The Implications of Evolution: Ideas Have Consequences

[The Baron]

This is not an accurate characterization of the study of evolution.

Actually it is a wonderful characterization. But if it makes you feel any better, once again, this was not my characterization.

You don't have to look at million year old fossils to know that evolution is real.

That's good 'casue I don't really think the world is that old.

It's not a process that exists solely within the past. You can observe the mechanics of evolution occuring right now, in real time. No species ever stops evolving. You can actually see natural selection causing species to evolve...

Natural selection and evolution are not the same thing.

...especially in species that reproduce rapidly, like insects and bacteria.

And does bacteria or insects ever become something else?

No.

Then nothing has evolved.

 

[Somerville]

Having studied the subject for a number of years, having read numerous books and articles, watched numerous videos, debates, etc. I can safely say that that it is not "near universal".

Opinions on this are wide ranging.

Yes, opinions are "wide ranging", that does not however lend credence to your claim about there being little scientific consensus in regards to evolution.

A 2019 report from the Pew Center found that your religious faith causes you and millions of other believers to reject reality.

Among scientists connected to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 98% say they believe humans evolved over time. Roughly three-quarters (76%) of Americans perceive that most biological scientists hold this view, according to the new study. Those in the general public who reject evolution are divided on whether there is a scientific consensus on the topic: 46% say most biological scientists think humans have evolved due to processes such as natural selection, and 52% say most biological scientists think humans have always existed in their present form.

Richard William Nelson, owner of the website/blog Darwin Then & Now, is yet another creationist who wields his PhD as a bludgeon against those weirdos who believe the Theory of Evolution is scientifically verifiable. Perhaps you have read his book or watched some of his videos.

 

[Quag]

Even so what was the periodicity of that day? A day on Jupiter isn't the same length as a day on Earth. We are still left with a good possibility that the reference is outside the normal Earth day/night cycle



Which is then followed up by the creatures of the land. IIRC, according to evolution theory, life began in the seas, and then migrated to the air an land, as they evolved.




Says who? Show me the source that says that evolution is only about change free from the hand of man. Yes, we typically reserve the use of the word "evolution" for that purpose, but evolution is the change in a species into a new one over time. Breeding is simply directed evolution, as opposed to natural evolution. It's really not much different from abortion (and I am not getting into the morals or anything else regarding that subject). A miscarriage is a natural abortion. Abortion is simply the termination of a pregnancy. While we typically use abortion for the artificial process, and miscarriage for the natural one, reality is, at this point of lingual use, particularly in the medical field, both are abortions. Likewise, changes in a species into a new one is evolution, whether it occurs naturally or directed by man.



Couldn't? No, I am not suggesting that at all. I am suggesting that He wanted certain processes to govern the functioning of the planet and the universe and created the processes, then used them to achieve other goals. You might as well argue against the idea of the water cycle, asking if God couldn't just make it rain whenever He wanted it to. And actually, if we assume the Flood account real, that rain was probably not sourced from the normal water cycle.



But wolves didn't remain wolves did they? And new breeds arise, as others go away, although more of the former than the later.



Which part?



Yes an explanation on the mechanics of reality. I make no claim that initial explanations will always be correct, but they are what fits the evidence of the time. And usually substantiated, again based upon the evidence available at the time.



It doesn't ignore it, nor does it ignore all those trying to prove that God and the Bible are not true. It is a simple statement of fact that there is no evidence either way and thus both possibilities are equal in their potential.

Have to disagree with bolded. We have no clue what the potential of either possibility is and thus cannot make any claims on the potential of either

 

[Irredentist]

Actually it is a wonderful characterization. But if it makes you feel any better, once again, this was not my characterization.

That's good 'casue I don't really think the world is that old.

Of course not, it's much much older. 4.5 billion years old, actually.

Natural selection and evolution are not the same thing.

Natural selection is the mechanic which drives evolution. You cannot have one without the other.

And does bacteria or insects ever become something else?

Of course they do. Bacteria and insects evolve into other kinds of bacteria and insects, with different characteristics, behaviors, feeding habits, etc. That is why you have butterflies and cockroaches, both insects, but with very different appearances and lifestyles.

 

[watsup]

For my own personal experience?

Really?!

So we are to accept “your own personal experience” over the decades of research and data by evolutionary biologists? Really?

 

[watsup]

Having studied the subject for a number of years, having read numerous books and articles, watched numerous videos, debates, etc. I can safely say that that it is not "near universal".

Opinions on this are wide ranging.

I’m sure that you have heard of the term “garbage in, garbage out”. If your “study” over the years consisted of focusing on the sophistry of anti-evolutionists, then it’s not worth the proverbial hill of beans.

 

[watsup]

Actually it is a wonderful characterization. But if it makes you feel any better, once again, this was not my characterization.

That's good 'casue I don't really think the world is that old.

Natural selection and evolution are not the same thing.

And does bacteria or insects ever become something else?

No.

Then nothing has evolved.

“I don’t really think that the world is that old” is all that you will ever need to know about the depth of knowledge of Baron.

 

[The Baron]

Even so what was the periodicity of that day? A day on Jupiter isn't the same length as a day on Earth. We are still left with a good possibility that the reference is outside the normal Earth day/night cycle

Unlikely. We know what a day is on Earth and nobody is talking about Jupiter. But to address your question, the key lies in understanding what the Jews of the time would have understood a "day" to mean. And, to the best of my knowledge, we have no reason to believe they would have understood it to be anything other than a day.

Which is then followed up by the creatures of the land. IIRC, according to evolution theory, life began in the seas, and then migrated to the air an land, as they evolved.

That is my understanding of evolutionary theory, as well.

Says who? Show me the source that says that evolution is only about change free from the hand of man.

To name one--Richard Dawkins. He wrote an entire book on that very subject called The Blind Watchmaker.

Yes, we typically reserve the use of the word "evolution" for that purpose...

Typically?

...but evolution is the change in a species into a new one over time.

I agree with this statement. It does, of course, beg the question, "what is a species"? You must know there is no agreement on this point, don't you?

Breeding is simply directed evolution, as opposed to natural evolution.

Breeding does not create a new species.

It's really not much different from abortion (and I am not getting into the morals or anything else regarding that subject).

Thank Heavens! Otherwise, Lursa would be over here losing her mind.

A miscarriage is a natural abortion. Abortion is simply the termination of a pregnancy. While we typically use abortion for the artificial process, and miscarriage for the natural one, reality is, at this point of lingual use, particularly in the medical field, both are abortions. Likewise, changes in a species into a new one is evolution, whether it occurs naturally or directed by man.

Evolution is evolution. Breeding is breeding. Neither creates a new species.

Couldn't? No, I am not suggesting that at all. I am suggesting that He wanted certain processes to govern the functioning of the planet and the universe and created the processes, then used them to achieve other goals.

You are speaking of our natural laws and plays into the "fine-tuning" argument which even Richard Dawkins said was the best evidence for God (although he still doesn't believe).

No, I understand your point. But evolution remains a rather elusive theory.

But wolves didn't remain wolves did they? And new breeds arise, as others go away, although more of the former than the later.

Your talking about variation within a kind. And variation is not evolution.

Which part?

The part that Adam & Eve is allegorical to most Christians.

Yes an explanation on the mechanics of reality. I make no claim that initial explanations will always be correct, but they are what fits the evidence of the time. And usually substantiated, again based upon the evidence available at the time.

But as I've already stated--somewhere around here...I forget where--that evidence is interpreted within a certain paradigm. Both sides do this. You can never underestimate the role bias plays into all of this.

It doesn't ignore it, nor does it ignore all those trying to prove that God and the Bible are not true. It is a simple statement of fact that there is no evidence either way and thus both possibilities are equal in their potential.

I still think you have to ignore the evidence to make such a claim.

 

[The Baron]

Any theory in and of itself is not science. Science is the process by which we learn and by which we test theories. Science can happen even if we are not testing any theory per se, although one usually develops in the midst of it. The whole process of "let's see what happens" can be science as long as the process is controlled, and results are recorded. When people say "the science of <subject>" that's more idiom than actual use of the word science.

Science follows a prescribe format. You and I both learned it in high-school and it was the same method that was taught when I went to get my engineering degree. It is--or should be--unbiased and duplicatable.

The idea behind evolution itself is solid and valid.

The idea? Maybe. But the "idea" is far from science.

The application of it as to which species are evolved from which other ones, might not be spot on, but the application of the theory is different from the theory itself. I think that there is a lot of common conflation of the two in today's world. But if evolution doesn't exist, then where do new species come from? Do they just spontaneously appear?

Once again, what are you calling a "species". There is no real agreement on the term and what it means and this becomes problematic for evolution. Even Darwin recognized this issue.

And, once again, I suspect that what you are calling a "new" species is simply variation within a kind.

 

[The Baron]

Theres a difference between:

1. Not possible.
2. Seems silly.

If you are simply saying that you don't think a god would use evolution, then fine, that's your opinion. If you are saying if evolution is true then it's impossible that a god used it then you need to show evidence to back that up, and you can't do that.

Seems as thought that blade cuts both ways. Can you prove that God did you evolution? You'll "need to show evidence to back that up, and you can't do that".

You presented this thread as though it's not possible. You are wrong, or at the very least, the person you are trying to characterize, is wrong. Period.

It's a point of view and one that I subscribe to. The point of the thread is to discuss the possibilities. I've built my case as best as I'm able and presented it in the OP.

 

[The Baron]

Yes, opinions are "wide ranging", that does not however lend credence to your claim about there being little scientific consensus in regards to evolution.

A 2019 report from the Pew Center found that your religious faith causes you and millions of other believers to reject reality.


Richard William Nelson, owner of the website/blog Darwin Then & Now, is yet another creationist who wields his PhD as a bludgeon against those weirdos who believe the Theory of Evolution is scientifically verifiable. Perhaps you have read his book or watched some of his videos.

Strawman. I never said that there was "little scientific consensus in regards to evolution". I said it was not "near universal".

Difference.

 

[watsup]

Unlikely. We know what a day is on Earth and nobody is talking about Jupiter. But to address your question, the key lies in understanding what the Jews of the time would have understood a "day" to mean. And, to the best of my knowledge, we have no reason to believe they would have understood it to be anything other than a day.

That is my understanding of evolutionary theory, as well.

To name one--Richard Dawkins. He wrote an entire book on that very subject called The Blind Watchmaker.

Typically?

I agree with this statement. It does, of course, beg the question, "what is a species"? You must know there is no agreement on this point, don't you?

Breeding does not create a new species.

Thank Heavens! Otherwise, Lursa would be over here losing her mind.

Evolution is evolution. Breeding is breeding. Neither creates a new species.

You are speaking of our natural laws and plays into the "fine-tuning" argument which even Richard Dawkins said was the best evidence for God (although he still doesn't believe).

No, I understand your point. But evolution remains a rather elusive theory.

Your talking about variation within a kind. And variation is not evolution.

The part that Adam & Eve is allegorical to most Christians.

But as I've already stated--somewhere around here...I forget where--that evidence is interpreted within a certain paradigm. Both sides do this. You can never underestimate the role bias plays into all of this.

I still think you have to ignore the evidence to make such a claim.

The tired old “God Day” bit. *YAWN*

 

[watsup]

Science follows a prescribe format. You and I both learned it in high-school and it was the same method that was taught when I went to get my engineering degree. It is--or should be--unbiased and duplicatable.

The idea? Maybe. But the "idea" is far from science.

Once again, what are you calling a "species". There is no real agreement on the term and what it means and this becomes problematic for evolution. Even Darwin recognized this issue.

And, once again, I suspect that what you are calling a "new" species is simply variation within a kind.

Sample old fifth-grade level “understanding” of science.

 

[Individual]

How do you explain first-cause?

Yet to be fully explained, perhaps never, but natural.

 

[watsup]

Strawman. I never said that there was "little scientific consensus in regards to evolution". I said it was not "near universal".

Difference.

Except that it is indeed “near universal” in the applicable science circles. There’s not even another scientific theory of how life on this planet developed. None.

 

[watsup]

Science follows a prescribe format. You and I both learned it in high-school and it was the same method that was taught when I went to get my engineering degree. It is--or should be--unbiased and duplicatable.

The idea? Maybe. But the "idea" is far from science.

Once again, what are you calling a "species". There is no real agreement on the term and what it means and this becomes problematic for evolution. Even Darwin recognized this issue.

And, once again, I suspect that what you are calling a "new" species is simply variation within a kind.

Can you show that “there is no real agreement on what the term means”. Didn’t think so.

 

[gboisjo]

That's good 'casue I don't really think the world is that old.

How old is it, 5000 years.

 

[Visbek]

There’s been quite some discussion regarding the “science”--or, more accurately...

The accurate term is just science. Evolution is thoroughly and utterly based on evidence and scientific research. Scare quotes are not appropriate.

Ideas have consequence.

Sure. But it is fallacious to deny facts (scientific or otherwise) because you don't like what those facts entail or imply.

1. No gods or purposive forces.

False. The Roman Catholic Church, for example, recognizes evolution.

2. No life after death.

False. See above. Plus, evolution doesn't necessarily disprove the claim that "humans have souls."

3. No ultimate foundation for ethics.

Completely and utterly false, and an example of rank ignorance. Philosophers such as Aristotle, Mill, Kant, Scanlon, Parfit, Rawls, and hundreds more have all discussed secular ethical systems.

4. No ultimate meaning in life.

False. Evolution does not address this question, nor does secularism entail that "life is meaningless."

5. No free will.

False. Again, evolution does not address this issue at all. It's also entirely plausible to believe in a religious ontology, and be a determinist or otherwise believe that humans don't have free will.

And again.... Even if I am wrong about those points -- and I'm not -- your dislike of these conclusions does not justify rejecting all of the abundant scientific evidence supporting evolution.

 

[gboisjo]

Baron attacks science and wants to keep the conversation about that. Not about religions and there wonderful books of fiction.

The loveliest feature of religion is also its strongest ..the quality of its make-believe.

How they negotiate with the world, how they live is built on many things that are as cooked up as Hobbits and time machines.

So attack and attack science, reason and logic in an attempt to somehow justify nonsense.

 

[Jredbaron96]

For my own personal experience?

Really?!

Yes, because the plural of anecdote is not data.

 

[roughdraft274]

Seems as thought that blade cuts both ways. Can you prove that God did you evolution? You'll "need to show evidence to back that up, and you can't do that".

It's a point of view and one that I subscribe to. The point of the thread is to discuss the possibilities. I've built my case as best as I'm able and presented it in the OP.

You are misunderstood. I'm not saying it happened. I'm saying that we can't prove or disprove that it happened. If someone claims that god used evolution then you can ask for proof. If someone claims that god could not have used evolution then you can ask for proof. If someone simply says "I don't have any evidence to prove this either way" then it seems silly to say that this person needs to prove their claim.

It's fine if this is your best case, but if your best case is this weak then it's not really worth arguing. Evolution doesn't disprove god nor does it claim that if evolution is true that there can't be a god. It's simple as that.

 

[Mulefoot]

Baron attacks science and wants to keep the conversation about that. Not about religions and there wonderful books of fiction.

The loveliest feature of religion is also its strongest ..the quality of its make-believe.

How they negotiate with the world, how they live is built on many things that are as cooked up as Hobbits and time machines.

So attack and attack science, reason and logic in an attempt to somehow justify nonsense.

Bits of truth, lots of prejudice and stereotype.

 

[Somerville]

How old is it, 5000 years.

Oh no, you couldn't be more wrong!!

James Ussher, the Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland, a man of great learning, determined after years of study that our world was created on 23 October 4004 BC. Earth will be celebrating its 6,017th birthday.

 

[maquiscat]

Have to disagree with bolded. We have no clue what the potential of either possibility is and thus cannot make any claims on the potential of either

I understand, however when with a multi-possible, with no other factors present, then all the possibilities are equal to each other. It is only with other factors known that we can assign weight to any given possibility.

 

[Lursa]

For my own personal experience?

Really?!

No, to show that a significant number of scientists dont believe that evolution is valid.