Christian Forums

Well most of the replies were laced with pretty bad language so I'll skip to the interesting parts:

Me: "If bacteria needed to evolve to survive, then why is bacteria still around? And yet everything dies anyway. If an organism MUST evolve for survival purposes, then why do the organisms supposedly inferior at surviving (ex: bacteria) still exist, and yet more evolved species are better at surviving in the same sorts of habitats.

Him: "Organisms must survive to reproduce. That is it. The end. If an organism survives to reproduce, it is fit. Problem solved. So long as older species are still fit, they remain.

Quote from: Cally on Tue Oct 27, 2009 - 19:11:24
Well most of the replies were laced with pretty bad language so I'll skip to the interesting parts:

Me: "If bacteria needed to evolve to survive, then why is bacteria still around? And yet everything dies anyway. If an organism MUST evolve for survival purposes, then why do the organisms supposedly inferior at surviving (ex: bacteria) still exist, and yet more evolved species are better at surviving in the same sorts of habitats.

I don't know why this other person stated that one MUST evolve to survive...it's flat out wrong.  Ants haven't evolved much over quite a vast period of time [hundreds of thousands of years?]. 

Same with crocs and sharks.


From the infamous Wikipedia:

They are an ancient lineage, and are believed to have changed little since the time of the dinosaurs. They are believed to be 200 million years old whereas dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago; crocodiles survived great extinction events


Sharks (superorder Selachimorpha) are a type of fish with a full cartilaginous skeleton and a highly streamlined body. The earliest known sharks date from more than 420 million years ago, before the time of the dinosaurs.

Quote from: Ciscokid on Tue Nov 03, 2009 - 08:22:06

Quote from: Cally on Tue Oct 27, 2009 - 19:11:24
Well most of the replies were laced with pretty bad language so I'll skip to the interesting parts:

Me: "If bacteria needed to evolve to survive, then why is bacteria still around? And yet everything dies anyway. If an organism MUST evolve for survival purposes, then why do the organisms supposedly inferior at surviving (ex: bacteria) still exist, and yet more evolved species are better at surviving in the same sorts of habitats.

I don't know why this other person stated that one MUST evolve to survive...it's flat out wrong.  Ants haven't evolved much over quite a vast period of time [hundreds of thousands of years?].  

Yes, and my fundamental question was, why was macro-evolution necessary in the first place? Why should it have happened? "Micro-evolution" occurs because of changes in habitats for the most part, but macro-evolution? On top of that, macro-evolution somehow managed an extremely tricky balance in habitats with new organisms (that is, nothing messed up the food chain--all "more-evolved" organisms were kind enough not to eat the lower ones to extinction).

^I realize I am responding to this article, not you, but that doesn't answer my question at all.

Micro-evolution is adaption to a particular habitat.

Macro-evolution is nothing like that. It is not necessary for greater ability for survival which is what micro-evolution accomplishes--hence those organisms still exist. Macro-evolution accomplishes nothing for greater ability to survive or reproduce. Microorganisms (of some sort) survive everywhere multi-cellular organisms do, and reproduce, just as ably. They "micro-evolve" to be able to survive in those places and did so well enough. Why, then, should they have needed to evolve into multi-cellular (this is just an example, of course)?

Another example is this: A strain of bacteria that "micro-evolved" in the beginning still exists today. But a larger, multicellular organism that existed much later with much more evolution does not.

So what happened? Much more evolution produced inferior results for survival and reproduction than a micro-evolutionary change did!

Again, how and why should such a thing happen?

Quote from: Cally on Tue Nov 03, 2009 - 18:07:39
^I realize I am responding to this article, not you, but that doesn't answer my question at all.

Micro-evolution is adaption to a particular habitat.

Macro-evolution is nothing like that. It is not necessary for greater ability for survival which is what micro-evolution accomplishes--hence those organisms still exist. Macro-evolution accomplishes nothing for greater ability to survive or reproduce. Microorganisms (of some sort) survive everywhere multi-cellular organisms do, and reproduce, just as ably. They "micro-evolve" to be able to survive in those places and did so well enough. Why, then, should they have needed to evolve into multi-cellular (this is just an example, of course)?

Another example is this: A strain of bacteria that "micro-evolved" in the beginning still exists today. But a larger, multicellular organism that existed much later with much more evolution does not.

So what happened? Much more evolution produced inferior results for survival and reproduction than a micro-evolutionary change did!

Again, how and why should such a thing happen?

Lots of evolutionary modification does not = immortality.   Keep in mind, the earth goes through many changes over time...creatures that were once very "fit" are now extinct.  Most species of animals do not survive long term.  What animals we have present today only represent about 1% of what's been here over time.

^Yeah, and I'm still saying: why did a superior strain of bacteria--that has existed ever since it formed--NEED to turn into a multi-cellular organism?

Again, it still sounds like we have completely lost all need for macro-evolution entirely, to me.

Habitats changed, but not so much as to kill off every sort of single-cell organism. Why evolve to multi-cellular?

Since single-cell organisms have never been wiped out, micro-evolution is the answer to all habitat-changing factors.

Yes, organisms across all complexities have become extinct, and that shows that they are no superior at surviving.

So again, what is the NEED for an organism to macro-evolve, period? What is accomplished?

Cally raises a good point...in microevolution species adapt to their environment...they "evolve" or "adapt."

In macroevolution, a species changes entirely.  So, what about the evironment caused it to change...and why is the old organism still present...if the old organism is present, then it did not need to adapt, did it?

In Christ,
KP

It's not like some certain sub-species corporately thinks to itself, "hey I need to adapt to survive."

It's not planned at all; the whole theory is predicated on chaos and mutation.  You seem to have assumed design in the process, which is assuming the end of the argument.

Anyway, I have my own theory on how speciation occurs, and it has more to do with synthesis, symbiosis, devolution, and catechlismic environmental changes than macro-evolution.

Jarrod

Quote from: k-pappy on Wed Nov 04, 2009 - 12:44:06
Cally raises a good point...in microevolution species adapt to their environment...they "evolve" or "adapt."

In macroevolution, a species changes entirely.  So, what about the evironment caused it to change...and why is the old organism still present...if the old organism is present, then it did not need to adapt, did it?

In Christ,
KP

Animals are not static creatures that just sit in their environment chewing on food and mating, they migrate and roam around.  The earth is also not a static environment, it's quite dynamic.  Environmental pressures can cause all kinds of changes, these changes can lead to new branches in the tree of life.

You had me until the last part.  Rather than a assume, I will ask.  When you state, "lead to new branches in the tree of life," are you claim by adapting to a new environment a species will turn into a new species? 

In Christ,
KP

I have access to nukes?

Man, look out!

Quote from: k-pappy on Mon Nov 09, 2009 - 10:46:57
You had me until the last part.  Rather than a assume, I will ask.  When you state, "lead to new branches in the tree of life," are you claim by adapting to a new environment a species will turn into a new species? 

In Christ,
KP

This can happen yes.   Here is a good example of what I meant:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/beta/evolution/evolution-action-salamanders.html

But it's still a salamander...

It did not turn into a bird...

Species change, yes, but they do not create different species from their changes.

In Christ,
KP

Quote from: k-pappy on Mon Nov 09, 2009 - 13:07:10
But it's still a salamander...

It did not turn into a bird...

Species change, yes, but they do not create different species from their changes.

In Christ,
KP

I think we have some confusion on the usage of the term "species".   Yes ultimately they are still "salamanders" but some of them can no longer inter-breed at this point.   So when I was talking about "different branches on the tree of life" I wasn't just referring to the 'trunks' [salamanders and birds] but also the fine branches [species]. 

Just to get a better idea of your position, do you believe that wolves and foxes are related?

I think I understand why people have trouble believing the Theory of Evolution.

Everyone pretty much agrees that animals adapt to changes in the environment
and have no problem with small incremental changes.

It's the BIG changes – macro evolution that is hard to grasp.


Maybe this will help:  from http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionexplained/a/micro_macro.htm


There is one particular aspect of evolution that needs to be given specific attention: the somewhat artificial distinction between what is called "microevolution

Cally, what you provided is microevolution, I have no issue with that.

Victor, macroevolution is not hard to grasp, it is hard to prove.  As of today, there is no empirical evidence to prove the theory of evolution.

In Christ,
KP

Yes and what is also remarkable is the fact that organisms that have remained since the beginning are still vitally necessary for the sake of the food chain.

Like I said before, it sounds awfully generous of those bacteria to stay bacteria. "Someone has to do this job, right? I'll stay a bacteria." (or at least some version of it)

No matter what, there is clearly no environmental need for a single-cell organism to leap to a multi-cellular organism, as single-cell organisms are found all of the same places multi-cell organisms are.

The interdependency of organisms is also highly-compelling evidence against evolution. An organism also cannot AFFORD to evolve unless the organisms it "came from" are willing to stay as they are to be its food source!

And, there is mitochondria, and the helpful bacteria that live in the digestive system.

Quote from: k-pappy on Mon Nov 09, 2009 - 18:13:41
Cally, what you provided is microevolution, I have no issue with that.

Victor, macroevolution is not hard to grasp, it is hard to prove.  As of today, there is no empirical evidence to prove the theory of evolution.

In Christ,
KP

True but then we don't have empirical evidence for the theory of gravity.   Do you also have doubts about that?

I find the similarities between us humans and other primates to be tough to just dismiss.  Either God made it "look" like we're related, or we are.

Quote from: Ciscokid on Tue Nov 10, 2009 - 11:12:50

Quote from: k-pappy on Mon Nov 09, 2009 - 18:13:41
Cally, what you provided is microevolution, I have no issue with that.

Victor, macroevolution is not hard to grasp, it is hard to prove.  As of today, there is no empirical evidence to prove the theory of evolution.

In Christ,
KP

True but then we don't have empirical evidence for the theory of gravity.   Do you also have doubts about that?

I find the similarities between us humans and other primates to be tough to just dismiss.  Either God made it "look" like we're related, or we are.

We don't have empirical evidence for the theory of gravity?  You have got to be kidding.  Or perhaps you are confused about what empirical means.  The empirical evidence is all around.

Quote from: Jimmy on Tue Nov 10, 2009 - 11:47:58

We don't have empirical evidence for the theory of gravity?  You have got to be kidding.  Or perhaps you are confused about what empirical means.  The empirical evidence is all around.

We base the theory on what we observe...how is evolution different.  You can't ultimately prove that invisible pixies guide gravity.  That's what I mean.

Quote from: Ciscokid on Tue Nov 10, 2009 - 12:18:46You can't ultimately prove that invisible pixies guide gravity.  That's what I mean.

Thanks for clearing that up.

"I've got a gun!" 

Quote from: Ciscokid on Tue Nov 10, 2009 - 11:12:50

Quote from: k-pappy on Mon Nov 09, 2009 - 18:13:41
Cally, what you provided is microevolution, I have no issue with that.

Victor, macroevolution is not hard to grasp, it is hard to prove.  As of today, there is no empirical evidence to prove the theory of evolution.

In Christ,
KP

True but then we don't have empirical evidence for the theory of gravity.   Do you also have doubts about that?

You are incorrect.

Here is a definition for you:  empirical - denotes information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment. A central concept in science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses.

There is empirical evidence for gravity.  There is empirical evidence for microevolution.  There is not one shred of empirical evidence for macroevolution.

In Christ,
KP

Quote from: Ciscokid on Tue Nov 10, 2009 - 12:18:46

Quote from: Jimmy on Tue Nov 10, 2009 - 11:47:58

We don't have empirical evidence for the theory of gravity?  You have got to be kidding.  Or perhaps you are confused about what empirical means.  The empirical evidence is all around.

We base the theory on what we observe...how is evolution different.  You can't ultimately prove that invisible pixies guide gravity.  That's what I mean.

There have been innumerable experiments conducted to evaluate the theory of gravity.  The experiments are conducted, the results observed are compared with the results predicted by the theory.  All such tests have shown agreement between prediction and observation.  Such correlation between predictions and observations have been going on for hundreds of years by thousands upon thousands.

Not even one such experiment has ever been conducted with evolution.

Quote from: Jimmy on Wed Nov 11, 2009 - 16:35:28

There have been innumerable experiments conducted to evaluate the theory of gravity.  The experiments are conducted, the results observed are compared with the results predicted by the theory.  All such tests have shown agreement between prediction and observation.  Such correlation between predictions and observations have been going on for hundreds of years by thousands upon thousands.

Not even one such experiment has ever been conducted with evolution.

Sorry Jimmy...

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA210.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/beta/evolution/darwins-predictions.html

Quote from: Ciscokid on Wed Nov 11, 2009 - 17:02:09

Quote from: Jimmy on Wed Nov 11, 2009 - 16:35:28

There have been innumerable experiments conducted to evaluate the theory of gravity.  The experiments are conducted, the results observed are compared with the results predicted by the theory.  All such tests have shown agreement between prediction and observation.  Such correlation between predictions and observations have been going on for hundreds of years by thousands upon thousands.

Not even one such experiment has ever been conducted with evolution.

Sorry Jimmy...

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA210.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/beta/evolution/darwins-predictions.html

As predictions/confirmations those carry about as much weight scientifically as Nostrodomus' predictions carry prophetically.  Make enough guesses and some will obviously be found to be correct.  They don't bother to tell you all the "predictions" that have been made that have been found to not be correct.  The difficulty in formulating a scientific theory is that it takes lots of experiment/verifications to show that it is true, it takes only one to show that it is false.

What you presented there, or rather what talkorigins and pbs presented in no way verifies evolution as a scientific theory.  I have said it before and I will say it again, evolution is history not science.  It simply is someone's best description of what might have happened based upon the data available.  As more data becomes available, such descriptions perhaps come closer and closer to what actually took place.  That it is history not science doesn't mean that it is wrong.  It just means that it is not science.  It can't be established as a field of science.

Quote from: Victor08 on Mon Nov 09, 2009 - 14:52:19
I think I understand why people have trouble believing the Theory of Evolution.

Everyone pretty much agrees that animals adapt to changes in the environment
and have no problem with small incremental changes.

It's the BIG changes – macro evolution that is hard to grasp.
    .
    .
    .
    .

The problem is not that it is hard to grasp.  I have no trouble understanding what they are saying.  The problem is the extent of the macroevolution that they are asking me to believe has never been demonstrated.  The reason that the biologist doesn't make a distinction between the micro and the macro is because it is the only real basis he has for making the statements that he does.

The biologist (or rather the evolutionist) offers up the examples of changes such that the new entities can not breed with the old entities.  Wholesale physiological changes may not even be apparent.  A nonspecialist may not even be able to tell them apart.  But they have become two different species.  Then that is supposed to convince everyone that such changes resulted in man macroevolving from bacteria. And they get all upset when anyone questions their "theory".

Quite frankly, the other question that I have is why do such "macro" changes always seem to lead to higher forms of life?  Where are the examples of such changes going the other way?  Surely if it is possible for bacteria to evolve into man, i.e., from lower form to higher form, then it must just as readily be possible for the higher form to "evolve" to a lower form.  No such examples of that are on display anywhere that I have seen.

Quote from: Jimmy on Thu Nov 12, 2009 - 06:50:29

As predictions/confirmations those carry about as much weight scientifically as Nostrodomus' predictions carry prophetically.  Make enough guesses and some will obviously be found to be correct.

I don't think scientists draw up 1000 "guesses" and hope to find a few that "just happen" to be right.  Darwin made some specific predicitions that turned out to be quite true...you may call that a guess if you wish.

Quote from: Jimmy on Thu Nov 12, 2009 - 06:50:29
They don't bother to tell you all the "predictions" that have been made that have been found to not be correct.  The difficulty in formulating a scientific theory is that it takes lots of experiment/verifications to show that it is true, it takes only one to show that it is false.

Wow, where to start.  You might as well live in a cave and completely shun science altogether because I can assure you that along the way scientists have made predictions that turned out to be false BUT did not necessarily falsify every component of the theory as a whole.  Science is self correcting, you can't be self correcting w/o being wrong here or there. 

Quote from: Jimmy on Thu Nov 12, 2009 - 06:50:29
What you presented there, or rather what talkorigins and pbs presented in no way verifies evolution as a scientific theory.  I have said it before and I will say it again, evolution is history not science.  It simply is someone's best description of what might have happened based upon the data available.  As more data becomes available, such descriptions perhaps come closer and closer to what actually took place.  That it is history not science doesn't mean that it is wrong.  It just means that it is not science.  It can't be established as a field of science.

You are free to believe this.

Quote from: Todd Grace on Tue Nov 17, 2009 - 19:59:06
First of all Darwin's tree of life does not exist in the fossil record. If you were to use a botanical illustration it would look like a yard with grass. I will explain in a super post on this subject soon.
As far as the theory of evolution, I would encourage everyone to read or get some info. about the theory of irreducible . Michael Behe has a book called The Black Box which ices it when it comes to dismissing evolution theory.
I'll get all this in a post soon, I was just jumping in cause I hadn't seen Cally in Theology.

I believe Behe was at the Dover trials [Dover is not far from where I live] and he was soundly defeated.  There are literally thousands of peer-reviewed scientific journals on the theory of evolution.  How many do we have for Behe's theory of IC?  Zero.  Not one.  It's an argument from ignorance.

From  http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/Christian_Clergy/ChrClergyLtr.htm


The Clergy Letter - from American Christian clergy
          – An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science

Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.

We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as "one theory among others

Quote from: Todd Grace on Wed Nov 18, 2009 - 01:01:18
There is now a HUGE shift away from evolution theory both in the U.S. and Europe. You gentlemen need to get out of the 60's, we now have overwhelming evidence for design. The strangest thing about the religion of evolution and atheism is your God, [ dirt, hope,and time ]. I will provide all the science to bury Darwins antiquated theories. Let me know if you want to learn.

You know nothing about "my God", I thought this was a discussion about Darwin and Evolution.

Quote from: Todd Grace on Wed Nov 18, 2009 - 01:01:18
There is now a HUGE shift away from evolution theory both in the U.S. and Europe. You gentlemen need to get out of the 60's, we now have overwhelming evidence for design. The strangest thing about the religion of evolution and atheism is your God, [ dirt, hope,and time ]. I will provide all the science to bury Darwins antiquated theories. Let me know if you want to learn.

I'm not sure where you're getting these ideas, what HUGE shift are you talking about?  Creationists have been trying to get ID taught in the classroom on several different attempts and failed every single time.   Intelligent design isn't a scientific theory, it's simply a way to get biblical literalism [young earth] implanted into our society. 

QuoteBut it's still a salamander...

It did not turn into a bird...

If it did, evolutionary theory would be in big trouble.   It might be good if you'd look up the theory and see what it's about.   A population going from one class of vertebrate to another in a few generations would completely refute Darwin's theory.   

QuoteSpecies change, yes, but they do not create different species from their changes.

That's been repeatedly observed.   Even YE creationists now admit that speciation is a fact.

QuoteSaying it ain't so doesn't provide proof of evolution theory. There is a letter called a dissent of Darwinism. It to is signed by thousands of PhD's from major universities through out the U.S.A. and other countries.

Hundreds.   And few of them actually have doctorates in biology.   There are theologians, electricians, chemists, etc.   Here's a way to match up your appeal to popularity:

Project Steve is lists people who accept evolution theory, who have doctorates in Biology and are named "Steve" or some variant.   There are currently well over a thousand of them.    Your list, last time I checked, had maybe one named Steve with a doctorate in something close to biology.  (Medicine, but it didn't list the degree).    So that one falls apart on inspection.

QuoteMany European scientists are coming to the same conclusions. I'm not sure you know Behe's  theory or not, but it is one tool design theorists are using. I will provide you with a wealth of information on the subject if you like. DNA coding in itself is a blueprint that has a design.

At the Dover trial, under oath, Behe admitted that his "theory" was scientific in the same sense that astrology is scientific.    After his testimony, all the other prominent IDers set to testify, decided to skip it.   For obvious reasons.

QuoteOne thing you have to understand about Darwin, he didn't have the kind of instruments he needed to prove his theory. The electron microscope shows how simple systems like cells are mini machines which can not be built incrementally. Darwin described just this type of system himself and said," If it can be shown that a living system can be shown to be so complex that it would not be able to be formed in incremental stages my theory would fall apart".

Sounds like an interesting idea.   Show us something in biology that couldn't have formed by increments.

QuoteDarwin couldn't see DNA or even something as simple as a bacterial flagellum.

Did you know that the bacterial flagellum is not, as Behe assumed, irreducibly complex?   Turns out that there's several versions, each simpler than the last, and one very simplified version has a different function entirely.

QuoteYou have to remember a lot of scientist got their degrees on the study of evolution theory and anything that challenges that puts their degrees and reputations on the line, so one should expect them to defend them. If they are wrong their degrees are worthless.

You may have noticed the remarkable achievements of modern biology.   Turns out those "worthless" degrees are producing new and useful information at an increasing rate.   Maybe they know something about biology you don't?

QuoteAgain there are just as many highly degreed, non-Christian, scientists who absolutely challenge evolution theory.

Interesting claim.   Show us.

QuoteI've been studying design for years now and if you keep an open mind I am confident you will question evolution theory also.

For years, um?   Explain to us how Dembski's "explanitory filter" works.

QuoteYou might not totally change your mind but you would definitely be stunned and your views would be different. This is scientific information not religious. Not knowing your subject is ignorant.

Yeah, it is.   We'll see how you do.