Creation vs. Evolution

[Scaff]

The problem is that some persons use examples of ''the change of allele frequencies of a population over time'' (scientific evolution) to prove 'the idea that all life has descended from a single common ancestor over millions of years via a net gain in new genetic information' (microbe-like-to-man evolution="neo-darwinism,". To avoid confusion, we had to define what we mean by evolution firstly, That's correct.

Just to be clear your talking Macro vs Micro evolution then.

 

[Danoff]

The problem is that some persons use examples of ''the change of allele frequencies of a population over time'' (scientific evolution) to prove 'the idea that all life has descended from a single common ancestor over millions of years via a net gain in new genetic information' (microbe-like-to-man evolution="neo-darwinism,". To avoid confusion, we had to define what we mean by evolution firstly, That's correct.

How does the fossil record not count as evidence toward common ancestry of current species?

*ducks out again, hopefully for good

 

[SagarisGTB]

when the oldest bacteria fossils emerge, some 3.5 billion years ago, atmospheric and temperature conditions at the time were not at all suited to support complex creatures or human beings. Th cambrian period, which refers to some 530 million years ago, was definitely unsuitable for human life. (There were no land animals at all at that time.)
The situation is the same in the great majority of succeeding periods. Examination of the fossil record shows that conditions able to support human life have only existed for the last few million years. The same applies to all other living things.
Why ?
Dawkins, comments on another problem:

For example the Cambrian strata of rocks… are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.
Both schools of thought ('punctuationists' and 'gradualists') agree that the only alternative ( to imperfections of the fossil record ) explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animals types in the Cambrian era is divine creation, and both would reject this alternative." (Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker," 1986, p.229-230)

It seems to me more related to religious commitment other than anything else related to science & evidnce.
(Taking in consideration that similarity doesn't prove common ancestry)

Are you serious? I just told you that "imperfections of the fossil record" are because of preservation bias.

The fossil record does not ever contradict evolutionary theory and it does provide evidence for speciation. You are barking up the wrong tree here.

 

[Gawaher]

Just to be clear your talking Macro vs Micro evolution then.

No, speciation is observed.

Are you serious? I just told you that "imperfections of the fossil record" are because of preservation bias.

The fossil record does not ever contradict evolutionary theory and it does provide evidence for speciation. You are barking up the wrong tree here.

I believe you that all creaures don't need to be preserved, It's a fact.
But dawkins thinks that any animal appearnce is evidence for ancestry for the previous based on superficial similarities !

David Kitts, who studied under George Gaylord Simpson, summed up the fossil argument:

“Few paleontologists have, I think, ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. The fossil record doesn’t even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories, and special creationist theories, and even ahistorical theories.”​

 

[Danoff]

“Few paleontologists have, I think, ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. The fossil record doesn’t even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories, and special creationist theories, and even ahistorical theories.”​

Ok I guess I can't stay out.

Again I note the absolute and complete misuse of the word "theory" in the above quote.

Yes the rest is definitely true. The fossil record is consistent with the hypothesis that God put the fossil record in place on purpose to trick us into seeing the obvious patterns and thinking that evolution occurred. It is also consistent with the hypothesis that aliens put the fossil record in place. It is also consistent with the hypothesis that fossils mutate on their own over time into a string of slowly changing structures that resemble evolution but are in fact just mutating bones. It is also consistent with any number of wild totally unsupported hypotheses.

It is also consistent with micro evolution occurring over macro timescales and regions. Micro evolution of course is very well documented and proven in countless ways. The fact that the fossil record is consistent with micro evolution over a long time scale is, of course, solid factual evidence in support of the macro evolution hypothesis (which is now a theory - the highest honor in science). The other hypotheses I listed have exactly zero evidence in support of them - which is why they remain untestable hypotheses (the lowest honor in science).

There is absolutely no leap between micro and macro evolution, and they shouldn't be considered different in anyone's mind other than they are poor words to describe a spectrum of time and space. The fact that evolution occurs over short time scales and has no applicable methods of stopping over any time scale makes it logically supported that longer time scales will also show evolutionary effects (to an extent consistent with the time scale and the evolutionary mechanism - the law of natural selection - law being a parallel highest honor in science with theory).

 

[Exorcet]

Scientifically speaking, because microbes lived long time ago & other animals lived recently, this doesn't provide evidence that the first is ancestor to others

Obviously not. Which is why DNA and the fossil record are used as proof.

" Ancestors are linked by DNA or other similarities" This is a fact. HOWEVER non-ancestors may be similar too.

The nons may be similar, yes. But they'll lack key DNA sequences and/or traits that can be traced through time/fossils.

Do you look similar to the microbes ?

No, because I'm 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 generations removed.

1903

1908

1990
Differences accumulate over long time scales.

 

[Touring Mars]

The fossil record is sufficient evidence to illustrate that specific bones and arrangements of bones/body parts existed at particular times in the past, and thus change over time can be seen by comparing fossils from different epochs and by comparing fossils to existing bones/structures/arrangements etc. That there is a direct ancestral link between fossilised species and present day species is inferred from the progression of structural changes from multiple epochs and from present day species, and not merely from the similarity between one fossil and one existing species...

...an important consequence of the fossil record is that these inferences have allowed existing species to be grouped and classified accurately, even long before modern day scientific methods existed to verify such classification - but there is where molecular biology steps in and removes any doubt (as well as confounding some incorrect inferences). DNA evidence provides powerful verification for the hypothesis of common descent as inferred from both the fossil record and comparative biology, both of which themselves make up an essential part of evolution theory, but neither of which can be or should be considered as entirely definitive by themselves. Inferring evolution from the fossil record and comparative biology is like trying to a jigsaw upside down - the pieces fit, but that's only part of the story. DNA evidence is like having the picture on the front of the box, and only then will we know if the jigsaw has been put together correctly. Give or take the odd piece here and there, it pretty much was.

This is why science will always hold the trump card in this debate - because incorrect hypotheses do not survive when new evidence comes to light that flatly contradicts them. The advent of molecular biology - and the mountains of evidence it has produced - stand as an awesome vindication of evolution theory, and to the genius of those who were able to put the jigsaw together so long ago, despite not being able to see the whole picture, or even having that many pieces to begin with.

 

[SagarisGTB]

David Kitts, who studied under George Gaylord Simpson, summed up the fossil argument:

“Few paleontologists have, I think, ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. The fossil record doesn’t even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories, and special creationist theories, and even ahistorical theories.”​

You're cherry picking statements here. Read that entire chapter.

The fossil record does not "prove" evolutionary theory, but not because it contradicts it, it's just that it supports evolutionary theory in a supplementary role to genetics.

And note that the quote cites "special creationist theories". Evolution is compatible with and explains what is found in the fossil record. Biblical creationism certainly is not and does not. So you are left with "special creationism" that has neither a scientific foundation nor the backing of an outdated book written by ancient humans. It has nothing.

The fossil record is sufficient evidence to illustrate that specific bones and arrangements of bones/body parts existed at particular times in the past, and thus change over time can be seen by comparing fossils from different epochs and by comparing fossils to existing bones/structures/arrangements etc. That there is a direct ancestral link between fossilised species and present day species is inferred from the progression of structural changes from multiple epochs and from present day species, and not merely from the similarity between one fossil and one existing species...

...an important consequence of the fossil record is that these inferences have allowed existing species to be grouped and classified accurately, even long before modern day scientific methods existed to verify such classification - but there is where molecular biology steps in and removes any doubt (as well as confounding some incorrect inferences). DNA evidence provides powerful verification for the hypothesis of common descent as inferred from both the fossil record and comparative biology, both of which themselves make up an essential part of evolution theory, but neither of which can be or should be considered as entirely definitive by themselves. Inferring evolution from the fossil record and comparative biology is like trying to a jigsaw upside down - the pieces fit, but that's only part of the story. DNA evidence is like having the picture on the front of the box, and only then will we know if the jigsaw has been put together correctly. Give or take the odd piece here and there, it pretty much was.

This is why science will always hold the trump card in this debate - because incorrect hypotheses do not survive when new evidence comes to light that flatly contradicts them. The advent of molecular biology - and the mountains of evidence it has produced - stand as an awesome vindication of evolution theory, and to the genius of those who were able to put the jigsaw together so long ago, despite not being able to see the whole picture, or even having that many pieces to begin with.

Well said. 👍

 

[Scaff]

Why ?
Dawkins, comments on another problem:

For example the Cambrian strata of rocks… are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.
Both schools of thought ('punctuationists' and 'gradualists') agree that the only alternative ( to imperfections of the fossil record ) explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animals types in the Cambrian era is divine creation, and both would reject this alternative." (Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker," 1986, p.229-230)

Please don't quote-mine, its a descidedly underhand practice, is easily discovered and goes against the AUP.

"For example the Cambrian strata of rocks… are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear.
It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that is simply due to the fact that, for some reason, very few fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years ago. One good reason might be that many of these animals had only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossilize. If you are a creationist you may think that this is special pleading. My point here is that, when we are talking about gaps of this magnitude, there is no difference whatever in the interpretations of 'punctuationists' and 'gradualists'. Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and (we) both reject this alternative." (Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1996, pp. 229-230)

Source - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html

The bolded sections add in the missing text and change the context to a great degree


Oh and we have this one as well:

No, speciation is observed.

I believe you that all creaures don't need to be preserved, It's a fact.
But dawkins thinks that any animal appearnce is evidence for ancestry for the previous based on superficial similarities !
David Kitts, who studied under George Gaylord Simpson, summed up the fossil argument:

“Few paleontologists have, I think, ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. The fossil record doesn’t even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories, and special creationist theories, and even ahistorical theories.”​

Now lets look at that in full shall we:

"Few paleontologists have, I think ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. An examination of the work of those paleontologists who have been particularly concerned with the relationship between paleontology and evolutionary theory, for example that of G. G. Simpson and S. J. Gould, reveals a mindfulness of the fact that the record of evolution, like any other historical record, must be construed within a complex of particular and general preconceptions not the least of which is the hypothesis that evolution has occurred.

Grassé, on the other hand, holds just the view that has so often been erroneously attributed to Darwinian paleontologists. For him the fossil record reveals not only the course of evolution but its "mechanism" as well. The history of life is an untheory-laden chronicle which any biologist must take as raw data. Evolution, on this view, is a virtually self-evident fact which remains only to be adequately explained. Grassé faults the Darwinians for failure to recognize the pristine character of paleontological evidence. He says (p. 7), 'Paleontologists, who cannot have recourse to experiments when deciding that a given character is genetically valuable, thus expresses [sic] a very hypothetical opinion. Assuming that the Darwinian hypothesis is correct, they interpret fossil data according to it; it is only logical that they should confirm it: the premises imply the conclusion. The error in method is obvious". If a paleontologist claims to have supported the fundamental tenets of Darwinian theory in citing the fossil record, then he has indeed committed a methodological error. But every interpretation of the fossil record must proceed on the acceptance of some theory. Grassé never gives us any reason to think that he recognizes this fact, and we are, therefore, left to ferret out those surreptitious assumptions which, we must suppose, underlie his account of the history of organisms.

Grassé's confidence in the fossil record is excessive but he is not alone in supposing that it has something to tell us about the mechanism of evolution. Paleontologists and evolutionists have frequently turned to fossils for crucial tests of some theory, or even simply of some fact, only to come away with the realization that the answers lie more in the theory that they have presupposed in their interpretation of the fossil record than in the record itself and that, indeed, there isn't even any record at all until we somehow make one out of extant rocks and objects that seem to be the broken remains of plants and animals. The current debate over punctuated equilibria and gradualism as the principle modes of evolution is but the latest illustration of how difficult it is to extract theoretically significant information from fossils. When we are tempted to say that evolution or some aspect of it is an "obvious fact", it is well to turn once again to Darwin himself who devoted a large book to an argument more directed at the elusive conclusion that evolution had occurred than explaining something that might be established independent of that argument.

Darwinian paleontologists cannot take much comfort from the fact that the fossil record does not compel them to reject their theory because it does not compel them to accept it either.

The fossil record doesn't even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories and special creationist theories and even a historical theories." (Kitts, David B., "Search for the Holy Transformation," review of Evolution of Living Organisms, by Pierre-P. Grassé, Paleobiology, vol. 5, 1979, pp. 353-354)

Source - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-1.html

Once again the bold text is the bits that have been removed, you also seem to forget that no one uses the fossil record alone as proof, nor do you both to mention when this was written and the advances (none of which have disprove evolutionary theory) that have occurred since this was written.

Take this as a formal warning - you do this again and you are gone, we have no time for the dishonest.

 

[BobK]

the failed darwin theory

Which theory might that be, pray tell?

The Theory of Evolution is the most successful theory in biology, so surely that can't be the theory you're referring to.

So please educate us, which theory of Darwin's is a failure? And is it relevant to this discussion?

 

[Gawaher]

I find some responses above to be really superficial & not touching the real problem we have with neo-darwinism.

Now we have the first known microbes. You "evolved" from this microbe-like creatures, HOW ?
Do microbes have the genetic information for your body ?

 

[Famine]

I find some responses above to be really superficial

Do microbes have the genetic information for your body ?

It's next to cobalty.

 

[Touring Mars]

Now we have the first known microbes. You "evolved" from this microbe-like creatures, HOW ?

By descent - but over a very, very, very, very, very, VERY long time... it took around one billion years for the first cells to appear (measured from the beginning of the Earth's existence), but from that point it took roughly 2-2.5 billion years for multicellular life forms to evolve. From that point, it has taken a further 1 billion years for all known multicellular species to form.

Do microbes have the genetic information for your body ?

Well obviously not...

... but there does exist clear patterns of genetic similarities between all living things. These genetic similarities can only be explained either by the design hypothesis or by the common descent hypothesis. The former, however, completely lacks any explanatory power since every and all possible combination of genetic sequences could equally be attributed to so-called 'design' - therefore the observed genetic sequences in nature, the actual evidence in this case, is rendered meaningless - it is no more in agreement with the design hypothesis than any other possibility. The common descent hypothesis, on the other hand, is only supported by the tiniest fraction of possible outcomes - but guess what?... the patterns of genetic similarities as observed in nature are consistent with common descent. That they are also consistent with design is a moot point (because everything is) - that the observed data is consistent with common descent in spite of the fact that there are a virtually infinite number of ways for it to have been unequivocally proven wrong is what gives the theory of common descent real meaning.

 

[Gawaher]

By descent - but over a very, very, very, very, very, VERY long time... it took around one billion years for the first cells to appear (measured from the beginning of the Earth's existence), but from that point it took roughly 2-2.5 billion years for multicellular life forms to evolve. From that point, it has taken a further 1 billion years for all known multicellular species to form.



Well obviously not...

... but there does exist clear patterns of genetic similarities between all living things. These genetic similarities can only be explained either by the design hypothesis or by the common descent hypothesis. The former, however, completely lacks any explanatory power since every and all possible combination of genetic sequences could equally be attributed to so-called 'design' - therefore the observed genetic sequences in nature, the actual evidence in this case, is rendered meaningless - it is no more in agreement with the design hypothesis than any other possibility. The common descent hypothesis, on the other hand, is only supported by the tiniest fraction of possible outcomes - but guess what?... the patterns of genetic similarities as observed in nature are consistent with common descent. That they are also consistent with design is a moot point (because everything is) - that the observed data is consistent with common descent in spite of the fact that there are a virtually infinite number of ways for it to have been unequivocally proven wrong is what gives the theory of common descent real meaning.

Thanks, but as you said: genetic similarities,like similarities in general, may be due to common creator too.
Do microbes have the genetic information for your body ? No. This is the problem i have. What is the source for this "new" genetic information of human body ?

 

[Touring Mars]

Thanks, but as you said: genetic similarities,like similarities in general, may be due to common creator too.

Yes, but there are myriad problems with the design hypothesis, including what I just said (that the design hypothesis is satisfied by all possible genetic sequence patterns and thus lacks any explanatory power), but there is also a TOTAL lack of information on either what/where/who that creator might be, nor how they have done what they are claimed to have done (i.e. no mechanist details are even hypothesized*, let alone supported by any evidence), and that's before even mentioning the biggest issue of them all - that postulating the existence of a complex creator capable of (*insert random ideas about how a creator works here*) begs far more questions than it can possibly answer. In other words, as a scientific explanation of the origins on species, the design/special creation hypothesis is an epic failure.

* unless one considers the creation myth described in Genesis as a detailed mechanistic account, of course...

Do microbes have the genetic information for your body ? No. This is the problem i have. What is the source for this "new" genetic information of human body ?

You really should invest some of your time in reading up on some basic biology - a good first year Uni text book would more than suffice - although there are so many resources on the web now, there really is no excuse. But, while we are here - there are a multitude of ways that 'new' genetic information might arise, from single point mutations that inevitably arise as a consequence of the way that genetic material is copied, to larger-scale genetic alterations that happen during sexual reproduction...

... obviously, we are not genetically identical to our parents because during sexual reproduction genetically unique individuals are created from the reorganisation of raw genetic material from two other individuals i.e. one's parents. Every individual on Earth, even 'identical' twins, are genetically distinct. Even the tiniest difference between two individuals - say a point mutation in one of two identical twins - is enough raw material for natural selection to work with. Natural selection really works on a population-wide level, but the fact that sexual reproduction produces genetic variations is enough for evolution to become possible. Even organisms that do not reproduce sexually are capable of producing offspring that are genetically distinct from themselves. These are about the most basic facts of biology that you can get - genetic variation is an inevitable consequence of reproduction, and natural selection is an inevitable consequence of that.

 

[Gawaher]

You really should invest some of your time in reading up on some basic biology - a good first year Uni text book would more than suffice - although there are so many resources on the web now, there really is no excuse. But, while we are here - there are a multitude of ways that 'new' genetic information might arise, from single point mutations that inevitably arise as a consequence of the way that genetic material is copied, to larger-scale genetic alterations that happen during sexual reproduction...

... obviously, we are not genetically identical to our parents because during sexual reproduction genetically unique individuals are created from the reorganisation of raw genetic material from two other individuals i.e. one's parents. Every individual on Earth, even 'identical' twins, are genetically distinct. Even the tiniest difference between two individuals - say a point mutation in one of two identical twins - is enough raw material for natural selection to work with. Natural selection really works on a population-wide level, but the fact that sexual reproduction produces genetic variations is enough for evolution to become possible. Even organisms that do not reproduce sexually are capable of producing offspring that are genetically distinct from themselves. These are about the most basic facts of biology that you can get - genetic variation is an inevitable consequence of reproduction, and natural selection is an inevitable consequence of that.

Do you think that single point mutations can "create" new genetic information forming another creature. This is not true.These are about the most basic facts of biology. They can "alter" already present "genes". Here, we are talking about completely new organs. Mutations have no power to bestow new information on a life form that does not belong to it, or to turn it into a different organism.
Edit:
Just as described in the photo above, thanks.

 

[Famine]

Do you think that single point mutations can "create" new genetic information forming another creature. This is not true.These are about the most basic facts of biology.

Nope.

 

[Touring Mars]

Do you think that single point mutations can "create" new genetic information forming another creature. This is not true.These are about the most basic facts of biology. They can "alter" already present "genes". Mutations have no power to bestow new information on a life form that does not belong to it, or to turn it into a different organism.

No.

Firstly, single point mutations are just one of several types of possible mutation, so let's talk about what types of 'mutation' there are. Firstly, single substitutions - a single base (pair) change from the original. Secondly, inclusions - an additional base (or sequence of bases) that were not present in the original. Thirdly, deletions - missing bases that were in the original, but not in the offspring. Then there are larger scale mutations... frameshifts, duplications, fusions, transposable elements etc. All of these can alter the DNA sequence - in some cases quite drastically, such that it is quite different from the original - even in asexually reproducing organisms... not only are these phenomena very well documented, the mechanisms by which they can occur is also well characterized too.

That these various phenomena can and do produce new genetic material is an unequivocal fact - and new genetic material produces new biological material, which in turn can produce a myriad of effects across a population, which over hundreds of thousands of generations can produce completely new properties and physical features - this is the very basis of speciation. Genetic material is malleable and the mechanisms by which genetic diversity arises are very well known. The concept that genes can only change a bit and that no new genes can be produced by the known mechanisms I've mentioned (as well as others that I haven't) is totally and utterly false. See this for a brief summation: http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/origins-of-new-genes-and-pseudogenes-835

And by the way, the picture I posted is just a quick illustration of what happens during sexual reproduction, but it is necessarily an over-simplification - it does not even attempt to illustrate the numerous different ways in which genetic information from either parent might be altered in the offspring. It does not in any way support your incorrect and quite misguided view about the generation of genetic diversity.

 

[Hun200kmh]

Just to lighten up and have a bit of fun in such a serious thread, here goes:

Family reunion

This was last year, just before Easter, at the "Museum of Man" in La Coruña (Galicia, Spain). Apart from my 4 daughters, clearly the most evolved humanoids in the picture, see if you can distinguish me from my forefathers

 

[Touring Mars]

Great pic 👍

I think I spotted you - the coat gives you away!

 

[MrSulu]

I have read this thread from start to finish, 2 weeks later I have arrived at the end!

It has been a rollercoaster of enlightenment, amusement, outrageous ignorance, and baffling anti-logic.

I am and always will be a subscriber to evolution

Our creationist friends biggest hang ups seems to be the absence of a missing link (there are no missing links) and how evolution actually works, assuming an intermediate has to be some kind of freakish half breed of any two random animals that takes your fancy regardless of timeline. The only way to satisfy this insistence is to actually dig said nightmarish abominations straight out of the floor.

Disclaimer: the following animals are not, repeat, not real (but would have to be to even remotely sew the smallest doubt into the mind of a creationist)

Obviously that will never happen, even now in the face of insurmountable evidence it is impossible to convince a person of faith (I don't have an issue with that, believe what you like its a free world)

The only way a true believer of young earth creation will ever be persuaded otherwise would be the absolute proof that there is no higher power, which can not be done, not now, conceivably not ever. Contact with an extra terrestrial civilisation might do the trick but not for certain, or maybe they are in the same boat that we are. Hell, it could even prove them right all along!

 

[BobK]

I have read this thread from start to finish, 2 weeks later I have arrived at the end!

It has been a rollercoaster of enlightenment, amusement, outrageous ignorance, and baffling anti-logic.

Heh, welcome to GT Planet in general, and this thread in particular! Yes it's quite a read, and kudos for actually going through it all.

Our creationist friends biggest hang ups seems to be the absence of a missing link (there are no missing links) and how evolution actually works, assuming an intermediate has to be some kind of freakish half breed of any two random animals that takes your fancy regardless of timeline. The only way to satisfy this insistence is to actually dig said nightmarish abominations straight out of the floor.

I find the whole "missing link" argument to be rather specious, particularly when something like the following happens.

Let's say there was an ancestral species "A" and its modern descendant "B". The creationists will argue there is no proof that "B" evolved from "A"*, where is the missing link? So some anthropologist discovers the remains of a previously undiscovered species "X" which is clearly midway between "A" and "B". The opponents will, instead of accepting the new evidence, will now claim that there are now two missing links, one from "A" to "X",and one from "X" to "B". So instead of agreeing that the argument for "B" being a descendant of "A" is strengthened, they'll claim it's now even weaker!

*actually a creationist will argue that evolution doesn't take place, period.

 

[MrSulu]

Cheers Bob 👍

I see your point, there is no way to convince regardless of the black and white evidence presented, it will always be grey to the creationists.

The only way this will ever be resolved is by someone/something outside of both our science discipline and the realm of faith, be it extra terrestrial with a scientific explanation of everything, or the big beardy bloke actually shows up and tells us to stop dicking around in the soil

 

[Johnnypenso]

Just to lighten up and have a bit of fun in such a serious thread, here goes:

Family reunion

This was last year, just before Easter, at the "Museum of Man" in La Coruña (Galicia, Spain). Apart from my 4 daughters, clearly the most evolved humanoids in the picture, see if you can distinguish me from my forefathers

Back row, middle?

 

[Chris123]

Do microbes have the genetic information for your body ?

nope, but monkeys sure as hell seem to be pretty close, its called gradual evolution, its not like someones saying it happened overnight

 

[DK]

The only way a true believer of young earth creation will ever be persuaded otherwise would be the absolute proof that there is no higher power, which can not be done, not now, conceivably not ever. Contact with an extra terrestrial civilisation might do the trick but not for certain, or maybe they are in the same boat that we are. Hell, it could even prove them right all along!

Like in the movie "Paul"?

 

[Jet Badger]

I tried to read this thread from the start, first 20-so pages were pure entertainment, after that it got repetitive. Can I please nominate the quote of the century?

...evidence has to be studied through Christian Science because Satan has Decieved the people...

 

[canderson19]

Hi all,

Been awhile, wanted to come back and thank all of you for the discussion (hang with me, I am not trying to throw flames – and please read, this is my opinion – you are perfectly entitled to yours). I can't honestly remember how long it has been since I posted in this thread, probably about a year (I am also stunned the argument is still going on). Since the last time I stopped posting here, I went on a little journey of self “finding” and reading on this topic. My beliefs really haven’t changed (possibly scientifically slightly – I was more ID theory than anything stunned by the odds, now more theistic evolutionist – but faith certainly not). I know immediately some will go back find a post in the past and discount anything I say, please don’t. I can tell I will not win in proving there is a God or that there is a reason we all are here. There are some here who literally take anything and pick it apart word for word and lose the entire meaning. I am not going to bicker over word for word.

Let me say first and foremost, I believe in God, and am of the Christian belief. My views have changed over the years (and actually you all got me thinking further than I really had before – only adding more thought and self-reflection – refinement of my beliefs). I do not believe in Creationism in the literal sense, which appears to be what most people here automatically assume Christian’s belief. In fact the majority of Christians across the world do not belief in the pure definition of Creationism (young earth). I guess the definition of Creationism is up for debate, but if you mean a literal interpretation then most Christians do not believe in this (again young earth). If you mean God created all things, then we believe this. However they are two very different viewpoints.

I don’t belief the Bible was ever intended as a “literal” interpretation of the events leading up to the creation of man. Purely Moses the author of Genesis did not intend for the book to be a “literal” account of creation. The point of the book was to show God created the earth and all things in it. (Further Genesis tells us God is all powerful and all knowledgeable – was here before time existed and after time ceases).

As an “educated” person I fully believe in evolution (Darwin’s theory). It is mathematically sound, and explains the world perfectly. I love science and the ability to understand the world as we see it, and make sense of what we see. Again, I have zero doubt about evolution, or how it explains how we as man came to be. I see no reason why my faith in God (and Christ) cannot and does not fit perfectly with my belief in science. In fact it to me only strengthens it.

If God choose to use natural selection and the laws of science we know as true from science, then so be it. They are constant and give stability and order to an otherwise chaotic world.
Here is the crux. Science will never ever disprove the existence of God. Likewise science will never ever prove the existence of God. If God choose to create the world and us using the laws we know, then he choose that path. Why, I have no clue, nor do you, nor will anyone. I can point to things that I BELIEVE shows a supernatural force (just the total odds we came to be, from a cosmological perspective to even life forms and how we evolved). To ME and my BELIEFS that I think it is amazing. But that is my belief. If you belief we got really lucky then fine that is YOUR BELIEF.

Using science to attempt to disprove God is taking a leap of faith. You are subjecting a belief system to imply that science shows God is not possible. However science will never disprove God. This is just as wrong as saying science proves God. That also subjects a set of beliefs to imply the opposite. Philosophically speaking that is a whole different ball game. It comes down purely to what you belief.

It all comes down to faith. You believe or you do not believe. Science is not a “threat” to that belief. Again I am not throwing flames, not trying to incite a flame war, and cause a bunch of atheists to lose their lunch/dinner. Calling me wrong to believe in God is just as foolish as saying you all are wrong to believe God does not exist. We each have to make that choice for ourselves. All I can do is hope that one day God will speak to you, and change your views. I can hope God touches your life and hope He gives you the answers you are truly looking for. However all I can do is hope.

I thank you all…Chris

 

[wfooshee]

The only thing that sticks out in that is "using science to disprove God."

I don't think anyone has tried to disprove God. They've certainly stated that there is no proof of God's existence, and that stating that He exists is a matter of faith, not science. There is no evidence of his existence. That's not the same thing as disproving.

As for "luck" being involved in our existence, that is entirely correct, if you understand luck as a collection of possibilities and probabilities. Any number of factors along the millions of years could have changed everything about how life developed on Earth. The Big Asteroid not happening, or happening at a different time, for example. If you want to believe that things were guided by some hand, then you need to show some evidence of it. Otherwise, it's not science, and evolution is science. I don't need to "believe" that it happened, because the evidence is all around me everywhere I look. I can see the fact that it DID happen, and continues to happen, which allows me to know that it happened.

 

[homeforsummer]

The only thing that sticks out in that is "using science to disprove God."

I don't think anyone has tried to disprove God. They've certainly stated that there is no proof of God's existence, and that stating that He exists is a matter of faith, not science. There is no evidence of his existence. That's not the same thing as disproving.

^ All of this

---

Much of what you said Chris makes a lot of sense (and it's more level-headed than many posts in here - though I could have done without the preachy last paragraph, if I'm being honest), and you're entitled to your beliefs. But if what you've got from this thread is people trying to disprove the existence of God, then you should probably have another skim through because that isn't what we're saying at all.

As wfooshee says above, the most we've said is that there is no proof of God's existence, in evolution or otherwise. That isn't saying God doesn't exist, just that there's no evidence to support such a claim.

If you want to believe that he's secretly behind evolution than that's your prerogative and absolutely fine by me (and fine by everyone else, I suspect). But it is belief, and belief alone.