Evidence for Evolution?

by LucidSky 97 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

LucidSky

I also can't see how people who wish to believe creation would even want to argue that God may have used evolution .IMO
Just wanted to add that I don't think its that unreasonable to believe in both creation and evolution.
hooberus

Lucid said:
"Can you tell me what evidences are weighing against macro-evolution? I am still looking for answers. I don't, however, believe that anything is wrong with adapting theories to fit new discoveries -- religion and science both do this."
1. Discontinous fossil record especially between the major groups.
2. Large seemingly unbridgable gaps between the morphologies of living organisms.
3. Discontinous pattern of DNA similarities between groups of living organisms.
4. Massive problems with a naturalistic origin of life.
5. Complex structures which are irreducible (such as the eye).
6. Flakey mechanism (mutation and selection).
7. Convergence unbelievability (such as the eye of the squid and the human eye being similar yet according to evolution sharing no common ancestry hense they formed separately.)
8. Severe geological problems with the "relative time-scale" such as the common phnomena where relatively "younger" strata sits conformally on supposedly much "older" strata without any evidence for "millions of years" of erosion inbetween. This common situation calles into question the entire concept of evoultionary geologic ages.
9. Outlandish scenarios such as blue whales coming from either cow-loke or wolf-like land creatures.
10. Too much perfection in nature.
Lucid said:
"Yes, atheist scientists could be just as zealous about naturalism as a creationist. I would think the least biased scientist would be someone who is neither atheist nor theist."
There is a book called "Evolution: A Theory In Chrisis" writted by a scientist named Michael Denton. At the time of the books writing Mr. Denton was I believe an agnostic (neither an atheist nor theist). His book is probably the best book I have yet read on the major problems of macro-evolution. The book is semi-technical in parts but is still very understandable. He does an excellent job of orderly setting forth his subjects. I would strongly recommend it especially if you want to get a relatively philosophically unbiased viewpoint.
Edited by - hooberus on 11 November 2002 13:22:18
rem

Hooberus,
Nothing you have presented falsifies macro-evolution. There are gaps in the fossil record (which is understandable keeping in mind how fossilization works) and gaps in our knowledge, but nothing you have provided, including your misunderstandings of irreducible complexity and arguments from ignorance, shows that macro-evolution is impossible.
And then if you can actually falsify macro-evolution, you are still not done. You not only need to falsify macro-evolution, but you need to provide a better theory. Creationism as a theory (if you can even come up with a scientifc, falsifiable theory of Special Creation) is indeed falisified by evidence and observation.
rem
hooberus

rem said:
"Nothing you have presented falsifies macro-evolution."
rem - please show us then how to hypothetically falsify macro-evolution
rem said:
"but nothing you have provided, including your misunderstandings of irreducible complexity and arguments from ignorance, shows that macro-evolution is impossible."
1. How can you say that I have "misunderstandings of irreducible complexity" when I haven't even posted virtually anything about it?
2. Please list my "arguments from ignorance."
rem said:
"Creationism as a theory (if you can even come up with a scientifc, falsifiable theory of Special Creation) is indeed falisified by evidence and observation.
How has creationism been "falsified by evidence and observation"?
rem
rem
Hooberus,
rem - please show us then how to hypothetically falsify macro-evolution
No problem. Evolutionary theory, just like any good scientific theory, makes predictions. A good theory is falsifiable because if the predictions are wrong, then the theory is unsound. One simple way to falsify Evolution would be if you could show that the earth was not billions of years old since Evolution predicts that changes take place over vast amounts of time. Evolution also predicts that organisms would not exist before their ancestors, so if you see humans existing with dinosaurs or trilobites, you have falsified Evolution.
Evolution also predicts that closely related organisms will have closely related DNA. If you find that Chimps, Gorillas, and Humans have vastly different DNA in relationship to other animals (including junk DNA), then you have falsified Evolution. Evolution predicts that you would see reptiles in the fossil record before mammals. If you ever show that mammals predated reptiles in the fossil record, then you have successfully falsified macro-evolution.
The list goes on and on. Evolution is a solid, falsifiable scientifc theory.
1. How can you say that I have "misunderstandings of irreducible complexity" when I haven't even posted virtually anything about it?
You brought up the example of the eye, which many feel is irreducibly complex. It is not and touters of Irreducible Complexity have had to back away from their claims that the eye is irreducibly complex.
2. Please list my "arguments from ignorance."
Arguments from ignorance:
Too much perfection in nature - I'm ignorant of how it happened, so I'll conclude 'god did it'
Outlandish scenarios about blue whales coming from land animals - I'm ignorant of how it happened, so I'll conclude 'god did it'
"Convergence of unbelievability" - I'm ignorant of how it happened, so I'll conclude 'god did it'
Flakey Mechanism of Natural Selection - I'm ignorant of how it works, so I'll conclude 'god did it'
"Massive" problems withthe naturalistic origin of life - I'm ignorant of how it happened, so I'll conclude 'god did it'
How has creationism been "falsified by evidence and observation"?
My statement was carefully worded because you can come up with many theories of creation, many of them that are not falsifiable. Here is a brief outline of a falsifiable theory of creation that can be proven false:
God, who never breaks natural laws, created life exactly in the manner described in the bible in six "days" of a few thousand years each. A few thousand years ago, god destroyed all life on earth through a global flood and all life repopulated from a stock of animals kept on an ark which landed in the Middle East.
Evidence shows that the earth is much older than "thousands of years". Evidence shows that the order of plants and animals coming into existence is different than what is shown in the bible. There is absolutely no evidence of a global flood, and much evidence against it. There is no Evidence that all animal life repopulated from the middle east a few thousand years ago, and there is much evidence against this. There is no evidence of any mass extinction of animal life on earth a few thousand years ago.
There are other Creation theories that could be created, but it would be difficult to come up with one that is both falsifiable and congruent with the known facts.
rem
heathen

here is a site explaining more detail on my argument .Read the first paragraph.http://http://www.sc2000.net/~czaremba/explanations/microevolution.html
rem

Heathen,
I might be mistaken, but it looks as though you are misunderstanding what they author of the page is saying. Is this the part you are referencing?
It is very difficult to detect changes that occur on the microscopic level. These changes must manifest themselves in the organisms phenotype. Since individuals do not evolve, one must keep a close eye on the individuals population to detect any change in genotypic modification. Biologists have a way to help them detect such changes; it is called the Hardy -Weinberg theorem.
I have no way of knowing what you are actually referencing, but if you are using the statement that "...individuals do not evolve..." to show that microevolution does not happen, then you have a misconception about how Evolution works.
Individual organisms do not evolve. An individual's genes stay the same for its whole life. Only populations of individuals evolve over successive generations. Over time there will be a higher frequency of certain genetic traits in a population. This is evolution. Over time, this genetic change in the population can cause speciation.
I think you may also be misunderstanding the author's meaning when he writes, "It is very difficult to detect changes that occur on the microscopic level." He is not saying that it is difficult to see "microevolution". He is saying that it is easier to track changes in the gene's expression, which indicate change in genes rather than manually look for changes in genes at the microscopic level.
rem
Edited by - rem on 11 November 2002 16:25:35
heathen

I can't get the link to work .Looks like I misinterpreted what he was trying to say .You have to look at the entire population to notice the changes in the offspring of the specimen.I don't doubt it works to a certain degree but I don't think It will mutate into anything that is outside the bounds of of it's programmed design.

hooberus

rem said:

"Evidence shows that the earth is much older than "thousands of years". Evidence shows that the order of plants and animals coming into existence is different than what is shown in the bible. There is absolutely no evidence of a global flood, and much evidence against it. There is no Evidence that all animal life repopulated from the middle east a few thousand years ago, and there is much evidence against this. There is no evidence of any mass extinction of animal life on earth a few thousand years ago."

rem there is a lot of evidence for what you try to deny. Your "no evidence" statements above are simply propaganda

QUESTIONS AND A NSWERS

Topic Index | Geology

Recommended Resources

An Ice Age Caused By the Genesis Flood

Ancient Ice Ages or Gigantic Submarine Landslides?

Evidences: the Record and the Flood (video)

Evolution: Fact or Belief? (video)

Experiments in Stratification (video)

Footsteps of Leviathan (video)

Genesis Flood

Grand Canyon: A Biblical View (video)