Open Question To Disbelievers Of Evolution

[kobra500 1]

Right, I know several people on this forum are Christian, fewer still disbelieve in evolution and prehaps the same if not less people are Literalists of the bible, I.E. believe that is 100% truth, a minority in there own religion I might add (talking of Christianity more generally, specifically Catholism and Lutherianism/Protestism). Even more specifically than that, here is my question.What would you accept as evidence for evolution?Now before I start, I never suggest and if you read the post on the subject before that to believe evolution to be true is synonomous with athiesm, when especially outside of the United States (Within Christianity creationism is a bit of an American thing) Christians who believe in Jesus and God accept evolution to be true under the weight of the exteme amount of evidence, when even the pope would accept evolution to be true, why do you not accept the same evidence. So that begs the question of what would you accept evidence. (I'm saying that God if he exists could have created the world etc, and made it so that there was all the means for life an rather worked with the process or let in run its course) note: Evolution is nothing to do with Atheism, Atheists do almost always believe in Evolution but so do most other theists. Evolution does not explain where the universe, the earth came from, it PURELY explains lifes diversity. and lastly, do you believe in micro evolution and not macro evolution and if so, why.For each response I plan on finding the evidence you are looking for, unless you are being unreasonable (Crociduck), I will likely provide a video made by someone with a much better understanding than I do, and I will admit If I was unable to find evidence, and if so I will try to find why there is no evidence, prehaps you are looking for evidence that cannot exist, i.e. you have failed to understand what evolution is and are asking for something that doesn't even come into it, and therefore its existance could not be proof of evolution.I look forward to peoples answers, especially truefusion.as an after Thought if anyone says they would not accept any evidence as evidence then they are being willfully ignorant and are a waste of everybodies time, and trying to convert others using willful ignorance inclusing indoctrination of children to your idea should be punishable by law, indotrination of any kind should not be used because people deserve a choice which you deny them, I wouldn't indoctrinate my children into Atheism, I would allow them to make there own minds up. If you don't understand or don't want to, don't try to drag everyone down to the same place as you because that is immoral, I don't even think God (if he exists) could disagree with me there.

Edited July 15, 2009 by kobra500 (see edit history)

[truefusion 3]

What would you accept as evidence for evolution?

Hmmm.

 

do you believe in micro evolution and not macro evolution and if so, why.

I believe in both (i can't deny things like cancer), but here's the catch for me concerning evolution: i don't believe any of them can cause one species to evolve into another species, due to what is observable. Ironically, it was because of observation that the theory came about, but if i can say the "very same observation," observation debunks some of the theory's premises for me. For that reason, while i may prefer to say this in another way, in attempt to answer your previous question: Show me an evolution that is beneficial to the species that can be passed down to its offspring that doesn't require maintenance to maintain its evolution—that is, that doesn't cause the species to de-evolve for lack of maintenance. Whether this task is difficult or not, i don't know, but i would say it's wholly specific and not general as to cause ambiguity and that it is at least faithful to the theory itself. Err, i should add, something that is currently going on today.

 

Christians who believe in Jesus and God accept evolution to be true under the weight of the exteme amount of evidence, when even the pope would accept evolution to be true, why do you not accept the same evidence.

You'll find that the Christians that accept the theory of evolution deny the book of Genesis or make God appear to be a general god and not the Biblical God, though they nevertheless claim to believe in Jesus and God. In their case, it is often the case that merely believing in God and Jesus is not the same as believing the Bible. That is, they can say they believe in God and Jesus while denying what is written. However, the Biblical standard for belief goes further than just believing in the possibility of their existence.

 

As for the pope, he probably accepted it just to see if Christianity would become more acceptable and not necessarily due to him believing that there was evidence for the theory of evolution.

 

So that begs the question of what would you accept evidence.

The proper usage is raises the question.

 

(Crociduck)

I saw a drawing of that in a video once. You know, from the theory itself, a "crociduck" is possible, that is, if given the time of course. The crociduck could actually mate with other, normal ducks, since it wouldn't have lost its previous sexual organs, that is, assuming it can hold in any temptation for wanting to gulp down any other ducks. In fact, it is more likely to survive longer than a normal duck. It could even fend off predators more easily. The only unfortunate part is that it will most likely lose its ability to fly, though, unless perhaps its body grew bigger and if its head weren't so big as the drawing.

[kobra500 1]

Hey, I would appreciate it if you explained what you want in more detail, define what you mean by mantainance on the subject of Evolution. "De-evolution" to my knowledge does not exist, explain what you mean by something de-evolving surely de-evolution is just evolution. It is rather I have misunderstood you point or your point really makes little sense, but if you explain what you mean I will be able to answer you.But heres what I've got, you want me to show you evidence of a specific example of a creature that has evolved into another, due to it becoming more suited to its situation/environment whatever. and it also cannot of "de-evolved" due to "lack of mantainance" Its that last bit I really need you to clarify what you mean. also Baniboy or anyone else if you know better what he means feel free to clarify it for me. Cheers.

[truefusion 3]

Hey, I would appreciate it if you explained what you want in more detail, define what you mean by mantainance on the subject of Evolution. "De-evolution" to my knowledge does not exist, explain what you mean by something de-evolving surely de-evolution is just evolution. It is rather I have misunderstood you point or your point really makes little sense, but if you explain what you mean I will be able to answer you.

 

But heres what I've got, you want me to show you evidence of a specific example of a creature that has evolved into another, due to it becoming more suited to its situation/environment whatever. and it also cannot of "de-evolved" due to "lack of mantainance" Its that last bit I really need you to clarify what you mean. also Baniboy or anyone else if you know better what he means feel free to clarify it for me. Cheers.

In Darwin's Book, the Origin of Species, Darwin allows for things like muscle structure to be passed down and to be proof for the theory of evolution. He gives the example of a bug fighting against the wind; the bugs that don't fight against the wind die off, while the ones that do grow bigger wings, and as their wings continue growing, they'll eventually spawn a new species. He also, oddly enough, gives the example of a few humans being shipwrecked out at sea: those who knew how to swim live, those that don't were likely do die (though the way he explained it made it seem like they will die). So bearing knowledge of something is supposed to support the theory (though swimming does improve muscle structure)? Anyway, you should also have heard of the finches, with the bigger beaks due to the food in their area becoming harder to break open. The reason why de-evolution is unheard of or non-existent within the theory is because of the implications that the premises of the theory imply, the definition of natural selection being one of them. The finches are a perfect example for making my request possible or reasonable in that what you show me has to be observable today from a living organism, since fossils are generally ambiguous. However, i would probably allow for fossil analysis as proof if the analysis does not commit any fallacies concerning what truth is (not what it can be).

 

The problem with the finches is they started "de-evolving," that is, once the rain came and made the food easier to break open, their beaks started reducing back to their previous state due to the obvious lack of maintenance that muscles, or health in general, require. Therefore, if you provide me with something that is supposed to prove the theory that is health related, you have to show me something that is not only beneficial to the species—since (death from) unbeneficial things is not proof within itself for the theory—but that also does not require maintenance for either the current species or its offspring. For even if it is the case that the health of the parents allowed for a healthy-looking child to be born, the child's health, and their parent's health, can still degrade over time if not maintained—and in today's world, it is generally not maintained. Biology, at least the medical sciences, is supposed to have hundreds of proofs for the theory of evolution; however, from what i've seen it's all health related—things that can exist even from a creationist's point of view. And they were all unbeneficial to the species, even though these things don't necessarily cause the species to die. From this observation, from looking at how the medical sciences is all about trying to fix problems that occur on a micro level, which may eventually show on a macro level, it makes it almost impossible to believe that something beneficial that doesn't require maintenance will (eventually) occur. At best it reduces the possibility of something such as that as described by the theory of evolution tremendously, nearing impossibility.

 

For that reason, since from what i have observed is no different than what is allowed by creationism, there has been no incentive to consider the theory of evolution in its entirety. For the only thing that basically differentiates it from creationism is natural selection that spawned new species due to previous or ancestral mutations.

[anwiii 17]

i really don't understand the point of this topic. i think anyone with enough common sense believes in evolution no matter how big or how small. religion wouldn't have anything to do with it unless god was the one ho is allowing the change.the majority of the people that don't believe would be the ones practicing religion in their lives...specifically christians...which brings me to my point. how many christians believe in evolution and many don't? it's an arguement i made in another thread how religions are confused their own selves to be certain enough to believe in one truth.as far as evolution, it's already been proven by facts which i just feel the need to list the resources. evolution is not belief. is is FACT. but we are just in the beginning phases to dig deeper in how evolution truely works and the purpose behind it. even if we do dig deeper and have our questions answered by science, it still wont discredit if there is a god or isn't a godwhat will people accept as evidence? personally, not a lot of people care either way. which is unfortunate to think that most people aren't really truth seekers. they just want to live their life and accept the possibilities and move on.i will say this though. is there a reason why people are born with gill-like structures on their neck which at times leaks fluids? my sister is one of those people. when i found that out in the late 70's, i started researching it and also evolution and found a lot of interesting facts and data to support the idea of evolution.i can say this too....the ones who don't believe are going just by their own common sense without any research done by their own selves. they don't gather the evidense or never read up on other evidence gathered by others.most of those people again, are of the christian faith because they think if evolution exists, then god cannot. that is not true, yet they still believe that nonsense. ironically, these are the same people who do believe in god. therefore, if i just went on the basis of these people to believe or not to believe in god, i would have to come to the conclusion that god doesn't exist....OR....more appropriately, just say these god believers are full of it and look elsewhere to determine if.... god exists or not....and for the sake of this thread.....if evolution exists or not. oh! wait. i already did that and it DOES EXIST! the complexity of evolution has yet to be proved, but evolution does exist and any common sense moron would do the research and come to the same conclusion....oh except for those christians who deny any form of scietific data but will believe in things they can't see,feel,touch, or hear. yea....let's leave it to THOSE people to try and tell others where we come from hahayou know also, the older generation really still believes in what they were taught as children. i call these people old school when technology was non existant compared to today. i mean it's summer vacation for the old schoolers and they still fail to realize that a whole new school opened up despite their own beliefs. while the world changes around them, they will never change. at the same time....although ignorant, these same people have a lot of experiences their own selves and have a lot to teach in a world where the new generation fails to listen.although i believe in evolution, i don't believe my ansestors are apes or monkeys. i do however believe there is a relation that i can't talk about either way in proof or facts.

[buxgoddess 1]

Darwin was right in his theory and so was Jesus. Why did I say was Jesus is because Jesus is as true as the faity tale stories are. And as far as evolution is concerned, just ask your father to proove that his great grand father was a man. He will not be able to prove that except that he will show you an old picture of an old man and claim to be his great grandfather. Thats all. You never know who your ancestors wre or where from you evolved because neither any mortal human will ever see it nor will he be able to frrove it, only debate and justify assumptions. Thats all.So where is the question at all? Better not ask such questions which we know for ourselves. And yes, if we are so confused as to what we believe in then good luck that there are these people to confuse you further.Darwin said men evolved from apes and by asking questions like this we are showing how close we are to apes.NB: Please do not take this personally as I hate the concept of evolution, as no one ever evolved better shunning bad habits.

[Baniboy 3]

Truefusion, don't you think that dogs and wolfs are different species? Sure you can't disprove the changes in muscle structure and pretty much everything else between chihuahua and a wolf? Artificial evolution has resulted in dogs that have some totally unique diseases.I also have to disagree with anwiii about the evolution theory being a fact. Theories are not meant to be facts, they gather all the facts and tell us what they mean. A theory has to fit in with all the other theories, if it doesn't the theory is modified to fit them or dismissed from the scientific community What I think anwiii really meant was that it is true.I really have not much to say than macroevolution is just microevolution on a larger scale. This is kinda short post but I really do not have anything to say about evolution because some people(Not any in this topic.. yet) just seem to ignorant.

Edited July 16, 2009 by Baniboy (see edit history)

[buxgoddess 1]

I really have not much to say than macroevolution is just microevolution on a larger scale. This is kinda short post but I really do not have anything to say about evolution because some people(Not any in this topic.. yet) just seem to ignorant.

I think that the matter is a thing that humans will always ponder on. Simply because if after so many years we are not yet sure if we evolved from apes and if wolves are from other species, not related to humans. And yes, humans are ignorant and will always be. Thanks to the evolution.

[anwiii 17]

no no no. please don't speak for me or put words in my mouth. your bad. and sorry to break it to you but evolution is not a theory anymore. i also never said it was. theories aren't based on facts. facts have proven evolution exists. maybe they don't prove or disprove if humans evolved from apes, but the facts do support the truth in evolution existing. that's why i don't really understand the topic of this thread. it should be more specific.

Theories are not meant to be facts, they gather all the facts and tell us what they mean. A theory has to fit in with all the other theories, if it doesn't the theory is modified to fit them or dismissed from the scientific community

[rob86 2]

When did the theory of evolution become fact? Don't get me wrong, I believe the theory of evolution makes sense - but it's kind of hard to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt. I think that referring to anything that we're merely understanding to the best of our ability as a fact could be a mistake, because even things that seem very factual might not be fact. More than one great and widely supported theories in the world have been disproved or completely remodeled.

Evolution is the best theory we currently have on understanding how this aspect of life works, and it's a fine theory, but it and most (all?) theories will never and should never achieve the status of "fact". This closes the door to the possibility that truth and understanding is elsewhere. You rarely hear the word fact being thrown around in the science world. Atomic theory. Big Bang theory. Cell theory. Theory of general relativity. String theory. Quantum theory. What about good 'ol gravity? It's known as Newton's gravitational theory. None of these are referred to as facts, Evolution certainly isn't more accepted than gravity.


Anyway, there's a cute little evolution simulation called Darwin Pond freely available for download. It's an interesting yet simple little sim and visually explains and attempts to prove the theory of evolution is right.

By the way, I can't find any information on people actually having gills on their neck, other than christian websites which I certainly don't trust. So.. ? I'd like to read about it.

The problem with the finches is they started "de-evolving," that is, once the rain came and made the food easier to break open, their beaks started reducing back to their previous state due to the obvious lack of maintenance that muscles, or health in general, require.

The famous finches.. were they de-evolving or continuing to evolve to their changing environment in what only appeared to be a backwards way? If the birds started out with small beaks, then evolved to have larger beaks due to the food/water shortage after which the food became plentiful and there was a boost in population, food becomes harder to find, some could eventually branch out into another species with a smaller beak to get the food that wasn't a typical or desired food source of the big beaked birds. Didn't the birds with the large beaks continue to exist? I don't know if they did or not. If so, the smaller beaked birds would have more food it didn't have to fight over (for a while) and be healthier and become the prominent species and eventually re-evolve again into a big beaked bird. That's not really proof or anything, just an idea I'm throwing out there that probably doesn't answer your question anyway lol.
Edited July 16, 2009 by rob86 (see edit history)

[kobra500 1]

Right there are an awful lot of posts but I havn't read them yet, this is purely aimed at truefusion, your description of a lot of what darwin said was very good in general, and I thought correctly about de-evolution, however I would just consider that evolution, in which much of what evolution did to finches was crossed out by change in environment making them more suited to what they were, however they are not the same breed of finch as before they would be slightly different as I doubt there is a case of something evolving backwards perfectly, although evolution is not random due to natural selection it certainly isn't perfect and thus I don't see a reason why something could de-evolve, instead it would simply evolve due to natural selection into a breed of finch which happens to be very simular to its predessessor.

Everything I write now is since I have read other posts.

Bux, I'm afraid your comment was more pointless than my question, claiming that evolution is a fairy tale and that so is God/Jesus. and that we cannot know so why ask. and I find myself asking the question, why did you post this? If you do not care wether evolution is true or not and are more concerned with your opinion on the process and what I can only assume from the point of jesus, you don't believe intelligent design either, your place in this conversation is pointless as you don't have a point. Wether or not I like/want to believe something does not make it true. Simply saying we cannot know is not the right answer, I reckon people have said we will never cure cancer, we can't kill cancer. and now we have the means to at least stop mild cases and research is getting better. We are on the brink of finding a cure for HIV and even then we can control it so that sufferers can have fruitful lives.

Nothing is to be gained by not trying to gain a better understanding and we have lots to gain by doing so, if you don't want to, then fine that is your choice, but doesn't mean the rest of us will stop trying.

And yes, humans are ignorant and will always be.

You prooved your own point, you are ignorant on the subject of evolution, some of the other things you said proove that. Don't get me wrong Its okay to be ignorant, so long as you don't use your ignorance to persuade people, like "Dr" Hovind who is in prison for fraud. and I myself am ignorant at many things, but I admit that to myself.

Lastly, I will get some evidence for you Truefusion, it will likely be in the form of videos because I enjoy watching and listening more than reading, but thats just me, I like a good audio book you see... etc. I know I took the offensive and I wasn't having a go at you, but you see you critisise me for asking questions and attempting to better my understanding, and also my own curiousity, and I don't like that. You are of course entitled to your own opinion, but your point adds nothing to the debate and codemns the idea of the debate at all, of course if people did not want to debate the point then they wouldn't.
Edited July 16, 2009 by kobra500 (see edit history)

[rob86 2]

although evolution is not random due to natural selection

Can't evolution be a bit random though? I thought the randomness was a big part of evolution. Things are sometimes born different from the "norm", something totally random. Like something growing another arm or leg for no apparent reason. It happens to humans. It could be an important improvement, or possibily it's signing an early death wish for that branch of species. Depending on how much of a change it is, a branched off species may live for many years despite being equal or not being as biologically good as the species it came from. If you could speed up time it might end up dying off, or even taking over, but for the time it existed, it was a random branch of a species before natural selection had time to work out the minor details.

[kobra500 1]

Well the mutations themselves etc. are indeed random, with every Generation at least a portion of your dna will be different from that of people in general, of course that information won't stay unless it was an improvement, we're at this stage in humanity now where normal evolution (natural selection) is being replaced by social evolution, people who just would not have survived even a few hundred years ago are surviving, instead the success of you is more based on you as a person, and you're individual personality and prehaps looks, rather than wether or not you hunt and kill.

Also @ anyone who is prehaps a creationist if I can use that word, I'd advice you watch this playlist, though If you don't want to watch them all, start around 9,10 and 11.

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

It deal with misinformation that deniers of Evolution may believe, or use as well as detailing how evolution works in detail. It's not a rant against Creationism instead it is an explanation of the assertion they make to denounce evolution. Also don't link me to Hovind's videos, i've already seen them. The guy uses straw mans every sentence and more lies and misinformation than a convicted fraudster. Makes sense though because he is one.

Okay he might rant a little but hey, its an explanation.

Edited July 25, 2009 by kobra500 (see edit history)

[truefusion 3]

Also @ anyone who is prehaps a creationist if I can use that word, I'd advice you watch this playlist, though If you don't want to watch them all, start around 9,10 and 11.

Before i prolong from responding any further, i should mention i watched the entire playlist a day or two after you posted it. I had prepared a response against the entire playlist but have decided not to post it. I will just enter and mention one thing about the playlist, the only thing that caught my attention that i was slightly surprised to hear in the video about. But before that, i can see why you suggested that we skip several videos into the playlist. Aside from his complete misrepresentation of the Biblical text, and aside from his self-contradicting videos (which is a good majority of the videos in the playlist), the part that i had argued in this topic was about the maintenance of the body concerning the theory of evolution. In the video he mentions about this one child who apparently has received the "muscle gene"—which would apparently contradict what i have argued. While the guy speaking in the video misrepresented many things concerning reality and theology, he also misrepresented the truth behind this child.

 

Since the child was only briefly mentioned, that gave me the impression that the child was taken out of context for at least merely the promotion of the theory of evolution. So i did some research concerning the child: i found his name, a Wikipedia article about the child, and other things. Among these other things was his Youtube channel. Here's the truth from the research i've conducted: the child, named Richard Sandrak, never received any special genes from his family that caused him to have a complex muscle structure. The truth of the matter is Richard's parents had started him at a very young age^[*] on this exercise program concerning children's health. They started him at such a young age that he was able to enter into muscle-flex contests or galleries at a young age—ultimately surprising the audience, i would assume.

 

The man speaking in the video, in one of the videos he talks about what a dishonest person is—he provides a definition. By his definition given, he would be a dishonest person. Whether he deliberately provided false information or whether he was the subject of false information is beyond me, but anyone who believe this guy rightly represented the truth within his videos, i believe, is accepting things on blind faith.

[akira550 0]

you guys have so many questions to ask... but did you ever try to read your questions? try to figure it out.. your questions.. is the answer.. like this phrasekobra said (God (if he exist) ) you said it already... you know who he is you already know him.. and for the theory of Darwin? nah.. i don't believe in it.. but i believe in evolution.. not in his theories.. God made his people in his own likeness so are you saying that God is a muscle? there are two types of creation in the bible and one theory of Darwin.. do you know that God had already reveal that in the near future there will be so many false prophets and people who wants to make the people disbelieve in him? do you know about 666?