Sparrow

I'm not cmprehending what you're trying to say here. 'Godidit' would be a theist rationale.

People trust science because it has a track record of working and is self correcting. What phenomena do you claim science cannot study? Please do not confuse 'knowing' with 'studying' or 'explaining'. Science advances when we observe phenomena that do not occur as predicted. Newton's understanding of gravity works exceedingly well for masses and speeds common to the human experience. Einstein figured out that Newton's understanding didn't work at very large speeds and developed a theory that did work at those speeds and still explained all of Newtons observations. For Einstein's theory to be accepted (and it wasn't initially) it still had to explain all the previous observations. We're still working through all the predictions Relativity suggests, but it is essentially correct. Yet it is still incomplete, because it doesn't work at very small distances, those of the particles of an atom and smaller. Einstein knew this and worked on it until his death. Quantum theory works very well for these distances, but fails outside of them. While it's also essentially correct, it is also incomplete. Some physicists think string theory might be able to unify the two areas, but consensus has not developed as of yet.

Darwin and Wallace noticed the mechanism of natural selection and established the initial theory of evolution. While they were wrong in some details, the theory is essentially correct. We're still learning more about it and refining it. Perhaps someday a brilliant mind will make a breakthrough similar to Einstien's and significantly enhance the theory, but if that happens, it will still be a naturalistic explanation.
Evolution does not speak to the origination of life. Your comment here refers to the basic organization of the universe whic is well outside the area addressed by evolutionary theory.



Sorry, I don't understand your response. Reverse engineering depends on the predictive value of science. Reverse engineering would fail if god intervened in some unpredictable way. If your god is instead predictable, it would be possible to study it with science, yes?



As others have said, define to us what you mean by micro and macro. Where is the divising line?



I am only familiar with three popular explanations for the diversity of life on this planet: evolution, creation (literal interpretation of Genesis) and Intelligent Design (Some very powerful designer creates the major different types of life, evolution takes over for the small changes). Of these three, evolution best explains and fits with the observations we have. Feel free to identify errors in reasoning or observations from the published science, but based on what I've read, you're not quite ready to convince anyone in the field that you're reasoning is sounder than theirs. If you do identify some error, you'll be helping to get the theory more correct. Of course if you want to overturn the entire theory as being wrong, you must offer an alternative explanation which not only clears up the the errors you've identified, but also explains everything else that has been observed.

It didn't appear to me that alternate explanations were being 'slammed', but if evolution is wrong, we need a better explanation for the phenomena we see. Such an explanation would need to fit all the existing observations. Creation certainly does not do this; instead it fails spectacularly. The more literal reading of Genesis you take, the more spectacularly. ID tries to avoid these obvious errors, but does so by not making any real predictions. It's basically an argument from incredulity (I can't believe it happened this way, so it must not have). To the exent ID accepts some aspects of evolution (those aspects that are observable directly) it is more correct than creation, but it is still a poorer explanation than evolution.

You are quite correct that a spectacular failure of creation does not mean evolution is right. But there's no other theory currently challenging it that is anywhere close to the explanatory power evolution offers.

_Naturalist_

Well, science can look at that claim and see there's no evidence for it. Same goes for Genesis creation.

bluesky

Roland gave a super cool example, but there are simpler ones that might make sense to you.
Take the gene that causes Sickle Cell Anemia for instance: Link

One mutation of one nucleotide.
If you get two copies of this gene, you get sickle cell. Bad news.
But, if you only have one copy of this gene it ends up you are resistant to malaria—A very useful trait!

Peez

Hi, and welcome.Does this imply that those who accept evolution are not free thinkers?This is a rather vague definition, but more or less is correct. However, you should know that "evolution" is often used in at least three senses in biology (as simplified as possible):

Evolution (the process): An inheritable change from one generation to the next in characteristics of individuals in a population.

Evolution (the history): All living things have evolved by descent with modification from common ancestors.

Evolution (the theory): The mechanisms of evolution are mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

The fist is simply an observed process. The second is a scientific fact. The third is a scientific theory.This certainly can be involved in sexual species, but there is much more than that (and of course asexual species don't mix their genes in that way).Mutations are far more common than you seem to imagine. Virtually every person born has several mutations.I am afraid that you are confused about what a mutation is. By definition, a mutation is a change in the genetic information of an organism. Thus, it does not need to be "encoded in the genes," it is already there. This means that it can be passed on just like any other genetic material. If it is beneficial at all, then it is more likely to be passed on than genes in other individuals. If you don't even understand this very basic biology, I suggest that you are criticising evolution prematurely.I am not sure that I understand you here. Natural selection is not something that happens between species, it happens between individuals within a population of a species.We have observed the evolution of new species.Nope. You seem to have a very low opinion of scientists.Actually, no. Just showing that evolution could have produced the species we see today would not prove that the have all evolved from common ancestors. You are clearly unfamiliar with this topic, which makes your feeble attempts to criticise it very poor indeed.

Peez

Andrew_theist

Greetings all,

I can’t respond to each and every post but I will try to cover the highlights.

First I see many responses are immediately jumping to the false dichotomy of evolution vs. creationism. I am not advancing creationism though I do believe in a Creator of the universe. Regarding how life developed into its present state I am not sure. As I mentioned in my first post I am not an ‘a-evolutionist’ who denies or disbelieves evolution. I am however skeptical that as the theory stands it alone accounts for the development of species.

I define micro-evolution as change within a species such as the color of a moth or the size of a finches beak. I define macro evolution as the belief that such micro changes over eons are responsible for the variety of life and that this process alone was responsible for changing organisms from the simplest forms to what we observe now including ourselves.

I am reading the article now and will let you know what I think when finished.

I think a lot of people are exposed to the evidence in favor of microevolution and assume it is the same as evidence of macro-evolution and so they capitulate.

The sites I was referred to clearly had an axe to grind. I didn’t spend hours searching for the quotes I printed. Most of them were from the first paragraph.

I don’t rattle. If you or others understood it well, what its implications are and how it was beneficial you would be able to explain it in lay terms. This is the quote I am referring to.

There was no link provided it was a cut and paste job. I am trying to engage in a dialog.

Okay that is a straight forward explanation and it’s interesting. I’d like to see a link to the experiment. Did a mutation or something else actually change to allow this to occur? Did the change pass on to future generations?

As I mentioned earlier this is an atheist sound bite that is not critically thought out. The reverse is that every question can be answered with Naturedidit but that doesn’t cause anyone to throw in the towel. If we got our hands on advanced alien technology would we give up understanding it because Aliendidit? The answer is of course not. We would attempt to reverse engineer the technology to see how it works employing the same techniques we apply to things we assume to be a case of Naturedidit.

Some folks may say that but I haven’t.

Then you would agree science will only search for naturalistic explanations whether such or true or false, correct?

Why not?

I agree that scientists can’t explain how a phenomenon such as a computer works by saying God did it. But if the question were what caused a computer to exist saying intelligent beings designed and produced computers would have more explanatory power over some scenario of time and chance mindlessly creating computers.

Do you seriously believe that except for the fact we have observed intelligent beings creating computers that we would be unable to deduce they were intelligently designed? So barring observation we would be venturing some mechanistic explanation of how computers might have come to exist and we would be wrong.

Why do you assume a priori it was naturalistically caused? What evidence do you have that natural forces could be the cause of their own existence? Why would a universe coming into existence uncaused fall into the natural category?

To answer your questions I observe nothing about the laws of physics or nature that suggests it could bootstrap itself into existence. If the universe was caused it seems logical to believe it was caused by something other than itself since nature didn’t yet exist. If your going to advance the notion the entire universe could come into existence (out of nothing evidently) and without any cause on what possible grounds could you reject a transcendent creator? It seems a case of the kettle calling the pot black. Even so I am not denying such a possibility. It seems to me however you prefer this possibility not because its anymore in evidence only because its an explanation that excludes God. Secondly just as I think the possibility of mindless forces creating a Cray supercomputer is nil so I think the chances of mindless forces creating something far more complex such as a universe with stars, planets, solar systems and galaxies. We know that the slightest deviation would cause a universe with no stars or one with mostly black holes. What would lead me to believe mindless forces got it just right by happenstance? Lastly the characteristics of the universe that it is uniform, predictable and knowable is just like phenomenon we know to be designed intelligently. I believe the reason scientific inquiry works is because scientists are reverse engineering the universe. Apart from design I don’t think it would be predictable.

Why should I? I am not an a-evolutionist. I am only expressing skepticism.

More later…

Roland98

Yes, it was the abstract to the paper I cited. I generally assume when people come on here and proclaim how they've done research into evolution, (at least enough so that they doubt the findings of scientists), that they've actually done the readings. You are always free to ask for clarification before suggesting that I don't understand it well enough to describe it to a layman.

I did provide you with the reference, so you could look it up yourself. Word of advice: you should become familiar with PubMed if you're going to come in here and challenge working scientists. I can never recall if this is university-specific, but this is the link for the paper. (If the link doesn't work, or you don't have any university access, drop me a PM with your email address and I can email you the .pdf of the article).

I have dial-up here and it doesn't want to download the paper at the moment, but yes, it was due to a mutation. IIRC, a frameshift mutation, specifically.

Yes. Pseudomonas, as mentioned above, is a type of bacterium. So any mutation that occurs in the parental cell will be passed along to future daughter cells.

Viti

Roland, who has a PhD in Microbiology, gave you the correct and specific citation

The name of the authors, the name of the study, the publication, and the dates. You can use a correct citation to find the full thing. Try PubMed or see if the journal Applied and Environmental Microbiology has a website with archived articles.

And for the record, I am also a layman, I didn't even go to college, yet I was able to get the gist of the absract and am fully aware of how published studies are cited, worded, and where they can be found. You can learn too.

1veedo

I would post the highlights concerning something from nothing but I figure I’ll go ahead and post my entire article: http://1veedo.com/index3.php?page=article/bbb

I posted an older version of the article here at IIDB, but nobody replied. I was hoping to get some tips on diferent things to “finish�? it; as right now its only a rough draft (the renovations will mostly be in the beginning of the article; I think I’ll talk more about early science and Creationism).I'll also discus virtual particles as well.

DrummerWench

I've linked to / quoted these a couple times before, but maybe you'll find them useful and thought-provoking, so here they are again.

Here are some articles from the October, 2003 issue of Presbyterians Today, a monthly magazine. They briefly discuss science, religion, origins, etc., from a noticeably TE point of view.

From the cover article

Another article mentions

These articles are all written by and for Christians (unless Presbyterians don't count as True Christians™). As you can see, rejecting evolution is not the only POV available to Christians.

I myself am a theist of the Christian persuasion, who thinks the idea of Creationism of the Biblical literalist sort is by far more impious than the idea of evolution.


If, in fact, you are

perhaps you'd be best off making an honest, un-biased effort to learn exactly what evolution is and claims, and what it does not. In your posts above, you already appear to have conflated Evolution (how living organisms change) with Abiogenesis (how life began) and with the "Big Bang" (how the universe began). Evolution has very little to say about Abiogenesis and nothing at all to say about the Big Bang.

If you truly wish to learn about evolution, try learning about it from scientists, rather than from creationists and IDists, who also have quite an ax to grind. When reading the literature you encounter, keep in mind that many scientists are people of faith of all stripes, including Christian.

Also bear in mind that scientists (whatever their belief system) are both interested in truth (with a small "t") and ruthlessly competitive. Thus, they are only too happy to expose another scientist's misconceptions and inaccuracies. That the TOE is not just accepted by almost all scientists (many of whom are Christians), but serves as the foundation of all biological science, is a tribute to its solid explanatory power and to the fact that it has not yet been falsified. (Any scientist who falsified the TOE would wind up with a Nobel Prize, worldwide fame and as many speaking engagements as s/he cared to fill.)


DrummerGirl

Oh, dear. Why did I do this? I so don't have the time...

Sparrow

But you said it so well! Thanks for your input.