i might not be totally agree with darwin I guess there will always be some form of evolution in living beings over longer time But even i have not seen a creator God, i can not fully rule out that somewhere there can have been a God creating something. Buddha according to his teachings did not recognise a creator God.

What do you disagree with Darwin out of interest?

 

[Wild Fox]

"A typical cell is only one thousandth of an inch [0.03 mm] across! In that infinitesimal space, complex functions vital to life are occurring. (See diagram, pages 8-9.) Little wonder that it has been said: “The bottom line is that the cell—the very basis of life—is staggeringly complex.”

The cell can function only as a complete entity. Thus, it cannot be viable while being formed by slow, gradual changes induced by evolution.

A mousetrap, for example is a simple apparatus which can function only when all its components are assembled. Each component on its own—platform, spring, holding bar, trap hammer, catch—is not a mousetrap and cannot function as such. All the parts are needed simultaneously and have to be assembled for there to be a working trap. Likewise, a cell can function as such only when all its components are assembled"....which leads to the problem of “irreducible complexity.”

"Darwin knew that his theory of gradual evolution by natural selection faced a big challenge when he said: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”—Origin of Species.

Another example of irreducible complexity is a process most of us take for granted when we cut ourselves—blood clotting. Normally, any liquid will immediately leak out of a punctured container and will do so until the container is empty. Yet, when we puncture or cut our skin, the leak is quickly sealed by the formation of a clot. However, as doctors know, “blood clotting is a very complex, intricately woven system consisting of a score of interdependent protein parts.” These activate what is called a clotting cascade. This delicate healing process “depends critically on the timing and speed at which the different reactions occur.” Otherwise, a person could have all of his blood clotting and solidifying, or on the other hand, he could bleed to death."

Is Evolution’s Foundation Missing? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

Why do we never see these examples raised?

Same nonsense assumptions not based on evidence and with an insufficient understanding of biology. Glad you mentioned clotting systems since this is one of my specialties in what I do and there is clear evidence that this system could develop over time. Again seeing the system now it is amazing but there is nothing about it that could not develop over time. Nothing. Love the site you suggest - watchtower online library. If that is what you have to use to make a point you know nothing about the actual evidence that is available. Try some scientific journals for something with more supported evidence and then make a statement.

By the way Darwin developed his incredible theory without the support of genetics which has since supported him. He made this theory by actually seeing the would "the creator you believe in made" instead of just reading from an ancient text. Which has more evidence the world the creator you believe in made or the fantasy's of people in the distant past?

 

[Spirit of Light]

What do you disagree with Darwin out of interest?

First of all, i am no expert on Darwins teaching But if i understood it correctly his teaching of sea creature become land creature, that is something i would disagree in. But yes there are fish who can live and breath air for some time out of water. And the theory of Apes become human beings. in my understanding we as homo sapiens are not the first "version" of human beings to walk this earth. But we walked it alongside other human races, humans that was both more primitive then we, but also people and civilisations far more advanced then we ever will be.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is an interesting video about evolution:

There is an assumption made in most schools, universities and even in the production of documentaries on nature, that all scientists are unanimous in their belief that life as we know it on earth, evolved over time from rudimentary non-life into viruses and cells that then, over eons of time, developed into the lifeforms we know today. Is this assumption correct? Does science support Evolutionary Theory?

Do you realizes that he shows himself to be a completely ignorant fool in the first minute alone where he conflates abiogenesis with evolution? Evolution is not dependent upon abiogenesis. It is a related idea, but evolution works regardless of the original source of life. He lost the argument in the very first paragraph.

 

[Wild Fox]

First of all, i am no expert on Darwins teaching But if i understood it correctly his teaching of sea creature become land creature, that is something i would disagree in. But yes there are fish who can live and breath air for some time out of water. And the theory of Apes become human beings. in my understanding we as homo sapiens are not the first "version" of human beings to walk this earth. But we walked it alongside other human races, humans that was both more primitive then we, but also people and civilisations far more advanced then we ever will be.

He made the see to land connection based on the fossils in the rock strata which showed that vertebrates of sea life appeared in earlier rock strata and continued on in later rock strata when land vertebrates first appeared. Thus it is the fossil record based on rock strata ages that gave him the idea that vertebrates developed in the aquatic environments before the developed on land. You are correct that we developed from previous versions developing in our genetic pattern. As for civilizations more advance than we will ever, I would like to know more about these civilization.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"A typical cell is only one thousandth of an inch [0.03 mm] across! In that infinitesimal space, complex functions vital to life are occurring. (See diagram, pages 8-9.) Little wonder that it has been said: “The bottom line is that the cell—the very basis of life—is staggeringly complex.”

The cell can function only as a complete entity. Thus, it cannot be viable while being formed by slow, gradual changes induced by evolution.

A mousetrap, for example is a simple apparatus which can function only when all its components are assembled. Each component on its own—platform, spring, holding bar, trap hammer, catch—is not a mousetrap and cannot function as such. All the parts are needed simultaneously and have to be assembled for there to be a working trap. Likewise, a cell can function as such only when all its components are assembled"....which leads to the problem of “irreducible complexity.”

"Darwin knew that his theory of gradual evolution by natural selection faced a big challenge when he said: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”—Origin of Species.

Another example of irreducible complexity is a process most of us take for granted when we cut ourselves—blood clotting. Normally, any liquid will immediately leak out of a punctured container and will do so until the container is empty. Yet, when we puncture or cut our skin, the leak is quickly sealed by the formation of a clot. However, as doctors know, “blood clotting is a very complex, intricately woven system consisting of a score of interdependent protein parts.” These activate what is called a clotting cascade. This delicate healing process “depends critically on the timing and speed at which the different reactions occur.” Otherwise, a person could have all of his blood clotting and solidifying, or on the other hand, he could bleed to death."

Is Evolution’s Foundation Missing? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

Why do we never see these examples raised?

Because they all have been refuted. The first example I ran into was the blood clotting factor evolution. That came up in the Dover trial and the creationist that claimed to have never seen any articles explaining how it happened was surround on the witness stand that this supposed "professional" had never seen. I think Deeje has me on ignore so she can't see posts that I make or even quotes of my posts. If someone can pass this on to her I would appreciate it. I will even gladly support it if she requests me to.

 

[MJFlores]

Do you realizes that he shows himself to be a completely ignorant fool in the first minute alone where he conflates abiogenesis with evolution? Evolution is not dependent upon abiogenesis. It is a related idea, but evolution works regardless of the original source of life. He lost the argument in the very first paragraph.

I really don't know.
You white people should talk this over with.
I'm Asian so I don't have something to do with that.

But what I know, humans cannot interbreed with animals including apes
Apes which I believe, evolutionist and Darwin fans placed their absolute faith that humans came from
Isn't that strange?
Not why humans cannot interbreed with animals
but why humans cannot interbreed with apes when they are your ancestors?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I really don't know.
You white people should talk this over with.
I'm Asian so I don't have something to do with that.

But what I know, humans cannot interbreed with animals including apes
Apes which I believe, evolutionist and Darwin fans placed their absolute faith that humans came from
Isn't that strange?
Not why humans cannot interbreed with animals
but why humans cannot interbreed with apes when they are your ancestors?

Did you watch that video? It explains why men and other apes cannot mate. Though its original claim might be exaggerated. There are not good records of the attempt of Stalin. And of course men can't interbreed with other apes. So what? Chimps, our closest relatives, can't mate with us, they can't mate with gorillas, they can't mate with orangutans. Why would you expect us to be able to mate with other apes when the split occurred so long ago? Dogs are very very young. They are thousands of years old, at least when it comes to different breeds. The split between man and our closest relative occurred about 7 million years ago. Think of the differences you can see in dogs and multiply them by a thousand.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Is this assumption correct? Does science support Evolutionary Theory?

It's not an assumption and yes science (overwhelmingly) supports evolution.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Don't ask me for follow up questions because I did not do the math.
They did.

And as always, they did it dishonestly and tailored it specifically to impress people like you, who are ignorant of the facts and the dishonest assumptions they make to create this piece of creationist propaganda.