R-Question for Christians who doubt Evolution

6,746 Views | 140 Replies | Last: 7 yr ago by Buck O Five
TPS_Report
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Do you believe it is at least possible?

Please explain either way.


Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I think we have observed evolution so no real problem there. The whole "all life came from an amoeba that popped into existence because facts and reasons in this scientific paper" is unbelievable. Well, of course it's believable to most people, just not me. Is it possible? In another worldview, not mine.
Quad Dog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
I think we have observed evolution so no real problem there. The whole "all life came from an amoeba that popped into existence because facts and reasons in this scientific paper" is unbelievable. Well, of course it's believable to most people, just not me. Is it possible? In another worldview, not mine.
That's not really something evolution tries to cover. What you are referring to is abiogenesis. As far as I know abiogenesis theories are not as concrete or as supported as evolution.
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?
When people talk about "evolution", a variety of ideas are thrown out and treated as if it's one coherent theory. The third sentence in the summary on the evolution wikipedia page says "All life on Earth shares a common ancestor known as the last universal common ancestor (LUCA), which lived approximately 3.5-3.8 billion years ago."

But you say that's not really something evolution tries to cover. Let's start with what evolution is and then we can discuss if it's possible.
BlackGoldAg2011
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
That depends. By evolution, do you mean the process by which a species can change, or do you mean the full theory of it as an explanation that all observable life originated from a single common ancestor and proceeded to evolve into multiple species guided only by random chance to get to the species we observe today and in the fossil record?
Fido04
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

quote:
The whole "all life came from an amoeba that popped into existence because facts and reasons in this scientific paper" is unbelievable.


Do you honestly not see how this is a disingenuous way to have a conversation?
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quad Dog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I'm not an expert, but I'll try to fix your quote to show the difference. Bold is evolution, italics is abiogenesis.

"all life came from an amoeba that popped into existence because facts and reasons in this scientific paper"

"all life came from a [common ancestor] that popped into existence because facts and reasons in this scientific paper"
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I think we have observed evolution so no real problem there. The whole "all life came from an amoeba because facts and reasons in this scientific paper" is unbelievable. Well, of course it's believable to most people, just not me. Is it possible? In another worldview, not mine.
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
That depends. By evolution, do you mean the process by which a species can change, or do you mean the full theory of it as an explanation that all observable life originated from a single common ancestor and proceeded to evolve into multiple species guided only by random chance to get to the species we observe today and in the fossil record?


The process by which a species changes and the theory that describes how all life shares a common ancestor is one and the same.
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
When people talk about "evolution", a variety of ideas are thrown out and treated as if it's one coherent theory. The third sentence in the summary on the evolution wikipedia page says "All life on Earth shares a common ancestor known as the last universal common ancestor (LUCA), which lived approximately 3.5-3.8 billion years ago."

But you say that's not really something evolution tries to cover. Let's start with what evolution is and then we can discuss if it's possible.


Evolution doesn't describe how life emerged. Only that it can all be traced back to a common ancestor. There's a difference.
BlackGoldAg2011
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
The process by which a species changes and the theory that describes how all life shares a common ancestor is one and the same.
not necessarily, because one could be true without the other being true. one is a natural process, the other a theory based on the extrapolation of that process.
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You would have to establish where the process of change breaks down and becomes impossible in order to draw that line.
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
You would have to establish where the process of change breaks down and becomes impossible in order to draw that line.


How do you figure? He's not the one making that claim.
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
quote:
You would have to establish where the process of change breaks down and becomes impossible in order to draw that line.


How do you figure? He's not the one making that claim.


He's making a scientific claim: at some point in the process, evolution stops somehow and someway. There is no evidence of this in biology, and the idea of single descent is well demonstrated in the genetics and structure of life across the spectrum. So if making that claim, it's not out of bounds to ask for a hypothesis as to where, when, and why evolution breaks down.
UTExan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It is possible. Gap theory as posited by G H Pember (who also wrote of earlier ages of earth habitation) is also possible. Remember, Satan had dominion over the earth and as a serpent (reptilian), appeared in the garden to tempt Eve. While most Christians run from such speculation, I think it is important to regard the physical evidence of pre-Eden creation to tell the whole story of Earth's history.
BlackGoldAg2011
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
quote:
quote:
You would have to establish where the process of change breaks down and becomes impossible in order to draw that line.


How do you figure? He's not the one making that claim.


He's making a scientific claim: at some point in the process, evolution stops somehow and someway. There is no evidence of this in biology, and the idea of single descent is well demonstrated in the genetics and structure of life across the spectrum. So if making that claim, it's not out of bounds to ask for a hypothesis as to where, when, and why evolution breaks down.
i never made the claim that evolution stops or breaks down at some point. i claimed that the process of evolution being a true and natural process does no necessitate a single common ancestor. you could just as easily have several original ancestors and not have to claim evolution breaks down at some point. hence, evolution the process and evolution the origin claim are not one in the same.
agie95
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I am looking forward to what humans evolve to or any other living being that we see today or even the last several thousand years.
kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
i never made the claim that evolution stops or breaks down at some point. i claimed that the process of evolution being a true and natural process does no necessitate a single common ancestor. you could just as easily have several original ancestors and not have to claim evolution breaks down at some point. hence, evolution the process and evolution the origin claim are not one in the same.

In this scenario, are you suggesting multiple abiogenesis(es) occurred independently or that something (God, aliens, whatever) created multiple original ancestors which then evolved through natural processes to what we have today?

What are the different philosophical or religious implications of this versus a common ancestor?
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
I am looking forward to what humans evolve to or any other living being that we see today or even the last several thousand years.
You won't see humans evolve into anything new. That won't be for a long, long time. There is no selective pressure on humans currently and our genes have become more intermingled over the last century.
Post removed:
by user
agie95
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It was a joke, just like evolution in the macro sense...
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Why do you consider evolution a joke? And again, where is the line drawn that stops evolution?
schmendeler
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
"kinds"
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ah, right. The next good definition I get for "kinds" will be the first one.
Post removed:
by user
schmendeler
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
dogs, cats, cows, horses. basically the things a child would group together.
BlackGoldAg2011
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
quote:
i never made the claim that evolution stops or breaks down at some point. i claimed that the process of evolution being a true and natural process does no necessitate a single common ancestor. you could just as easily have several original ancestors and not have to claim evolution breaks down at some point. hence, evolution the process and evolution the origin claim are not one in the same.

In this scenario, are you suggesting multiple abiogenesis(es) occurred independently or that something (God, aliens, whatever) created multiple original ancestors which then evolved through natural processes to what we have today?

What are the different philosophical or religious implications of this versus a common ancestor?
in this scenario, i am suggesting that multiple abiogenesis(es) could have occurred independently and then evolved through natural processes to what we have today and it would not interrupt the natural process of evolution as we understand it. hence, evolution the process and the common ancestor piece are two separate pieces because you could have one without the other having to be true. i'm not even arguing that i hold that position to be true, just using it as an illustration to explain to mr. watson why the two are not one in the same and clarification is necessary in discussions on which point we are talking about.

as a complete aside, if this were the case, i think the religious implications are that you could call each independently occurring ancestor a "kind" and use that to pair the theory with the story in Genesis. again, still not saying i subscribe to this view, just positing it as a logical possibility
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I personally like the alien theory. It's more plausible than single ancestor.
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?

quote:
mr. watson
He put a great deal of effort into being called a doctor for you to come along and call him mister. Show some respect to our "expert" in 17th century American Puritanism.
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Its possible. You'd have to determine how to establish multiple independent creations of life, and the evidence we have on a genetic and structural level argues for a single ancestor.
BlackGoldAg2011
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
Its possible. You'd have to determine how to establish multiple independent creations of life, and the evidence we have on a genetic and structural level argues for a single ancestor.
agreed, but that first part is abiogenesis not evolution, we already chastised Martin for mixing the two. and so my argument still stands, the natural process of evolution being true is not dependent on there being only a single common ancestor. Evolution works just as well with two, or three, or twenty original ancestors. The likelihood of that being what actually occurred has precisely zero bearing on the truthfulness of my statement. if you look back, i never even tried to argue that i believed that to be the case, purely that on a hypothetical level, if it was true, the process of evolution does not break down, hence they are separate things.

so back to my question, are we discussing the theory of the single common ancestor evolution, or the natural process still occurring today evolution?
schmendeler
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
so back to my question, are we discussing the theory of the single common ancestor evolution, or the natural process still occurring today evolution?
if we're arguing on the basis of current evidence, they are one and the same.
BlackGoldAg2011
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
quote:
so back to my question, are we discussing the theory of the single common ancestor evolution, or the natural process still occurring today evolution?
if we're arguing on the basis of current evidence, they are one and the same.
so your position is that one could not scientifically dissent from one without simultaneously dissenting from the other?
schmendeler
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
the evidence we use to show evolution has occurred also shows that we come from a common ancestor.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.