Evoken

Andrew_theist,

I..like you am a Christian and am skeptical about Evolution and as a result have decided to learn more about it. I am not skeptical about microevolution..I see no problem with that but it is macroevolution that I am trying to understand, I just started reading the 29+ Evidence for Macroevolution Essay from TalkOrigins and have been gathering info from other sites. I have no opinion about it yet but once I have basic knowledge about it I will post any questions I may have here.

Since you consider TalkOrigins biased I think you could try reading some information against Evolution from this page:
http://www.ideacenter.org

I am no scientist or biologist or anything but their essays look well documented like those of TalkOrigins, maybe taking a look at both sides of the issue will help you learn more about the real thing biases and all aside.

Have a good one,
Asimis

anthrosciguy

Note that the the IDEA Center says on their site: We are pleased to announce that our Advisory Board includes: John Baumgardner, Michael Behe, William Dembski, Mark Hartwig, Phillip Johnson, Jay Wesley Richards, Dennis Wagner, and Jonathan Wells.

People who've read even a bit on intelligent design will recognise at least some of these names, and having recognised them, will also realise that they are incredibly biased toward a certain form of intelligent design -- ie. the Christian God -- and therefore this site is not unbiased -- far from it. You have to realise that if you are reading "both sides" and one side is dishonest like that (hiding their true agenda) you are not getting an honest, balanced account. Talk Origins, on the other hand, has people who are Christian as well as people of other religions and people with no religion at all -- that approach is far more balanced, and certainly incredibly more honest, than a group which hides its true agenda.

Evoken

I agree. I was offering the link to Andrew_theist because he said TalkOrigins was biased.

I think TalkOrigins is unbiased but in any case it is good to see different sources.

LP675

My point was not that you need another one, just that you probably don't have a viable alternative.

I made the offer to look but I didn’t think you were interested (waited but I didn’t see you ask, and regardless of whatever evidence I post I think it wouldn’t do much, I could explain away anything anyone posted i.e. mistake, natural surprise recovery, forgery, lies, delusion etc. I also hate getting accused of derailment, so if you want to talk about it here please keep it brief).

Wounded King

I don't see anything in the least bit controversial about this. In fact I very much doubt that any one here with a good grounding in evolution could find fault with it. Anyone who accepts that some organelles of the eukaryotic cell are the product of endosymbiosis cannot help but agree that mutation and natural selection alone are insufficient, unless one uses a ludicrously broad definition of 'mutation', to explain the current diversity of life on Earth. Similarly the large amount of, in some cases related, evidence for lateral/horizontal gene transfer cannot easily be lumped as mutation.

Very few evolutionary biologists would argue that random mutation and natural selection were the only mechanisms ever to have operated to produce the current diversity of life on Earth. There are a number of accessory mechanisms which have been discovered in the past century. None of these mechanism argue against the operation of random mutation and natural selection as a mechanism for creating diversity in a population or originating new species.

Since this isn't actually a position put forward by modern evolutionary science it is a strawman.

It is worth noting that this does not mean it would be impossible for this mechanism to give rise to such diversity, but the evidence certainly indicates that that is not how life on Earth has come about.

If such a scenario is all you object to in terms of macroevolution then there is no problem.

If you object to a material explanation on principle, then that is a matter of your relative evaluation of the worth of personal faith and the scientific method, but it is a philosophical rather than a scientific matter.

TTFN,

WK

Sven

Why? Can you give examples?

Wow. You're the first Christian in this forum I've ever seen to agree on this.

If Andrew_theist indeed needs other sources (additional to the one you gave), he can always look at the extensive list of creationist websites at talkorigins. I really don't understand how one can call a website with a link-list like this "biased", Andrew_theist ... :huh:

And I'm still waiting for any creationist website to give this favour back ...