I see a lot of Christians criticizing evolution, both on this board and elsewhere, but very seldom do they offer their reasons for it. There are a few standard criticisms of evolution, but very few of them hold any weight. I'll go over them here.Evolution is just a theory.This criticism confuses the scientific use of the word "theory" with the colloquial use. The colloquial use of theory is something that is a mere conjecture that has not yet been proven. But in science, a theory is a testable model for describing what goes on in the world. Scientific theory and fact, therefore, are not mutually exclusive. Gravity is also a scientific theory, but no one disputes gravity claiming that it is "just a theory."Evolution can't explain how life could emerge from non-life/Evolution can't explain how the universe began.These objections are strawmen. Evolution does not claim to explain either of these things. It is like objecting to evolution because it cannot explain why the sky is blue. Theories about abiogenesis or the origin of the universe cannot be conflated with evolutionary theory.There are no transitional fossils.This is completely false. Technically, every fossil that exists is a transitional fossil, as the current categories we call "species" are not set in stone. Today's species could be tomorrow's transitional form. However, if we are looking for very clear-cut examples of transitional forms between today's conventional categorizations, these are easy to produce too. The tiktaalik is a transitional phase between fish and amphibians. The ambulocetus is a transitional phase between mammals and whales. The archaeopteryx is a transitional phase between dinosaurs and birds. These are just a few of the many examples of transitional fossils.Evolution can't explain how complex structures, such as the eye, could come about, because half an eye confers no evolutionary advantage.This is the argument from irreducible complexity. Indeed, each successive step in evolution must confer some benefit. But, with eyes, and bacterial flagellum, and every other purported instance of irreducible complexity, we find that this is exactly the case. In the instance of the eye, it probably began as simple photoreceptor cells which could detect the presence of light. Later, they developed a depression which would allow it to detect the direction of light as well. The aperture of the eye then shrank to allow the structure to dimly make out visible shapes based on this information (some modern animals, such as the nautilus, actually have this partially-formed version of the eye, which supports the theory immensely). Lastly, the layer of cells over the aperture became a crude lens, which further assisted in focusing images.How could all the complexity of life have arisen by chance?It didn't. Evolution is a highly non-random process. Genetic mutations are random, but the process by which they are selected for is not.Evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics, because a system will tend towards disorder (increased entropy) rather than order over time, and evolution creates increased order.This demonstrates a misunderstanding of the laws of thermodynamics. A closed system (such as the entire universe) will tend towards entropy over time - this is why our stars gradually die out. But the earth is not a closed system. It receives huge amounts of energy from the sun. So, evolution does not violate the laws of thermodynamics.Evolution lead to Social Darwinism, the source of many atrocities such as the Holocaust.To boil the source of the Holocaust down to Social Darwinism alone demonstrates a huge misunderstanding of the myriad causes that led to the atrocity. However, even if Social Darwinism were the sole cause of the Holocaust, this would not be a valid criticism against evolution. This is because we do not judge a claim based on the worst perversions of that claim. Social Darwinists who distort evolutionary theory to support their belief system do not show evolution to be wrong; they simply show themselves to be wrong. Similarly, the Christians who distorted Christian theology to support the Crusades, inquisitions or witch hunting did not show Christianity to be wrong. Any theory can be distorted if someone tries hard enough.Darwin recanted on his deathbed.This is an urban legend. Also, even if he had, this says nothing about the validity of his theory, since it has been so consistently supported by scientific evidence since then.Hope this helps!
So what's wrong with evolution?
- Thread starter Lunar
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Nicely written Lunar.Though we shouldn't try to convert people from christianity on this forum this article helps clear up some miscinceptions about evolution.
(Shornaal;53216)
Nicely written Lunar.Though we shouldn't try to convert people from christianity on this forum this article helps clear up some miscinceptions about evolution.
You're right, you shouldn't convert anyone from God, otherwise you will lead so much innocent souls astray.
Nicely written Lunar.Though we shouldn't try to convert people from christianity on this forum this article helps clear up some miscinceptions about evolution.
You're right, you shouldn't convert anyone from God, otherwise you will lead so much innocent souls astray.
(thesuperjag;53222)
You're right, you shouldn't convert anyone from God, otherwise you will lead so much innocent souls astray.
I meant that this is a christian forum and the 'Answers for non christians' is not the place to convert people into atheism. I have nothing against him doing it on any forum where it is appropriate.I think one should know the truth about evolution before dismissing it and therefore the information in his post is still relevant to the forum as long as this doesn't turn into a faith versus fact flamefest.Don't think too highly of me, just because i'm trying to understand christianity doesn't mean I'm not an agnostic and a sinner.
You're right, you shouldn't convert anyone from God, otherwise you will lead so much innocent souls astray.
I meant that this is a christian forum and the 'Answers for non christians' is not the place to convert people into atheism. I have nothing against him doing it on any forum where it is appropriate.I think one should know the truth about evolution before dismissing it and therefore the information in his post is still relevant to the forum as long as this doesn't turn into a faith versus fact flamefest.Don't think too highly of me, just because i'm trying to understand christianity doesn't mean I'm not an agnostic and a sinner.
I am not trying to convert anyone "away from God." I'm just hoping they'll better come to understand scientific fact. Evolution is not mutually exclusive with God.
Before philosophy went crazy in the "modern" era the ancients arrived at the existence of a soul using pure philosophical logic, totally outside religion. I tend to believe they were correct in this logic.Evolution does not address the supernatural or incorporeal realm. As a theory I guess it is possible (have my doubts) it might one day be proven to explain the physical shape of our bodies, but it will never be able to address how we got our souls.
(waquinas;53286)
Before philosophy went crazy in the "modern" era the ancients arrived at the existence of a soul using pure philosophical logic, totally outside religion. I tend to believe they were correct in this logic.Evolution does not address the supernatural or incorporeal realm. As a theory I guess it is possible (have my doubts) it might one day be proven to explain the physical shape of our bodies, but it will never be able to address how we got our souls.
The reason evolution doesn't explain how we got our soul is because the evolution theory is about evolution, not souls.Also since there isn't any proof that souls exist there is no reason to try to explain or disprove them.
Before philosophy went crazy in the "modern" era the ancients arrived at the existence of a soul using pure philosophical logic, totally outside religion. I tend to believe they were correct in this logic.Evolution does not address the supernatural or incorporeal realm. As a theory I guess it is possible (have my doubts) it might one day be proven to explain the physical shape of our bodies, but it will never be able to address how we got our souls.
The reason evolution doesn't explain how we got our soul is because the evolution theory is about evolution, not souls.Also since there isn't any proof that souls exist there is no reason to try to explain or disprove them.
(waquinas;53286)
Before philosophy went crazy in the "modern" era the ancients arrived at the existence of a soul using pure philosophical logic, totally outside religion. I tend to believe they were correct in this logic.
Out of curiosity, which argument are you referring to?
Before philosophy went crazy in the "modern" era the ancients arrived at the existence of a soul using pure philosophical logic, totally outside religion. I tend to believe they were correct in this logic.
Out of curiosity, which argument are you referring to?
Interesting that people seem to have so little to say about their actual reasons for not believing in evolution.
(Lunar;53735)
Interesting that people seem to have so little to say about their actual reasons for not believing in evolution.
I have one. How about the fact that God said Adam and Eve were the first people on earth. good enough?
Interesting that people seem to have so little to say about their actual reasons for not believing in evolution.
I have one. How about the fact that God said Adam and Eve were the first people on earth. good enough?
(Alpha and Omega;53773)
(Lunar;53735)
Interesting that people seem to have so little to say about their actual reasons for not believing in evolution.
I have one. How about the fact that God said Adam and Eve were the first people on earth. good enough?I don't know if you were just making a random statement...but I completely disagree with that, as that either can not be supported in the scripture...Read Genesis 1:26-28.
(Lunar;53735)
Interesting that people seem to have so little to say about their actual reasons for not believing in evolution.
I have one. How about the fact that God said Adam and Eve were the first people on earth. good enough?I don't know if you were just making a random statement...but I completely disagree with that, as that either can not be supported in the scripture...Read Genesis 1:26-28.
(thesuperjag;53774)
I don't know if you were just making a random statement...but I completely disagree with that, as that either can not be supported in the scripture...Read Genesis 1:26-28.
ahh indeed. I mean fleshly humans then.
I don't know if you were just making a random statement...but I completely disagree with that, as that either can not be supported in the scripture...Read Genesis 1:26-28.
ahh indeed. I mean fleshly humans then.
(Alpha and Omega;53775)
ahh indeed. I mean fleshly humans then.
How can you prove God wrote the bible?
ahh indeed. I mean fleshly humans then.
How can you prove God wrote the bible?
(Shornaal;53814)
How can you prove God wrote the bible?
How can you disprove that he didn't?The problem is we all need proof right. What I believe to be proof someone else might not. That is where faith comes in but for some that is unacceptable. That is why we need proof. People do not want to face the possibility of a supernatural. The view that I come across mostly (not saying I have heard it from you) is it can't happen therefore, it didn't happen therefore, anyone who believes in it is gullible or simple minded. Therefore, anyone who says it did happen isn't worth listening to because it can't happen. That is just arguing in a circle.But let's see if you can listen you want proof I will provide some proofs. This is proof to me you decide for yourself if it is sufficient. Job 26:77 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.While other sources declared the earth sat on the back of an elephant or turtle, or was held up by Atlas, the Bible alone states what we now know to be true – “He hangs the earth on nothing.”Blood is the source of life and health (Leviticus 17:11; 14). Up until 120 years ago, sick people were “bled” and many died as a result (e.g. George Washington). Today we know that healthy blood is necessary to bring life-giving nutrients to every cell in the body. God declared that “the life of the flesh is in the blood” long before science understood its function.Our bodies are made from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7; 3:19). Scientists have discovered that the human body is comprised of some 28 base and trace elements – all of which are found in the earth.The earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22). At a time when many thought the earth was flat, the Bible told us that the earth is spherical.Circumcision on the eighth day is ideal (Genesis 17:12; Leviticus 12:3; Luke 1:59). Medical science has discovered that the blood clotting chemical prothrombin peaks in a newborn on the eighth day. This is therefore the safest day to circumcise a baby. How did Moses know?!Laughter promotes physical healing (Proverbs 17:22). Recent studies confirm what King Solomon was inspired to write 3,000 years ago, “A merry heart does good, like medicine.” For instance, laughter reduces levels of certain stress hormones. This brings balance to the immune system, which helps your body fight off disease.The Bible states that God created life according to kinds (Genesis 1:24). The fact that God distinguishes kinds, agrees with what scientists observe – namely that there are horizontal genetic boundaries beyond which life cannot vary. Life produces after its own kind. Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, roses produce roses. Never have we witnessed one kind changing into another kind as evolution supposes. There are truly natural limits to biological change.Furthermore, my faith in Jesus is much like one's faith in evolution. Have we ever observed a species evolve into another species and survive? Can we say beyond a shadow of a doubt that we evolved. Why can evolution come up with all sorts of theories about how the eye, hand, ear came about but not love, hate, jealousy? Or is that another straw man argument? Because to me it seems that evolution has an answer to everything (I ask anyways) except that.
How can you prove God wrote the bible?
How can you disprove that he didn't?The problem is we all need proof right. What I believe to be proof someone else might not. That is where faith comes in but for some that is unacceptable. That is why we need proof. People do not want to face the possibility of a supernatural. The view that I come across mostly (not saying I have heard it from you) is it can't happen therefore, it didn't happen therefore, anyone who believes in it is gullible or simple minded. Therefore, anyone who says it did happen isn't worth listening to because it can't happen. That is just arguing in a circle.But let's see if you can listen you want proof I will provide some proofs. This is proof to me you decide for yourself if it is sufficient. Job 26:77 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.While other sources declared the earth sat on the back of an elephant or turtle, or was held up by Atlas, the Bible alone states what we now know to be true – “He hangs the earth on nothing.”Blood is the source of life and health (Leviticus 17:11; 14). Up until 120 years ago, sick people were “bled” and many died as a result (e.g. George Washington). Today we know that healthy blood is necessary to bring life-giving nutrients to every cell in the body. God declared that “the life of the flesh is in the blood” long before science understood its function.Our bodies are made from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7; 3:19). Scientists have discovered that the human body is comprised of some 28 base and trace elements – all of which are found in the earth.The earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22). At a time when many thought the earth was flat, the Bible told us that the earth is spherical.Circumcision on the eighth day is ideal (Genesis 17:12; Leviticus 12:3; Luke 1:59). Medical science has discovered that the blood clotting chemical prothrombin peaks in a newborn on the eighth day. This is therefore the safest day to circumcise a baby. How did Moses know?!Laughter promotes physical healing (Proverbs 17:22). Recent studies confirm what King Solomon was inspired to write 3,000 years ago, “A merry heart does good, like medicine.” For instance, laughter reduces levels of certain stress hormones. This brings balance to the immune system, which helps your body fight off disease.The Bible states that God created life according to kinds (Genesis 1:24). The fact that God distinguishes kinds, agrees with what scientists observe – namely that there are horizontal genetic boundaries beyond which life cannot vary. Life produces after its own kind. Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, roses produce roses. Never have we witnessed one kind changing into another kind as evolution supposes. There are truly natural limits to biological change.Furthermore, my faith in Jesus is much like one's faith in evolution. Have we ever observed a species evolve into another species and survive? Can we say beyond a shadow of a doubt that we evolved. Why can evolution come up with all sorts of theories about how the eye, hand, ear came about but not love, hate, jealousy? Or is that another straw man argument? Because to me it seems that evolution has an answer to everything (I ask anyways) except that.
(Shornaal;53814)
(Alpha and Omega;53775)
ahh indeed. I mean fleshly humans then.
How can you prove God wrote the bible?If you can't believe in a Creator...how can you believe that Truth existed? God worked hard to bring us Truth.
(Alpha and Omega;53775)
ahh indeed. I mean fleshly humans then.
How can you prove God wrote the bible?If you can't believe in a Creator...how can you believe that Truth existed? God worked hard to bring us Truth.
(Alpha and Omega;53773)
I have one. How about the fact that God said Adam and Eve were the first people on earth. good enough?
If you believe in the absolute inerrancy of the bible, that would settle the matter. However, the fact remains that there is no coherent scientific objection to evolutionary theory. Now, it is very unlikely that God is a deceitful God. He would not make all scientific evidence appear as though evolution was true, but then contradict that in the bible. It seems most likely that God would make reality consistent with the bible.So, if you're completely unable to think of any problem with evolution, then perhaps this is a hint that your interpretation of the bible might not be right. Clearly there are some Christians like thesuperjag who don't think Adam and Eve were the first humans - maybe this is something to look into? It simply doesn't make any sense that the supposedly inerrant truth - the bible - wouldn't correspond to the observable reality of the natural universe.(Alpha and Omega)
How can you disprove that he didn't?
This is not how things are proved. The burden of proof is on the positive belief, not the negative one. If I told you that I was the second coming of Christ, you would demand proof. You wouldn't accept it because of your inability to prove me wrong.(Alpha and Omega)
Furthermore, my faith in Jesus is much like one's faith in evolution. Have we ever observed a species evolve into another species and survive?
Yes, we have. Speciation has been observed in many instances. Read up on Darwin's Gallapagos finches.(Alpha and Omega)
Can we say beyond a shadow of a doubt that we evolved.
As certainly as we can say that the theory of gravity is true.(Alpha and Omega)
Why can evolution come up with all sorts of theories about how the eye, hand, ear came about but not love, hate, jealousy? Or is that another straw man argument?
You're correct, it is another straw man. Analyses of the origination of emotions like love, hate and jealousy are the domain of cognitive science, neuroscience, psychology and anthropology. Evolution can explain how advanced cognition emerged among certain species, and can offer some rudimentary explanations for the fitness benefit of emotions like love, but it's a complex problem that merits its own field(s).To put it another way, it's a bit like trying to describe a sociological problem in terms of physics. Sociology can be reduced to psychology, and psychology can be reduced to biology, and biology can be reduced to chemistry, and chemistry can be reduced to physics, so in some sense there is a physical explanation for sociological problems. But the field is many levels of specificity removed that it's simply impractical and uninformative to do so - like using a very massive bludgeon to hammer in a very small nail. Just like it makes more sense to use sociology than physics to explain social relationships, it makes much more sense to use neuroscience/psychology/cognitive science to explain emotions than it does evolutionary theory.(thesuperjag;53828)
If you can't believe in a Creator...how can you believe that Truth existed? God worked hard to bring us Truth.
Truth can exist whether or not there is a God. If there is a table in front of me, then it is true that a table is in front of me, regardless of whether or not a God exists.As for the "proof" of the divine inspiration of the bible based on scientific knowledge that would supposedly be unknowable to the people of that time, most of those are very weak. The fact that the Bible talks about "kinds" of animals does not imply anything about genetics. It simply implies what even a child could recognize - a dog is a different kind than a cat. This has been well-known by everyone for several millennia. And the fact that doctors "bled" people to cure them does not mean that they didn't know blood was vital to their life. Again, this has been common knowledge for well over a milennium and can be easily seen in both ancient philosophical and medical texts. It's not a difficult conclusion to draw - we see that when people lose a lot of blood, they die. Isaiah 40:22 does not specifically state that the earth is a sphere, nor was the notion of a spherical earth unprecedented at the time. As far back as the 6th century, the Greek philosopher and mathematician Pythagoras argued for a spherical earth. And the passage about a merry heart making you feel better was not a medical revelation. It simply states the obvious - laughing makes you feel better. The mention of medicine is an analogy to the way medicine also makes you feel better. If the passage had actually said something about stress hormones than your inference would be a bit more plausible, but as is it's highly dubious.Lastly, (Alpha and Omega)
Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, roses produce roses. Never have we witnessed one kind changing into another kind as evolution supposes.
This demonstrates a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. Evolution does not claim that a dog will give birth to a cat. Rather, the changes occur in tiny increments per generation. Only an offspring with a minor mutation could possibly survive; too great a mutation and it would not be able to reproduce. However, as many successive generations of minor mutations and changes accumulate, more pronounced differences within populations will emerge.
I have one. How about the fact that God said Adam and Eve were the first people on earth. good enough?
If you believe in the absolute inerrancy of the bible, that would settle the matter. However, the fact remains that there is no coherent scientific objection to evolutionary theory. Now, it is very unlikely that God is a deceitful God. He would not make all scientific evidence appear as though evolution was true, but then contradict that in the bible. It seems most likely that God would make reality consistent with the bible.So, if you're completely unable to think of any problem with evolution, then perhaps this is a hint that your interpretation of the bible might not be right. Clearly there are some Christians like thesuperjag who don't think Adam and Eve were the first humans - maybe this is something to look into? It simply doesn't make any sense that the supposedly inerrant truth - the bible - wouldn't correspond to the observable reality of the natural universe.(Alpha and Omega)
How can you disprove that he didn't?
This is not how things are proved. The burden of proof is on the positive belief, not the negative one. If I told you that I was the second coming of Christ, you would demand proof. You wouldn't accept it because of your inability to prove me wrong.(Alpha and Omega)
Furthermore, my faith in Jesus is much like one's faith in evolution. Have we ever observed a species evolve into another species and survive?
Yes, we have. Speciation has been observed in many instances. Read up on Darwin's Gallapagos finches.(Alpha and Omega)
Can we say beyond a shadow of a doubt that we evolved.
As certainly as we can say that the theory of gravity is true.(Alpha and Omega)
Why can evolution come up with all sorts of theories about how the eye, hand, ear came about but not love, hate, jealousy? Or is that another straw man argument?
You're correct, it is another straw man. Analyses of the origination of emotions like love, hate and jealousy are the domain of cognitive science, neuroscience, psychology and anthropology. Evolution can explain how advanced cognition emerged among certain species, and can offer some rudimentary explanations for the fitness benefit of emotions like love, but it's a complex problem that merits its own field(s).To put it another way, it's a bit like trying to describe a sociological problem in terms of physics. Sociology can be reduced to psychology, and psychology can be reduced to biology, and biology can be reduced to chemistry, and chemistry can be reduced to physics, so in some sense there is a physical explanation for sociological problems. But the field is many levels of specificity removed that it's simply impractical and uninformative to do so - like using a very massive bludgeon to hammer in a very small nail. Just like it makes more sense to use sociology than physics to explain social relationships, it makes much more sense to use neuroscience/psychology/cognitive science to explain emotions than it does evolutionary theory.(thesuperjag;53828)
If you can't believe in a Creator...how can you believe that Truth existed? God worked hard to bring us Truth.
Truth can exist whether or not there is a God. If there is a table in front of me, then it is true that a table is in front of me, regardless of whether or not a God exists.As for the "proof" of the divine inspiration of the bible based on scientific knowledge that would supposedly be unknowable to the people of that time, most of those are very weak. The fact that the Bible talks about "kinds" of animals does not imply anything about genetics. It simply implies what even a child could recognize - a dog is a different kind than a cat. This has been well-known by everyone for several millennia. And the fact that doctors "bled" people to cure them does not mean that they didn't know blood was vital to their life. Again, this has been common knowledge for well over a milennium and can be easily seen in both ancient philosophical and medical texts. It's not a difficult conclusion to draw - we see that when people lose a lot of blood, they die. Isaiah 40:22 does not specifically state that the earth is a sphere, nor was the notion of a spherical earth unprecedented at the time. As far back as the 6th century, the Greek philosopher and mathematician Pythagoras argued for a spherical earth. And the passage about a merry heart making you feel better was not a medical revelation. It simply states the obvious - laughing makes you feel better. The mention of medicine is an analogy to the way medicine also makes you feel better. If the passage had actually said something about stress hormones than your inference would be a bit more plausible, but as is it's highly dubious.Lastly, (Alpha and Omega)
Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, roses produce roses. Never have we witnessed one kind changing into another kind as evolution supposes.
This demonstrates a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. Evolution does not claim that a dog will give birth to a cat. Rather, the changes occur in tiny increments per generation. Only an offspring with a minor mutation could possibly survive; too great a mutation and it would not be able to reproduce. However, as many successive generations of minor mutations and changes accumulate, more pronounced differences within populations will emerge.
(Lunar;53837)
If you believe in the absolute inerrancy of the bible, that would settle the matter. However, the fact remains that there is no coherent scientific objection to evolutionary theory. Now, it is very unlikely that God is a deceitful God. He would not make all scientific evidence appear as though evolution was true, but then contradict that in the bible. It seems most likely that God would make reality consistent with the bible.So, if you're completely unable to think of any problem with evolution, then perhaps this is a hint that your interpretation of the bible might not be right. Clearly there are some Christians like thesuperjag who don't think Adam and Eve were the first humans - maybe this is something to look into? It simply doesn't make any sense that the supposedly inerrant truth - the bible - wouldn't correspond to the observable reality of the natural universe.
That is a misconception. The Bible absolutely corresponds with an old earth and does not contradict that at all (I know that is not evolution theory). The reason I bring this up is because I suspect you are talking about the geological record we have in stone (among others). let's look at the verse superjag so kindly gave us.. "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." (Gen 1:26 KJV)This last use of the word "after" in relation to the creation of Man provides the true sense of interpretation of the word as used elsewhere in Genesis 1. If Man was made "after" God's likeness, the likeness of which was a pre-existing form or pattern (Neanderthal??), then this gives credibility to the notion that the vegetation and animals were made after the patterns of previously existing forms which were on the face of the Earth in the old world (Previous verses say repeatedly "after their kinds"). It should also be pointed out that Man was the ONLY living thing in Genesis (other than the whale) that was NOT said to be made "after his kind"; therefore he was new and unique. That uniqueness was in respect to being made in the image of God, which is not a physical, bodily trait, but of the soul and mind. And unlike all the other creatures God made during the six days, only Man was told to "replenish" the Earth (Genesis 1:28), which indicates that Man, made in God's image, was to replace the "humanoids" or "Neanderthal" of the old creation. These "humanoids" obviously had a physical form biologically very similar to true Man in physical structure, but not in mind and soul, which is defined as being "after our [God, the Trinity's] likeness."(Lunar;53837)
Yes, we have. Speciation has been observed in many instances. Read up on Darwin's Gallapagos finches.As certainly as we can say that the theory of gravity is true.
Is this the only occurrence? Furthermore, this is nothing but a variation. Every species has variations. But there are strict limits to variations that are never crossed.(Lunar;53837)
Lastly, This demonstrates a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. Evolution does not claim that a dog will give birth to a cat. Rather, the changes occur in tiny increments per generation. Only an offspring with a minor mutation could possibly survive; too great a mutation and it would not be able to reproduce. However, as many successive generations of minor mutations and changes accumulate, more pronounced differences within populations will emerge.
far enough. then here is my problem with evolution...Natural Selection will show that the mechanism behind the concept cannot be the cause of any direction of development; rather Natural Selection is only an effect which can be available for the continuing existence of a organism which is able to use the effects.When selection is spoken of as a force, it often seems that it is has a mind of its own; or as if it was nature personified. This has no place in scientific discussions of evolution. Selection is not a guided or cognizant entity; it is simply an effect. If natural selection is only an "effect", how then can it be the "cause" of evolution as universally agreed? The ability of the organism to survive using these effects (and more importantly to sustain a direction of development such as the eye, immune system, or the complexity or the eukaryotic cell,) for millions of years, would be a property of a developing genome, not a property of the "conditions of life".
If you believe in the absolute inerrancy of the bible, that would settle the matter. However, the fact remains that there is no coherent scientific objection to evolutionary theory. Now, it is very unlikely that God is a deceitful God. He would not make all scientific evidence appear as though evolution was true, but then contradict that in the bible. It seems most likely that God would make reality consistent with the bible.So, if you're completely unable to think of any problem with evolution, then perhaps this is a hint that your interpretation of the bible might not be right. Clearly there are some Christians like thesuperjag who don't think Adam and Eve were the first humans - maybe this is something to look into? It simply doesn't make any sense that the supposedly inerrant truth - the bible - wouldn't correspond to the observable reality of the natural universe.
That is a misconception. The Bible absolutely corresponds with an old earth and does not contradict that at all (I know that is not evolution theory). The reason I bring this up is because I suspect you are talking about the geological record we have in stone (among others). let's look at the verse superjag so kindly gave us.. "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." (Gen 1:26 KJV)This last use of the word "after" in relation to the creation of Man provides the true sense of interpretation of the word as used elsewhere in Genesis 1. If Man was made "after" God's likeness, the likeness of which was a pre-existing form or pattern (Neanderthal??), then this gives credibility to the notion that the vegetation and animals were made after the patterns of previously existing forms which were on the face of the Earth in the old world (Previous verses say repeatedly "after their kinds"). It should also be pointed out that Man was the ONLY living thing in Genesis (other than the whale) that was NOT said to be made "after his kind"; therefore he was new and unique. That uniqueness was in respect to being made in the image of God, which is not a physical, bodily trait, but of the soul and mind. And unlike all the other creatures God made during the six days, only Man was told to "replenish" the Earth (Genesis 1:28), which indicates that Man, made in God's image, was to replace the "humanoids" or "Neanderthal" of the old creation. These "humanoids" obviously had a physical form biologically very similar to true Man in physical structure, but not in mind and soul, which is defined as being "after our [God, the Trinity's] likeness."(Lunar;53837)
Yes, we have. Speciation has been observed in many instances. Read up on Darwin's Gallapagos finches.As certainly as we can say that the theory of gravity is true.
Is this the only occurrence? Furthermore, this is nothing but a variation. Every species has variations. But there are strict limits to variations that are never crossed.(Lunar;53837)
Lastly, This demonstrates a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. Evolution does not claim that a dog will give birth to a cat. Rather, the changes occur in tiny increments per generation. Only an offspring with a minor mutation could possibly survive; too great a mutation and it would not be able to reproduce. However, as many successive generations of minor mutations and changes accumulate, more pronounced differences within populations will emerge.
far enough. then here is my problem with evolution...Natural Selection will show that the mechanism behind the concept cannot be the cause of any direction of development; rather Natural Selection is only an effect which can be available for the continuing existence of a organism which is able to use the effects.When selection is spoken of as a force, it often seems that it is has a mind of its own; or as if it was nature personified. This has no place in scientific discussions of evolution. Selection is not a guided or cognizant entity; it is simply an effect. If natural selection is only an "effect", how then can it be the "cause" of evolution as universally agreed? The ability of the organism to survive using these effects (and more importantly to sustain a direction of development such as the eye, immune system, or the complexity or the eukaryotic cell,) for millions of years, would be a property of a developing genome, not a property of the "conditions of life".
(Lunar;53212)
Evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics, because a system will tend towards disorder (increased entropy) rather than order over time, and evolution creates increased order.This demonstrates a misunderstanding of the laws of thermodynamics. A closed system (such as the entire universe) will tend towards entropy over time - this is why our stars gradually die out. But the earth is not a closed system. It receives huge amounts of energy from the sun. So, evolution does not violate the laws of thermodynamics.
The fact is that the Second Law applies to all systems, open or closed, and to all actions and chemical reactions, from molecules to galaxies. The words "except for..." are not in this universal law. A thermodynamics system is simply any part of the universe we want to study. If we are doing an experiment in a bottle, the inside of the bottle is our system and the bottle itself is the "walls" of the system. There are only 3 kinds of systems: if no energy or matter can pass through the walls, it is an isolated system; if energy can pass through but matter cannot, it is a closed system; if both energy and matter can pass through the walls, it is an open system. Now, it is true that the laws of thermodynamics and entropy are defined in terms of isolated systems, because that is the simplest way to express them.
Evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics, because a system will tend towards disorder (increased entropy) rather than order over time, and evolution creates increased order.This demonstrates a misunderstanding of the laws of thermodynamics. A closed system (such as the entire universe) will tend towards entropy over time - this is why our stars gradually die out. But the earth is not a closed system. It receives huge amounts of energy from the sun. So, evolution does not violate the laws of thermodynamics.
The fact is that the Second Law applies to all systems, open or closed, and to all actions and chemical reactions, from molecules to galaxies. The words "except for..." are not in this universal law. A thermodynamics system is simply any part of the universe we want to study. If we are doing an experiment in a bottle, the inside of the bottle is our system and the bottle itself is the "walls" of the system. There are only 3 kinds of systems: if no energy or matter can pass through the walls, it is an isolated system; if energy can pass through but matter cannot, it is a closed system; if both energy and matter can pass through the walls, it is an open system. Now, it is true that the laws of thermodynamics and entropy are defined in terms of isolated systems, because that is the simplest way to express them.
(Alpha and Omega;53851)
Is this the only occurrence?
No, it is not. Some other examples of observed speciation are the Scarlet Robin splitting into two species (Petroica boodang and Petroica multicolor), the Evening Primrose, and the Drosophila, to name a few.(Alpha and Omega)
Furthermore, this is nothing but a variation. Every species has variations. But there are strict limits to variations that are never crossed.
That is incorrect. It is variation, but it is significant enough to be considered a new species. That is what the phrase speciation means.Again, if you are hoping to see a dog give birth to a cat, then of course this will not happen, but that's not what evolutionary theory states. Within the span of our own lifetimes it is impossible to see such a radical change from a single population. Evolution has taken place over billions of years, so to expect to see an extremely distinct species emerge from another species within the span of a hundred years is asking for too much. However, there are transitional fossils, and huge similarities in DNA structure between organisms, that offer substantial evidence of this process even if we can't observe it directly.(Alpha and Omega)
When selection is spoken of as a force, it often seems that it is has a mind of its own; or as if it was nature personified. This has no place in scientific discussions of evolution. Selection is not a guided or cognizant entity; it is simply an effect.
Is it any more personified than gravity? Is it impossible for gravity to be considered the "cause" of my paperweight falling from my desk?Additionally, it is fallacious to assume that effects cannot also be causes. Suppose again that my paperweight fell from my desk. This was an effect of gravity; it was caused by gravity. However, then suppose that the paperweight landed on my foot. The paperweight's falling was an effect which was caused by gravity, but it was also a cause that produced the effect of my foot being in my pain.Also, the logic by which you have deduced that NS is an "effect" in the first place is confusing to me. "Natural selection will show that the mechanism behind the concept must be an effect?" What does that mean?(Alpha and Omega)
The fact is that the Second Law applies to all systems, open or closed, and to all actions and chemical reactions, from molecules to galaxies. The words "except for..." are not in this universal law.
That is incorrect. It applies to isolated systems only. Open systems do not always follow the second law of thermodynamics.This should be plainly evident in nature. If the second law of thermodynamics applied regardless of whether the system was open or closed, then we would not and could not see order emerge anywhere. The mere act of tying my shoelace would be inconceivable. But this clearly is not inconceivable. We know that we can reverse entropy within a system by applying energy to it. Open systems, which receive energy from an outside source like the sun, can have order emerge.(Alpha and Omega)
Now, it is true that the laws of thermodynamics and entropy are defined in terms of isolated systems, because that is the simplest way to express them.
It's not just because it's the "simplest way" to express them: It's because it actually does not hold unless the system is isolated. Again: If the second law of thermodynamics applied explicitly to the system of the Earth, how could we explain the emergence of order in anything?
Is this the only occurrence?
No, it is not. Some other examples of observed speciation are the Scarlet Robin splitting into two species (Petroica boodang and Petroica multicolor), the Evening Primrose, and the Drosophila, to name a few.(Alpha and Omega)
Furthermore, this is nothing but a variation. Every species has variations. But there are strict limits to variations that are never crossed.
That is incorrect. It is variation, but it is significant enough to be considered a new species. That is what the phrase speciation means.Again, if you are hoping to see a dog give birth to a cat, then of course this will not happen, but that's not what evolutionary theory states. Within the span of our own lifetimes it is impossible to see such a radical change from a single population. Evolution has taken place over billions of years, so to expect to see an extremely distinct species emerge from another species within the span of a hundred years is asking for too much. However, there are transitional fossils, and huge similarities in DNA structure between organisms, that offer substantial evidence of this process even if we can't observe it directly.(Alpha and Omega)
When selection is spoken of as a force, it often seems that it is has a mind of its own; or as if it was nature personified. This has no place in scientific discussions of evolution. Selection is not a guided or cognizant entity; it is simply an effect.
Is it any more personified than gravity? Is it impossible for gravity to be considered the "cause" of my paperweight falling from my desk?Additionally, it is fallacious to assume that effects cannot also be causes. Suppose again that my paperweight fell from my desk. This was an effect of gravity; it was caused by gravity. However, then suppose that the paperweight landed on my foot. The paperweight's falling was an effect which was caused by gravity, but it was also a cause that produced the effect of my foot being in my pain.Also, the logic by which you have deduced that NS is an "effect" in the first place is confusing to me. "Natural selection will show that the mechanism behind the concept must be an effect?" What does that mean?(Alpha and Omega)
The fact is that the Second Law applies to all systems, open or closed, and to all actions and chemical reactions, from molecules to galaxies. The words "except for..." are not in this universal law.
That is incorrect. It applies to isolated systems only. Open systems do not always follow the second law of thermodynamics.This should be plainly evident in nature. If the second law of thermodynamics applied regardless of whether the system was open or closed, then we would not and could not see order emerge anywhere. The mere act of tying my shoelace would be inconceivable. But this clearly is not inconceivable. We know that we can reverse entropy within a system by applying energy to it. Open systems, which receive energy from an outside source like the sun, can have order emerge.(Alpha and Omega)
Now, it is true that the laws of thermodynamics and entropy are defined in terms of isolated systems, because that is the simplest way to express them.
It's not just because it's the "simplest way" to express them: It's because it actually does not hold unless the system is isolated. Again: If the second law of thermodynamics applied explicitly to the system of the Earth, how could we explain the emergence of order in anything?
(Lunar;53876)
Within the span of our own lifetimes it is impossible to see such a radical change from a single population. Evolution has taken place over billions of years, so to expect to see an extremely distinct species emerge from another species within the span of a hundred years is asking for too much. However, there are transitional fossils, and huge similarities in DNA structure between organisms, that offer substantial evidence of this process even if we can't observe it directly.
This is another problem. That to me is a huge cop out on evolutions part. How many thousands of animals have short life spans and should not be evolving ever couple million years but maybe ever couple decades or so. Take for example the fruit fly from egg to maturity it takes 9 days something should have evolved from the last 100 years at least or so. How many generations of fruit fly is that? To say it takes millions of years I would agree with say animals that have large life spans but not animals that have short ones.(Lunar;53876)
Additionally, it is fallacious to assume that effects cannot also be causes. Suppose again that my paperweight fell from my desk. This was an effect of gravity; it was caused by gravity. However, then suppose that the paperweight landed on my foot. The paperweight's falling was an effect which was caused by gravity, but it was also a cause that produced the effect of my foot being in my pain.
Not the way evolutionists put it. The cause of evolution is adaption to the environment by a species. That statement is incorrect. Somethings must cause somethings to happen. If the paperweight fell on your foot the cause (gravity) produces the effect (pain) they are not interchangeable. (Lunar;53876)
Also, the logic by which you have deduced that NS is an "effect" in the first place is confusing to me. "Natural selection will show that the mechanism behind the concept must be an effect?" What does that mean?
Let's see if I can rephrase that. Natural selection implies that it is an effect (not cause) of a changing environment. That is why certain characteristics are chosen because they are better (for lack of a better word) to suit the current environment. The environment changes = causenatural selection = effect(Lunar;53876)
That is incorrect. It applies to isolated systems only. Open systems do not always follow the second law of thermodynamics.This should be plainly evident in nature. If the second law of thermodynamics applied regardless of whether the system was open or closed, then we would not and could not see order emerge anywhere. The mere act of tying my shoelace would be inconceivable. But this clearly is not inconceivable. We know that we can reverse entropy within a system by applying energy to it. Open systems, which receive energy from an outside source like the sun, can have order emerge.It's not just because it's the "simplest way" to express them: It's because it actually does not hold unless the system is isolated. Again: If the second law of thermodynamics applied explicitly to the system of the Earth, how could we explain the emergence of order in anything?
We are not isolated systems. We are open systems. Hence we can eat (energy) to avoid entropy (for a short while at least). But we still die. Therefore, entropy is applied to an open system (us).It is not just applied to the system on earth however it is applied to everything.
Within the span of our own lifetimes it is impossible to see such a radical change from a single population. Evolution has taken place over billions of years, so to expect to see an extremely distinct species emerge from another species within the span of a hundred years is asking for too much. However, there are transitional fossils, and huge similarities in DNA structure between organisms, that offer substantial evidence of this process even if we can't observe it directly.
This is another problem. That to me is a huge cop out on evolutions part. How many thousands of animals have short life spans and should not be evolving ever couple million years but maybe ever couple decades or so. Take for example the fruit fly from egg to maturity it takes 9 days something should have evolved from the last 100 years at least or so. How many generations of fruit fly is that? To say it takes millions of years I would agree with say animals that have large life spans but not animals that have short ones.(Lunar;53876)
Additionally, it is fallacious to assume that effects cannot also be causes. Suppose again that my paperweight fell from my desk. This was an effect of gravity; it was caused by gravity. However, then suppose that the paperweight landed on my foot. The paperweight's falling was an effect which was caused by gravity, but it was also a cause that produced the effect of my foot being in my pain.
Not the way evolutionists put it. The cause of evolution is adaption to the environment by a species. That statement is incorrect. Somethings must cause somethings to happen. If the paperweight fell on your foot the cause (gravity) produces the effect (pain) they are not interchangeable. (Lunar;53876)
Also, the logic by which you have deduced that NS is an "effect" in the first place is confusing to me. "Natural selection will show that the mechanism behind the concept must be an effect?" What does that mean?
Let's see if I can rephrase that. Natural selection implies that it is an effect (not cause) of a changing environment. That is why certain characteristics are chosen because they are better (for lack of a better word) to suit the current environment. The environment changes = causenatural selection = effect(Lunar;53876)
That is incorrect. It applies to isolated systems only. Open systems do not always follow the second law of thermodynamics.This should be plainly evident in nature. If the second law of thermodynamics applied regardless of whether the system was open or closed, then we would not and could not see order emerge anywhere. The mere act of tying my shoelace would be inconceivable. But this clearly is not inconceivable. We know that we can reverse entropy within a system by applying energy to it. Open systems, which receive energy from an outside source like the sun, can have order emerge.It's not just because it's the "simplest way" to express them: It's because it actually does not hold unless the system is isolated. Again: If the second law of thermodynamics applied explicitly to the system of the Earth, how could we explain the emergence of order in anything?
We are not isolated systems. We are open systems. Hence we can eat (energy) to avoid entropy (for a short while at least). But we still die. Therefore, entropy is applied to an open system (us).It is not just applied to the system on earth however it is applied to everything.
Similar threads
