I'm a theistic evolutionist.

Author: Dynasty

Posts

Total: 137
#61
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,008
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
from what I have read, evolution is a new/different organism or characteristic than the parent species, to become better, more complex, go up, de-evolve would be the opposite.


I'm not sure this is exactly right: species don't evolve for the reasons bolded. There are no 'better' species. There are species that are better adapted to their environment, sure, but they aren't trying to 'go up' anything. Evolution gives a reproductive advantage to certain arrangements of DNA well before speciation occurs. Take an example of squirrels and foxes, very simply. Squirrels and foxes reproduce, and only the ones that are alive do so, right? Say you have 10 squirrels. 5 are faster than the other 5. And two foxes much faster than the other eight. The faster foxes pick off the slower squirrels first, because they're faster than the slow foxes AND the slow squirrels. This means the slow foxes don't have the same level of energy as the faster ones, which means the next time they're competing for the same squirrel, they can't keep up, and the fast foxes eat their lunch again. The problem continues until such time as the 8 slow foxes die of starvation. Some random mutation led to a slightly faster fox, and now the slower foxes have been squeezed out via natural selection. The two faster foxes reproduce with each other, and the genes that made them faster are passed on (presuming they are not mutated in reproduction). But what of the squirrels? The first squirrels to die are the slower ones, right? QUickly too, since both the faster fox and the slower fox can catch them. But once the faster foxes proliferate, they eat the slower squirrels, leaving only the squirrels that are more difficult to catch. If the squirrels are TOO fast for the foxes, the foxes will either go extinct, or some mutation in their DNA will either speed them up or improve their camouflage or let them eat something else. It's important to remember that you're talking about unobservable changes generation to generation, for the most part. In order to truly observe this in nature, you'd need THOUSANDS of years and tens of thousands of generations. So how do we know it happens, how does science prove it? Google "observable speciation" and you'll get a bunch of examples.  

If evolution were true, wouldn't scientists be able to recreate the sequence of change that transformed monkeys into humans?
Scientists can know where in the gene sequence we differ from anything with DNA. Are you asking why is there no scientific experiment wherein a scientist takes a monkey, manipulates its genetic code, and it wakes up a man / gives birth to a human? That transformation happened over tens of thousands of years, maybe hundreds of thousands. We observe genetic mutation every single day, it's how new diseases come to be, for example. Maybe I misunderstand what you're looking for.  

And in a broader sense, it does not seem the universe could have created itself arbitrarily and still be completely, totally, and in every regard, systematic.

This is arguing from incredulity, but it also mischaracterizes the universe. While the universe is predictable in its behavior for the most part, it's a chaotic mess if you take a look at the larger picture. Black holes defying the laws of physics, stars exploding and crunching up spacetime, stuff running into each other all over the place, unimaginable distances for no discernible 'systemic' reason...the universe is far from orderly, which is what I think you mean by systemic in that case. 
#62
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@ludofl3x
you are talking about survival of the fittest basically which I don't disagree with.

in your example, this arbitrary beneficial difference, what evidence is there that something like that has actually happened?  this certainly IS done by selective breeding which can also happen in nature calling it survival of the fittest and or adaptation.  I don't see how it's evolution though.  If evolution is the same as adaptation and or survival of the fittest the word is meaningless and pointless.

mutations are not evolution the way I understand those words are used and mean or I have not seen any evidence to prove it.

How can you prove evolution using the scientific method?

The scientific method has five basic steps, plus one feedback step:
  1. Make an observation.
  2. Ask a question.
  3. Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation.
  4. Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
  5. Test the prediction.
  6. Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.

#63
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,008
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Ok, so you don't disagree with survival of the fittest (which is language I don't think really works, it's really survival of the MINIMUM).

in your example, this arbitrary beneficial difference, what evidence is there that something like that has actually happened? 
My example is generic. You'd have to look at the history of species going extinct and then try to figure out why. You seem to recognize that survival of the fittest makes sense, so I'm not sure what you're objecting to here. We have a fossil record replete with species who didn't survive, and DNA similarity ratios (like you share XX% DNA with this creature, YY% DNA with this plant, etc). I'm not really sure what sort of evidence you'd be looking for, can you say what might convince you?

How can you prove evolution using the scientific method?

The scientific method has five basic steps, plus one feedback step:
  1. Make an observation.
  2. Ask a question.
  3. Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation.
  4. Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
  5. Test the prediction.
  6. Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.
THere's a lot of ways, actually! Have you tried searching for 'observable speciation' or 'evolution experiments'? How about this, where scientists observe within a very short amount of generations the adaptations of a species of fish into two different species of fish?


ETA: If you're asking why you can't observe a monkey turning human using the scientific method, it's because of the immense amount of time that evolution of this nature normally takes. 
#64
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@ludofl3x
where scientists observe within a very short amount of generations the adaptations of a species of fish into two different species of fish?
you see, you said it yourself, thus my very first question about the difference between adaptation and evolution, if there isn't one then the word evolution isn't unique, has no unique meaning and shouldn't be used, it's redundant at best.

yes, organisms adapt.

'observable speciation'  they are talking about "species splitting in two"
I don't see how a hybrid is consider a split since it's a combination so I won't bother with the link.

'evolution experiments'
um, that would be intelligent design would it not?
#65
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,008
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
'evolution experiments'
um, that would be intelligent design would it not?

Not unless you're talking about targeted breeding and the like. But if you believe in targeted breeding being successful, be it for species of dogs or species of peppers, why don't you believe that unguided evolution over 3.5 billion years would result in what we have today? You can do evolutionary experiments on stuff with very short lifespans (fruit flies, bacteria, etc). 

I guess it doesn't really matter if you call it evolution or adaptation, you're talking about the same thing, which results in the diversity of species on earth. 
#66
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@ludofl3x

I'm thinking more of the macro evolution " If the bottle became a can, that would be macro evolution."


(everything is adaptation except for the very beginning when non life changed to life, that is how I understand what evolution is.)

Natural selection is simply the tendency of beneficial traits to increase in frequency in a population.
An adaptation is a characteristic that increases an organism's chances of surviving, mating, and reproducing.
The difference between inherited adaptations and evolution is that when the accumulated adaptations become so numerous that the resulting organism's DNA is no longer compatible with the ancestral version of the organisms, the organism has evolved into a new species.


(I like those explanations/definitions.)
#67
ronjs
ronjs's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 268
0
2
2
ronjs's avatar
ronjs
0
2
2
-->
@ludofl3x
So, evolution is a creative process, so why could it not create life?
#68
ronjs
ronjs's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 268
0
2
2
ronjs's avatar
ronjs
0
2
2
-->
@ludofl3x
Darwin believed it could be applied to origins and one of his influences said he wanted to "free the science from Moses", so these men were convinced that evolution could explain the "Origin of Life".
Topic's author
#69
Dynasty
Dynasty's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 219
0
1
7
Dynasty's avatar
Dynasty
0
1
7
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
There are theories of evolution.
#70
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,008
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@ronjs
It's a process that only uses what's there. It has nothing to do with abiogenesis. 
#71
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Dynasty
yes, theories, which are like opinions really, but yeah I can understand why some people might believe it without and actual proof, just theory.
#72
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,008
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
You should look into the difference between scientific THEORY and scientific HYPOTHESIS. They're not interchangeable, but people often think they are. 
#73
ronjs
ronjs's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 268
0
2
2
ronjs's avatar
ronjs
0
2
2
-->
@ludofl3x
Which is one reason why evolution and creation creation are incompatable, evolutionary science can not tell us how everything originated, but God tells us in plain straight forward language.
#74
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,008
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@ronjs
Evolution doesn't deal in any way with abiogenesis. That's what it looks like your real question is. Where did it all come from? You say it's god, but I would ask you why should anyone believe that. 

#75
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,343
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Salixes
My particular view is that atheism - is a religion. True it is not an organised religion - it is the quintessential paradigm of a non-organised religion - much like wicca or the older pagan religions. 

And your view is completely wrong.

religion: "A state of life bound by religious vows" (Oxford dictionary)

You are deliberately stirring up hatred in others and you should refrain from doing so.
Perhaps I am wrong. Yet, given that I take the view that religion as defined by most of the world, the non-secular world, is simply a synonym for worldview, then most of the world is wrong. Unfortunately for you, I reject the secular definition of religion as self-serving and nothing more. It actually does not even allow for Buddhism to be considered religious - because Buddhists as a general rule don't believe in God and are effectively atheists. Hence, the definition by secularists of religion does not even fit one of the most common and accepted religions in the world. It is therefore a defective definition. The non-secular definition is therefore a much better fit. Atheists reject this of course, because they like to think that they are above religion yet, for whatever reason, most of the persons I see on a religious forum are the so called non-religious. I think that like moths they are drawn naturally to discussing worldviews - religion. Atheists think they are right - and that the way they see the world is correct- and they want to enter the discussion.  Hence, why you are here on a religious forum posting religious comments. 

In my view - you are actually far more religious than me. 
#76
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,310
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ethang5
A quick glance at history etc.
A quick glance at history proves you wrong.

For example. Neither Einstein nor Darwin were able to fully allow their intellect to exceed their theistic upbringings.


And I have two children....What was the point you were trying to make?

They are both undoubtedly a product of British, local and familial social conditioning, but this does not prevent them from achieving, relative to their intellectual capability.
#77
Manuel_Layba
Manuel_Layba's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6
0
0
0
Manuel_Layba's avatar
Manuel_Layba
0
0
0
-->
@ronjs
So, evolution is a creative process, so why could it not create life?

But the life is what did make the evolution so that the life is evolving.
#78
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@zedvictor4
...early years conditioning is what makes the difference between you and I and explains the fundamental differences in the way we think and the way we tend to formulate and output data sequences in a similar but slightly different way.
I disagree, I and its clear you don't have children. You believe this because you are totally invested in your material mindset.

I have two children....What was the point you were trying to make?
Children are different long before early years conditioning kicks in. They come out of the womb already different.

...acquiescing to conditioning remains unavoidable, to even the most intellectually gifted individuals.
A quick glance at history proves you wrong. Acquiescing to conditioning is  not unavoidable, people escape it everyday.

A quick glance at history proves you wrong.
For example. Neither Einstein nor Darwin were able to fully allow their intellect to exceed their theistic upbringings.
That is your bias causing you to be illogical. I tend not to waste time against purely emotional arguments.

Both Einstein and Darwin were able to rise above the contexts of their societies and see new truths. 

Not acquiescing doesn't mean one rejects all conditioning, but that one does not allow their thinking to be limited by that conditioning.

We are talking about them years after their deaths precisely because they did not acquiesce to early conditioning and rose above the boundaries set by their societies. Neither Einstein or Darwin were intellectual sloths.

They did not blindly hang on to what their societies called correct. They rejected the senseless and held on to the truth even  under great social pressure.
#79
Manuel_Layba
Manuel_Layba's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6
0
0
0
Manuel_Layba's avatar
Manuel_Layba
0
0
0
-->
@ethang5
We are talking about them years after their deaths precisely because they did not acquiesce to early conditioning and rose above the boundaries set by their societies. Neither Einstein or Darwin were intellectual sloths.

They did not blindly hang on to what their societies called correct. They rejected the senseless and held on to the truth even  under great social pressure.

Theyre made God not true because people dint now that before and if God was true then evolution would not happen.
#80
Manuel_Layba
Manuel_Layba's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6
0
0
0
Manuel_Layba's avatar
Manuel_Layba
0
0
0
-->
@secularmerlin

You are confusing the theory of evolution with the origin of life. The theory of evolution dies not claim to tell us where the first life came from it is only our best understanding of the process that began the moment there was any life and that led eventually to the diversity of species we see today.
Your right because if evolution is true the life is true and the first life came from evolution because it wouldn't evolve any way and we would not be here so the first life that started begun to evolve.
#81
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,310
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ethang5
Hmm.

That last post was something of a rambling and emotive mish mash of ideas that sort of missed the point.

Early years conditioning is because it is and subsequently intellectual ability achieves what it is capable of and all is to a greater extent dictated by genetic predetermination.

So Einstein and Darwin achieved what the did because they could. Nonetheless they were never able to "rise above" and completely throw off the hang ups of their theistic conditioning.

Data written into to your memory in your formative years is the most persistent....

So as you get older and start to loose your marbles the first to be forgotten will be all the latterly acquired stuff...

Have you drunk your juice Mr Ethan?....What juice?

And you will eventually forget who your wife and children are when they come to visit.

But you will be continually asking the nurse.... when is mummy coming to get me..



#82
ronjs
ronjs's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 268
0
2
2
ronjs's avatar
ronjs
0
2
2
-->
@ludofl3x
Anyone is free to believe what they want but should look at all the evidence, including the different interpretations of the evidence to decide what to believe.
 Evolutionists allege that modern humans originated  from apelike creatures and, before that from single cell organisms, so this is still dealing with origins.
#83
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,008
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@ronjs
Evolution doesn't deal with origin. It deals with development. And you're leaving out an awful lot of steps in between, either way. In any case, if you think evolution and abiogenesis are answers to the same question, there isn't a lot of point in our discussion. You're simply wrong. What you believe about the diversity of life on the planet doesn't necessarily intertwine with how the original form of life arose in the first place. I still don't know why a theist would think god used evolution, at least the christian version of god, because the book doesn't mention anything along those lines. This view, 'theistic evolutionist', is just trying to dress up the classic god of the gaps. 

#84
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@ludofl3x
I still don't know why a theist would think god used evolution

Why not? when do things just pop into existence without a process? God has to be able to build creation with materials, from pure energy to whatever form God wishes to play with. I don't see the problem really TBH. And much of this I went over already with you, how this is possible and how it fits together. 

at least the christian version of god, because the book doesn't mention anything along those lines.

There is no real contradiction unless you take the first few chapters of Genesis as a literal account, instead of a figurative one. And the Bible is not a science book it is a spiritual one, it's objective isn't to give mention of the specific formulas used to create the universe. If it were, then it would be much larger than what it already is lol.

is just trying to dress up the classic god of the gaps. 

You mean when something actually fits you make up a fallacy in order to ignore the facts?
#85
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,008
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@EtrnlVw
when do things just pop into existence without a process? 

How did god start to exist, exactly?
#86
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@ludofl3x
How did god start to exist, exactly?

Awareness is a static reality, asking how God started to exists is the same as asking how energy started to exist. God neither popped into existence or started to exist, the definition of eternal is "lasting or existing forever; without end or beginning."

#87
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,008
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@EtrnlVw
God neither popped into existence or started to exist, the definition of eternal is "lasting or existing forever; without end or beginning."

So there are things that seem to exist without any process, you're saying? 
#88
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@ludofl3x
So there are things that seem to exist without any process, you're saying?

No not thingS, I'm saying only awareness, which is a unifying static reality exists without any process. Out of that first Reality all things have their origin or process. Awareness co-exists with energy, conscious activity is what generates energy, energy in return is used to create processes. So while conscious activity generates energy, both energy and awareness are the only "things" that can exist eternally without beginning or ending. Since they co-exist, they are basically a single reality out of which all things have their existence.

#89
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,008
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@EtrnlVw
 I'm saying only awareness

Ah, right, special pleading, got it. Nothing exists without a process, except this thing, which exists without a process. 

both energy and awareness are the only "things" that can exist eternally without beginning or ending. 
So it is "thingS," which is strange since you started your post by saying:

No not thingS, I'm saying only awareness,

#90
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@zedvictor4
And you will eventually forget who your wife and children are when they come to visit. 
But you will be continually asking the nurse.... when is mummy coming to get me..
You don't know this, and if I did, it wouldn't validate your pet theory.

Both my grandmother and my great grandmother on my mother's side lived past 100 and neither lost their memory.