How we Know that Evolution is a Fact

by JanH 68 Replies latest jw friends

  • anewperson
    anewperson

    Marvin Shilmer who wrote earlier in this thread alludes in passing to a good point that atheists sometimes throw at believers in the heavenly One; namely they say "well, if God exists then WHO made Him? And if So-and-So made that WHO then who made that GOD?" ad finitum," thinking this makes the idea that God exists look stupid. In fact there are countless infinities which exist.

    For example the Greeks noted if you cut a stick in half you get a half of the stick and cutting that in half will give you another half and so forth.... always with another half of the stick which can still be cut in half if you have a small enough cutting tool. And in like manner if you are four feet from a door and cover half the distance you have two feet left, then you cover another half the distance and there's only 1 foot left, then you cover half that distance towards the door and there is still half of that distance left... and so forth eternally, and this even though in our realm of the universe above the quantum level we in fact do get to the door and may even go beyond it.

    Or you line up a mirror such that you see yourself in it and inside that mirror's image another image of yourself, and inside that mirror's image another image of yourself etc etc forever..... So there you are existing as a set of images which is infinite even though you are in fact but one person.

    Point? That can be that which is Eternal (God: fatherly source of all existence which is both somethingness and nothingness) and in fact has no prior source to it itself, or Him Himself.

  • ISP
    ISP

    Interesting stuff Jan. Well put!

    ISP

  • Seeker
    Seeker

    Marvin,

    I don't know if you noticed this in your post, but look at this:

    The reason I fall down on the side life as we know it having a creator is because science can prove that life begets life but it has yet to prove that the inanimate can produce life.
    OK, so you don't side with science on this issue because there is an unknown involved.

    Until science proves that the inanimate can produce life then evolution has a critical weakness.
    Because of that yet unknown knowledge, you view evolution as having a critical weakness. You decided this based on an unknown.

    As for who created any creator, I don’t know.
    Now you introduce another unknown, who created a creator.

    But I do not let the unknown decide my beliefs.
    Oops, maybe not. You decided your views of evolution based on an unknown. The same unknown that exists in the question of God's origin. So you do let the unknown decide your beliefs, wouldn't you say?

    My beliefs are decided by what I know.
    And on which of the two unknowns you feel more comfortable with, it seems.
  • Mindchild
    Mindchild

    A well delivered presentation Jan. You didn't get too technical so as to confuse people with jargon and yet gave enough important points for your arguement. I give you an A for your presentation but perhaps I can add a bit to your comments.

    Most people don't have any idea of how the so-called junk DNA gets into our genes. What you said about random genetic mutation was technically correct but this does NOT explain how entire sequences of genes from other species are transfered to a different species! Random variation occurs all the time in genes, in fact there are even online databases that monitor the changes for medical information. If you take nearly any animal species, you will find that it has a large amount of non-functional DNA in it, and when you further study this DNA you will find enitre segments of coded instructions from different species. For instance you can even find teeth in bird DNA. No matter how much random mutation you have, the complex code of instructions for teeth are NOT just going to pop into place one day.

    In this respect, the old arguement of implausability by creationists raises it's head and yells: Got You! What these people fail to appreciate though is the integrated approach of science today to answer exactly how this happens in a demonostratable way with direct experimental proof. We know of several mechanisms that cause jumping genes and having worked in the astrobiological field myself, I can amplify on just a few methods.

    In microbiology and virology, it is basic knowledge that microbes transfer genes from one to another all the time. In the case of bacteria, they eat new genes from other bacteria or from viruses. Amazingly, we have evidence now that higher organisms can transfer genes this way as well. If the reader wants to explore this subject further, simply enter "genetic transfer" into a search engine and read to your hearts content. Even though genes from another organism can be ingested and integrated (this is how we got Mitochondria in our DNA)by ingestion the most famous and well known method for gene transfer between species is by retroviruses. Retroviruses are enveloped viruses, with an RNA genome. The name is derived from the fact that the virus particle contains an RNA-dependent DNA Polymerase (Reverse transcriptase). This enzyme converts the RNA genome into DNA, which then integrates into the host chromosomal DNA. The reverse transcriptase is highly error prone and rapid genetic variation is a feature of this group. Some Retroviruses transfer additional genetic host information to the new host. DNA analysis has shown that our nonfucntional DNA is populated with retroviral signatures.

    In addition to viral transfer of viruses from one species to another we note other methods of mutation and gene transferance which include jumping genes which are called transposons and these are responsible for about 20% of an organism's genome! If you would enjoy a simple to understand explantion of jumping genes, just follow this link:
    . http://biology.anu.edu.au/rsbsweb/publications/biologic11/genes.html

    Integrating this and other information about what happens in our genes helps us now to know that there should be gaps in the fossil record! We have learned that entire sequences of genes become activated in certain circumstances and produce gross and well developed biological changes. In other words, instead of say getting an extra finger growing out of your side, you would get an entire arm with fingers as a result. If anyone wants to argue this point and lose, please let me know. haha

    So, Jan is right about evolution being so well established that you can safely call it a fact as anything else we know in science. People who want to argue divine creationism need to get up to date with current scientific facts and understanding, and not pretend they are living back in the 1930's or earlier when evolution was a new science.

    If anyone needs some book suggestions, would be glad to offer my recommendations.

    Skipper

  • Marvin Shilmer
    Marvin Shilmer

    Hi, Seeker

    I know evolution depends on the inanimate producing life.

    I know science has never proved the inanimate producing life is a fact, though scientists have concluded it.

    I know science has proved that life begets life.

    Since my beliefs are decided by what I know then I have little choice but to fall down on the side of life begetting life. This is siding with science.

    Until science proves that the inanimate can produce life then evolution has a critical weakness.
    Because of that yet unknown knowledge, you view evolution as having a critical weakness. You decided this based on an unknown.

    That statement of yours is not sound. It is a known that science has yet to prove the inanimate can produce life, not an unknown as you assert. Accordingly my view does not stem from the unknown but the known.

    Because the belief of evolution has a critical weakness does not mean I reject scientific facts. If a belief has a critical weakness it means no more than that. One day the critical weakness might be resolved, or maybe not. It depends on what we learn from yet undiscovered facts.

    In terms of established scientific fact, the typical belief in a creator has a fundamental weakness too. While my brief accounting does have facts enough to establish a sound reason for believing life as we know it did not just happen but rather was caused by another life, the same facts do not scientifically establish whether that "creator" life was intelligent or that it produced us on purpose or by design.

    Belief in an intelligent creator and teleology requires faith.

    Belief that the known universe began as something the size of the head of a pin also requires faith.

  • Seeker
    Seeker

    Marvin,

    Thanks for clarifying your views more. I agree that belief in a creator requires faith, and I have always said that. I do not agree that it requires faith to believe the origins of the universe the way science has explained it. Where it ultimately came from is unknown as of yet (I am assuming we will one day know it, but that is just an assumption). How we got from a pinhead-sized universe to now is very well known and explained.

    However, my comment to you was based on your acceptance of a Creator, even though the origin of this Creator is just as unknown. So you do accept the unknown, although for that you take the proverbial leap of faith. I have no objection to that, and I respect faith.

  • rem
    rem

    Marvin and Anewperson,

    Your reservations about Evolution have no basis. What you really have reservations about is Abiogenesis, which is NOT Evolution. Evolution doesn't care how it all started - some deity could have done that, but after it started, it explains the variety and relatedness in life forms that we see.

    That is one of the greatest misconceptions about Evolution. People assume that it has something to do with atheism, the Big Bang, or Abiogenesis, but it does not. Abiogenesis deals with life from non-life - Evolution does not. Evolution is compatible with both athiestic and theistic philosophies.

    Evolution is obviously a fact (it has withstood over a century of criticism and only becomes stronger with new evidence and techniques), so if a person believes in a deity or deities, then he must believe that they created life from non-living molecules and used the mechanism of Natural Selection to shape life. There is no question that Evolution is a fact, just as there is no question that we live on a spherical earth. There is no theory of special creation that fits all of the facts that we have uncovered.

    I guess what I'm trying to say is don't pretend that you have a reason to dismiss Evolution because you believe in God. You are really rejecting Abiogeneis, not Evolution.

    rem

    "We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain
  • rem
    rem

    Marvin,

    I know evolution depends on the inanimate producing life.
    How do you know this? See my post above.

    rem

    "We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain
  • Moxy
    Moxy

    altho i appreciate marvins and anewperson's well expressed comments, i think they get a little off-topic. jans arguments do not argue directly against god's existence. neither do they argue for the spontaneous development of life from non-living matter (abiogenesis.) they relate to the evolution of life and argue against special creation, the creation of different species independantly of one another without any biological relationship. tho these other two issues invariably get tied up in any evolutionary debate, by raising them without directly answering the issue on the table, you seem to be using a straw man argument.

    (i see rem basically said the same thing as i was posting this)

    mox

  • sunscapes
    sunscapes

    Absolutely Mox. By having the debate two-sided, it creates this "us-versus-them" dichotomous mentality, whereas there are actually multiple vantage points even in evolutionary research. Fundamentalists, unfortunately, seem to be the ones predominant in using this as a wedge issue.

    BTW, excellent posts Jan and Mindchild showing these variations in discoveries.

    When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers ... we are ripping the foundations of justice from beneath future generations.

    formerly "Theocracy Rules Again"
    circa 1996-1999

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit