So what's wrong with evolution?

[Lunar]

(Alpha and Omega;55662)
I've read different
Could you provide a source for that? The only source I see cited in that is a from Peter and Rosemary Grant, two evolutionary biologists who are ardent proponents of evolution and whose works specifically detail how new species arise, that acknowledged natural selection was present, and which does not at all preclude the possibility of speciation. And since a quick Google search for Peter Grant produced this article (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/313/5784/224), whose findings supported the Galapagos finches as an instance of speciation, I'm inclined to think your source has been selectively misquoting credible biologists.

 

[Alpha and Omega]

(Lunar;55665)
Could you provide a source for that? The only source I see cited in that is a from Peter and Rosemary Grant, two evolutionary biologists who are ardent proponents of evolution and whose works specifically detail how new species arise, that acknowledged natural selection was present, and which does not at all preclude the possibility of speciation. And since a quick Google search for Peter Grant produced this article (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/313/5784/224), whose findings supported the Galapagos finches as an instance of speciation, I'm inclined to think your source has been selectively misquoting credible biologists.
H. Lisle Gibbs and Peter R. Grant, "Oscillating selection on Darwin's finches," Nature, 327, 1987, pp. 513; For more detailed information, please see Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution, 2000, pp. 159-175.Correct me if I am wrong but the link you provided seems to me they are speaking of survival of the fittest?

 

[For Life]

Shornaal also brings up a good point. The creator himself is a total black box which cannot be explained. So, in attempting to provide answers for one problem, we have created some even bigger questions, including related theological questions. This is another reason why I consider the God hypothesis to be inferior - it raises more questions than it answers, and is only informative at all if you don't care about how the creator works.
I think evolution brings more questions than answers. I think God answers all the questions. If we are descended from primates how come the rest of the primates didn't evolve? Since they have supposedly had billions of years to do so I don't understand why they are not more civilized. If they are the results of transitional species why don't all the species have transitional forms that exist with them? What causes some of the species to evolve and some to not evolve? I'm sure science has come up with plenty of excuses for this glaring absurdity but it reeks of bs to me.It all comes down to faith. I have faith in God and you apparently don't. I have a book that says God created man. You have a book that says man evolved from apes. I believe in the authority of God. You apparently don't. I don't see how we can get past this and come to common ground. Neither of us believe the foundation of the others principles. All of your arguments that you have brought against the "God hypothesis" I think are the same arguments I could use for the evolutionary theory. Both appear to be based on faith. I think we just agree to disagree.

 

[Lunar]

(Alpha and Omega;55671)
H. Lisle Gibbs and Peter R. Grant, "Oscillating selection on Darwin's finches," Nature, 327, 1987, pp. 513; For more detailed information, please see Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution, 2000, pp. 159-175.
Tsk, tsk. Shouldn't you be concerned, if not for the integrity of this discussion, then at least as a Christian, about being honest? The source of your quote is from http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_species_02.html, with said article being selectively quoted. The claim that "no evolution took place" among the Galapagos finches is patently false and Peter and Rosemary Grant are among the foremost proponents of evolution as a mechanism for the development of the Galapgos finches. I'm sure they'd be shocked to see their works being distorted by a biased source like "darwinismrefuted.com."(For Life)
I think evolution brings more questions than answers. I think God answers all the questions. If we are descended from primates how come the rest of the primates didn't evolve?
Because evolution is not a matter of linear hierarchy. You are acting as though all the primates in the world were rounded up into one population and subjected to the same selective pressures. This isn't the case. Evolution causes different branches of organisms to develop - not for all of an entire biological order to develop along the same lines. This happens because animals like primates all live in different types of environments and in separate populations, and are therefore subject to different selective pressures.(For Life)
If they are the results of transitional species why don't all the species have transitional forms that exist with them?
We do. "Species" is only a matter of our own definition; every organism that exists is a transitional form. You have not noticed how many species are so incredibly similar to each other?We cannot take it for granted that our current definition of species are set in stone and everything else is a transitional form. This is superimposing the current classification of species onto the entirety of evolutionary history, which makes no sense. Today's species is tomorrow's transitional form, and yesterday's species is today's transitional form. Do you understand?(For Life)
What causes some of the species to evolve and some to not evolve?
See above.(For Life)
I have a book that says God created man. You have a book that says man evolved from apes.
More than just a book, actually - a massive wealth of firmly established scientific literature.(For Life)
Both appear to be based on faith. I think we just agree to disagree.
Well, I will agree with you that your belief is based on faith. I don't think I can agree that evolution is based on faith, however. That is one of the main things this thread has attempted to establish - the huge quantity of evidence for evolution.

 

[Alpha and Omega]

(Lunar;55689)
Tsk, tsk. Shouldn't you be concerned, if not for the integrity of this discussion, then at least as a Christian, about being honest? The source of your quote is from http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_species_02.html, with said article being selectively quoted. The claim that "no evolution took place" among the Galapagos finches is patently false and Peter and Rosemary Grant are among the foremost proponents of evolution as a mechanism for the development of the Galapgos finches. I'm sure they'd be shocked to see their works being distorted by a biased source like "darwinismrefuted.com.
I wasn't honest? Why because I didn't check up on the quotes provided? I didn't distort anything. How exactly was I compromising my integrity? However I would like to see the rest of that article...if you have it.(Lunar;55689)
You have not noticed how many species are so incredibly similar to each other?
How do you know for certain that an animal that has been extinct for millions of years evolved into something we see today? Yes, we have a vast amount of fossils but all this proves is that they existed not that they evolved. This is purely on faith IMO. Like has been stated before it is a mistake to assume that God would not create everything similar. Why would he reinvent the wheel millions of times over? It makes not sense.Like people always say about Christianity uniqueness does not equal truthsame for evolutionsimilarities does no equal evolution

 

[Lunar]

(Alpha and Omega;55693)
I wasn't honest? Why because I didn't check up on the quotes provided? I didn't distort anything. How exactly was I compromising my integrity?
The entirety of the quote which you provided - the one which talked about "mythicization by evolutionists" - is nowhere to be found in the Lisle & Grant article. It is, however, found verbatim and uncited on the darwinismrefuted.com site, with the Lisle & Grant article cited as a source for the one passage "The population, subjected to natural selection, is oscillating back and forth." The claim that evolution did not occur in the Galapagos finches is not anywhere to be found in the research of Grant, nor of any credible biologist, and in fact Peter and Rosemary Grant specifically argue that the Galapagos finches are a prime example of evolution.(Alpha and Omega)
How do you know for certain that an animal that has been extinct for millions of years evolved into something we see today? Yes, we have a vast amount of fossils but all this proves is that they existed not that they evolved.
What is the alternative explanation for these transitional forms, exactly? That God has periodically been zapping new species onto the planet which just so happen to resemble intermediary forms between major classes of animals? How exactly does the creationist hypothesis account for this?The creationist might reply that God simply created all of these forms, transitional and otherwise, at the beginning, and that the transitional fossils which we see today are simply original species that have gone extinct. But if God created all these forms at the beginning, and then some of them went extinct, then we would expect to find fossils of all kinds at equal frequency throughout history up until their extinction. And this is simply not the case. There is, for example, a specific period in which point we stop finding amphibian fossils - namely, the end of the Devonian period, which took place 416-359 million years ago. Unsurprisingly, the tiktaalik fossils - the transitional form between fish and amphibians - date to 383 million years ago, smack in the middle of the Devonian period. This is no coincidence.The only other explanation is that, at certain points in history, God miraculously beamed transitional form onto earth - an explanation which, for me at least, requires a considerable suspension of disbelief to be taken as a serious alternative to evolutionary theory.(Alpha and Omega)
similarities does no equal evolution
You seem to have fallaciously reduced my point to "Evolution is true because many species look similar." This is untrue. The sentence which you quoted was part of a much broader point about how it is incorrect to superimpose our current classification of species onto all of evolutionary history, and how today's species are tomorrow's transitional forms.

 

[Alpha and Omega]

(Lunar;55699)
The entirety of the quote which you provided - the one which talked about "mythicization by evolutionists" - is nowhere to be found in the Lisle & Grant article. It is, however, found verbatim and uncited on the darwinismrefuted.com site, with the Lisle & Grant article cited as a source for the one passage "The population, subjected to natural selection, is oscillating back and forth." The claim that evolution did not occur in the Galapagos finches is not anywhere to be found in the research of Grant, nor of any credible biologist, and in fact Peter and Rosemary Grant specifically argue that the Galapagos finches are a prime example of evolution.
So you are making me seem like the bad guy because someone else falsifies something? (Lunar;55699)
What is the alternative explanation for these transitional forms, exactly? That God has periodically been zapping new species onto the planet which just so happen to resemble intermediary forms between major classes of animals? How exactly does the creationist hypothesis account for this?
It's quite interesting you point this out actually. We see exactly what happens in the Genesis account....Genesis 1:11And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.Genesis 1:21And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.Also very interesting to note that this (similarities between animals past and present) was written some 5000 years before the theory of evolution.Here are the rest of the after kind phrases usedhttp://cf.blueletterbible.org/search/trans...fter+kind&t=KJV(Lunar;55699)
The creationist might reply that God simply created all of these forms, transitional and otherwise, at the beginning, and that the transitional fossils which we see today are simply original species that have gone extinct. But if God created all these forms at the beginning, and then some of them went extinct, then we would expect to find fossils of all kinds at equal frequency throughout history up until their extinction. And this is simply not the case. There is, for example, a specific period in which point we stop finding amphibian fossils - namely, the end of the Devonian period, which took place 416-359 million years ago. Unsurprisingly, the tiktaalik fossils - the transitional form between fish and amphibians - date to 383 million years ago, smack in the middle of the Devonian period. This is no coincidence.
No they were not created all at the beginning. The species that we see now are roughly 12, 000 old give or take. That is why we do not see them in the geological record. Why 12, 000? Well, as we see in the creation account in Genesis God had to re-create everything because something happened to the earth or sun that everything on earth died and was flooded. There is actually evidence of mass extinction just a few thousand years ago but to no surprise it is widely ignored. Here is a link talking about the subject though. http://www.custance.org/Library/Volume4/Pa.../chapter10.htmlFurthermore, if a comet destroyed the dinosaurs why did species evolve from them?

 

[Lunar]

(Alpha and Omega;55707)
So you are making me seem like the bad guy because someone else falsifies something?
No, it is because you took a quote from darwinismrefuted.com and then implied that Peter Grant actually shared that view by citing his paper, rather than the site itself as the source.(Alpha and Omega)
It's quite interesting you point this out actually. We see exactly what happens in the Genesis account....
First and most importantly, the bible is not a valid scientific source.Second, none of those quotes actually imply a gap in creation that is longer than one day. If God's creation of transitional forms over an extended period of time is in any way implied by those passages I am not seeing them.Third, it always baffles me when Christians suggest that the fact that the Bible uses the word "kinds" to refer to animals is some sort of radical scientific insight for the time. A child can figure out that a dog and a cat are different kinds. You don't need to the bible to tell you that. The content of evolutionary theory is not that different kinds exist, but how they came to exist.(Alpha and Omega)
No they were not created all at the beginning. The species that we see now are roughly 12, 000 old give or take. That is why we do not see them in the geological record. Why 12, 000? Well, as we see in the creation account in Genesis God had to re-create everything because something happened to the earth or sun that everything on earth died and was flooded.
You are aware that this dating is wildly out of whack with the scientific consensus? Of course, I suppose you don't believe in radiometric age dating either.(Alpha and Omega)
Furthermore, if a comet destroyed the dinosaurs why did species evolve from them?
Well, it's not at all certain that it was an asteroid that destroyed the dinosaurs. There was some sort of massive shift in the climate which may have been caused by a catastrophic event like an asteroid or volcanic activity. Or, it may have been a more gradual change. However, if it was an asteroid, the mere immediate impact of it could not have wiped so many species out. It was the change in environment that ensued because of the impact - or whatever else triggered the extinction event - that caused the extinction of the dinosaurs, because they were no longer suited to this new environment. This is actually consistent with evolution in the best possible way.Here's the thing. This event took place 65 million years ago. At that point, some dinosaurs had already begun evolving notably avian characteristics (and in fact had been doing so for almost 100 million years). After the mass extinction event, the environment changed in a way which put a huge negative selective pressure on non-avian dinosaurs. The avian dionsaurs - or in other words, early birds - were the only dinosaurs which survived this extinction.

 

[Alpha and Omega]

(Lunar;55713)
No, it is because you took a quote from darwinismrefuted.com and then implied that Peter Grant actually shared that view by citing his paper, rather than the site itself as the source.
I implied nothing the site did. You wanted the source and I gave it to you. If I gave you the site you would be singing the same tune. Saying somehow I did something unethical because I read something and then quoted it. No worries next time I will look up every thing that I read before I quote it.(Lunar;55713)
Second, none of those quotes actually imply a gap in creation that is longer than one day. If God's creation of transitional forms over an extended period of time is in any way implied by those passages I am not seeing them.
There is no gap in those passages so you wouldn't see it. The gap is in between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2(Lunar;55713)
Third, it always baffles me when Christians suggest that the fact that the Bible uses the word "kinds" to refer to animals is some sort of radical scientific insight for the time. A child can figure out that a dog and a cat are different kinds. You don't need to the bible to tell you that. The content of evolutionary theory is not that different kinds exist, but how they came to exist.
Well the Bible wasn't stating in those verses that a dog and cat are different kinds. It states that the animals created in the seven days of creation are created after their kinds. Implying that there were similar animals that lived on the earth before the animals created in the seven days of creation. The animals created in the seven days are similar to those that walked on the earth millions of years earlier.

 

[Lunar]

(Alpha and Omega;55715)
There is no gap in those passages so you wouldn't see it. The gap is in between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2
Explain to me exactly how that implies a gap?(Alpha and Omega)
It states that the animals created in the seven days of creation are created after their kinds. Implying that there were similar animals that lived on the earth before the animals created in the seven days of creation. The animals created in the seven days are similar to those that walked on the earth millions of years earlier.
So you are saying that organisms that were created in Genesis 1:11-27 are not the first animals that God created? You're saying that the creation of the originals were simply never mentioned in Genesis? The creation account moves from the creation of heaven and earth to the creation of transitional forms, and completely skips over the first creation of life? If I am understanding you correctly, then color me incredibly skeptical.However, this discussion is moot. The bible's account of creation does not count as empirical evidence for or against evolution.

 

[Alpha and Omega]

(Lunar;55730)
Explain to me exactly how that implies a gap?So you are saying that organisms that were created in Genesis 1:11-27 are not the first animals that God created? You're saying that the creation of the originals were simply never mentioned in Genesis? The creation account moves from the creation of heaven and earth to the creation of transitional forms, and completely skips over the first creation of life? If I am understanding you correctly, then color me incredibly skeptical.
yes that is what I am saying. According to the Bible there are 3 earth ages we are in the 2nd right now. The first was with all the animals that we see in the geological record. Now I could explain it but there is just too much information there to say in one post. Here is a very informative site on the gap theory. http://www.kjvbible.org/(Lunar;55730)
However, this discussion is moot. The bible's account of creation does not count as empirical evidence for or against evolution.
Ahh but it would explain to someone why species are so very similar to each other and to previous life on earth. I mean technically this has been written down thousands of years before anyone ever considered this. Scientific or not it's undeniable that its been there.

 

[Lunar]

(Alpha and Omega;55731)
yes that is what I am saying. According to the Bible there are 3 earth ages we are in the 2nd right now. The first was with all the animals that we see in the geological record. Now I could explain it but there is just too much information there to say in one post. Here is a very informative site on the gap theory.
None of that answers one very basic question: Why would the Genesis account leave out such an important event (the first life), but then specifically mention a much less significant one (latter transitional forms which, if I understand correctly, were beamed into existence after the first life)? It simply makes no sense - it's as though God is trying to deceive or confuse us. Every other sequence in the creation account is talking about the creation of the first instance of something - the first light, darkness, water, earth, etc. Why would they then skip over the first life as though it wasn't important and then talk about later life? And moreover, why wouldn't the gap be mentioned in the bible itself?You cannot subscribe to this theory without also subscribing to the belief that the "inerrant and perfect" word of God was intentionally obfuscated.(Alpha and Omega)
Ahh but it would explain to someone why species are so very similar to each other and to previous life on earth. I mean technically this has been written down thousands of years before anyone ever considered this. Scientific or not it's undeniable that its been there.
"Scientific or not" is a big if when it comes to discussing evolution, since this is clearly not scientific.That being said, your interpretation of Genesis seems highly dubious to me, and does not suggest a theological explanation for transitional forms. Interpreting the phrase "after their kinds" as you did was ambiguous enough, especially since that passage is translated as "according to their kinds" in other versions. But that such incredibly crucial information, like a gap in between the first two verses, or the creation of the first life, would be omitted, either makes your theory look improbable or makes God look like an awful writer.

 

[jeffhughes]

I feel that I need to add my two cents into this discussion. Up until very recently, I was an ardent literal, 6-day creationist, and I loved to argue against evolutionists and their "bogus theory." But recently I realized that it wasn't fair of me to believe something without at least examining, with an open mind, the evidence for the other side.Now I'm not saying that any of you are closed-minded or anything like that. But during my examination, I came across this site:http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.htmlThis, in all honesty, was what "converted" me, if you want to say it like that, to a belief that evolution occurred. It is a comprehensive list of pretty much every creationist argument you could ever think of, and then at least three or four reasons why it is not true. I think it does an excellent job, at the very least, of clearing up some misconceptions. Again, this is just my input on the matter, but I've been reading this discussion, and I would recommend that creationists go to this site first, read up on what it has to say about the specific matters, and then if you STILL don't agree with it, then post about it. This might, at the very least, weed out some of the less important arguments, which will make for a more fruitful discussion.And Lunar, I'll try and help you out here....since you seem to be in the minority

 

[Alpha and Omega]

Jeff here is a site about the creation story hope you enjoy.http://www.kjvbible.org/

 

[jeffhughes]

(Alpha and Omega;55869)
Jeff here is a site about the creation story hope you enjoy.http://www.kjvbible.org/
I have looked into the Gap Theory a little bit - I think I actually looked at that exact site previously. In my opinion, the day-age theory seems to make a little more sense to me, but really, either way, it's not really the issue in discussion here. What is being discussed is whether evolution actually occurred or not - whether it can be reconciled with the Bible, or what interpretation of Genesis best includes evolution, is really not an issue. Not in this discussion anyway. But thank you for the site, and I will continue to look into the different models.

 

[HillTop]

To Lunar:I have read the entire argument posts in this thread with an open mind.What is blatantly obvious, first of all, is that you are an incredibly articulate person with a high level of intelligence. Majoring (and excelling) in Philosophy is a notable feat in itself, and I admire that.Personally, I am a man of faith- and nothing I read here or listen to will ever dissuade me from the Truth that lies in our Creator, God.Again, I do commend your personal achievements and intelligence. I can now only pray that God will open your heart and mind to the fact you could have never achieved any such level of intelligence if not for His blessing.One day the entire truth will be revealed to each of us. Please don't make the epic mistake of trying to outsmart your Creator in the meantime.God bless you.

 

[jeffhughes]

(HillTop;56001)
Personally, I am a man of faith- and nothing I read here or listen to will ever dissuade me from the Truth that lies in our Creator, God.
A question for you then: Do you believe that meteorology is a valid pursuit to undertake? Or do you hold that God is responsible for the weather we have every day - that He decides whether it rains or whether the sun shines?Do you believe that rabbits chew their cud? Or that bats are birds?I ask these questions because they all have a common theme: They are all areas of the Bible where at one point mankind believed it to be true, but now evidence has shown it isn't. We have found out the water cycle and how weather patterns are formed, and while meteorology is far from an exact science, we know much more about the subject, and we know that there are natural laws that are responsible for the shifting of weather patterns. So when we found that out, did people take their Bible and say, "Well that's not what it says in here! So it's not true!" No. We looked at the evidence, and said, "Well maybe our interpretation of the Bible was wrong. Maybe God doesn't influence weather directly, but instead established weather patterns to govern the skies."The Bible mentions that rabbits chew their cud - an easy mistake to make for people in ancient times. But now we know that rabbits do something which I consider quite disgusting, but it works - they eat their excrement since their digestive tract isn't long enough to get all the nutrients out the first time. At any rate, did we as humans stick to the literal interpretation of the Bible and insist that rabbits chew their cud? No. We just assume that God spoke to the Israelites in terms they would understand. Same thing with bats. They have wings like birds, so it's surely possible that without close examination, they could be considered birds. But now that we have done that close examination, we know they're not. Do we still insist that they are birds? No.I could go on and mention how the Bible at least in some ways implies that the earth is flat, or that the sun revolves around it, but I think you get the point. In light of the evidence, it is clear that the way we interpret the Bible may be right or wrong. And it is in light of physical evidence that we can learn to change our interpretation.So assuming for a moment that evolution can be proven (well, I believe that it can, but for your sake let's just assume it for a bit), then what do we do? Do we throw away the evidence and insist that what the Bible says is exactly and literally true, or do we understand that perhaps our interpretation of what it says may be incorrect? I think you understand the picture.From there, the only thing that any evolutionist needs to do is convince you that evolution can be proven. And that can certainly be done. There are numerous examples that Lunar has pointed out, but because you are already dogmatic in your interpretation of the Bible, you dismiss it. (You meaning creationists in general, I'm not trying to attack you, HillTop.) What I'm trying to get at is that it is possible to accept facts without having to throw away the Bible. It's not an either-or situation. It may require you to rethink whether your interpretation of the Bible is correct, but in the face of cold, hard evidence, in my opinion it is more reasonable to accept that perhaps the interpretation may be wrong.It's at least something to consider. Perhaps accepting evolution only requires us to think of God as more of a Grand Conductor of the orchestra of of the universe than a "Creator."

 

[Lunar]

(HillTop;56001)
What is blatantly obvious, first of all, is that you are an incredibly articulate person with a high level of intelligence. Majoring (and excelling) in Philosophy is a notable feat in itself, and I admire that.
Thank you very much.(HillTop)
I can now only pray that God will open your heart and mind to the fact you could have never achieved any such level of intelligence if not for His blessing.
Well, I suppose that is up to him. I'll just call them like I see them until then.I do think that evolution and Christian theology are perfectly compatible, as jeffhughes has described. Faith in the bible is all well and good, if that is your cup of tea, so long as that can be reconciled with the observable. Some interpretations - like literal 6-day creationism - struggle to do that. Others are more successful.

 

[HillTop]

(Lunar;56020)
Thank you very much.Well, I suppose that is up to him. I'll just call them like I see them until then.
No problem, I'll give credit where it's due.I would also like to get a promotion at work without having to do anything to earn it. I'm afraid it's not going to happen though.(Lunar;56020)
I do think that evolution and Christian theology are perfectly compatible, as jeffhughes has described. Faith in the bible is all well and good, if that is your cup of tea, so long as that can be reconciled with the observable. Some interpretations - like literal 6-day creationism - struggle to do that. Others are more successful.
I don't discredit all scientific evidence. Evolution in and of itself, proven or unproven, does not dismiss the notion of a Supreme Creator. I don't dabble in it much for the simple fact that I choose to believe God does exist and lives with us today. Like any other human being, my mind is capable of being warped by reading too much of man's "wisdom"- and that's not healthy for the relationship I have with Christ.But heck, I might as well be talking about Snoopy and Woodstock hereYou and I certainly won't be agreeing on much, but that doesn't mean we can't be friends. I'll still be praying for you.

 

[univac]

Where is the credit due? External observation or internal observation? Can you explain why the abode was created by GodHill top? Do you know that there was an abode in the first place? If not how is credit due?