Topic: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy

[Ebor]

Just to offer another unsolicited two cents, who's to say that every creature evolves at the same pace as every other creature?  If an animal has evolved enough that it can sufficiently find food, shelter, and a mate then why should it need to evolve any further?  In the instance of the horseshoe crab would it be fair to say that it's reached a comfort zone?  I wouldn't say that the horseshoe crab is the pinnacle of evolution but if it's not being challenged I wouldn't see a reason for it to further evolve. 

That is what I meant when I suggested that the Horseshoe Crab is fitted for its niche in the ecosystem.l  

Ebor

[Ebor]

My apologies for posting without reading all of the thread and thus repeating what Ytterb. and EofK covered so well.

Ebor

[ytterbiumanalyst]

Nice detour .

Thank you. One always needs a bit of levity in a debate such as this.

My apologies for posting without reading all of the thread and thus repeating what Ytterb. and EofK covered so well.

No apology needed; "hot" topics like this have so many new posts that it becomes very difficult to read all of them in time to respond.

[Tzimis]

How do you personally know that it hasn't 'evolved under the Natural selection process"? Are you trained in Marine Biology?  On what basis do you make that statement please?  The site you linked to says in part:

"The evolution of the horseshoe crab extends back far before the dawn of human civilization, before the dinosaurs, before flowering plants... back to the era in our planet's history when visible life first appeared."

So I do not understand where you get the idea that the Horseshoe Crab is 'exempt' and thus a proof against Evolution.

Ebor
 

I don't know. I'm just a dumb Greek hick, But if something is traced back to when visible signs of life first appeared than there might be more here than meets the eye.

[Ebor]

I don't know. I'm just a dumb Greek hick, But if something is traced back to when visible signs of life first appeared than there might be more here than meets the eye.

Reading a bit more on the site you linked to has more information
http://www.horseshoecrab.org/evo/paleo/paleo.html

It reads to me something like saying that the history of a family stretches back to before there were large cities.  That doesn't mean that the people of *now* were the same back then, but that there were ancestors, that the people of today are descended from those who lived in small settlements.   And if one of them lives in a small village, does that mean that he/she hasn't 'descended'?

Ebor

[Tzimis]

Reading a bit more on the site you linked to has more information
http://www.horseshoecrab.org/evo/paleo/paleo.html

It reads to me something like saying that the history of a family stretches back to before there were large cities.  That doesn't mean that the people of *now* were the same back then, but that there were ancestors, that the people of today are descended from those who lived in small settlements.   And if one of them lives in a small village, does that mean that he/she hasn't 'descended'?

Ebor

It doesn't say family, is says horseshoe crab.

[Tzimis]

The chances that evolution has formed all that you see in the world are similar to the chances that a tornado can shift all the debris too form a 747 after it passes through.

[Ebor]

It doesn't say family, is says horseshoe crab.

I am quite aware of what the linked page says.  I've read it more then once carefully.  I was attempting to draw a comparison, a paralllel example as it were of the group in a larger scheme that is the Horseshoe Crab and a group in the larger mass of humanity.

Ebor

[Ebor]

The chances that evolution has formed all that you see in the world are similar to the chances that a tornado can shift all the debris too form a 747 after it passes through.

It's a catchy line, but that's all it is. I've read and heard similar things before. What does it really mean, if anything?  On what real data, on what collected and calculated numbers is it based?

Invoking "chances" of something happening is getting into the field of Mathematics.  There are mathematicians on this forum who perhaps will be willing to bring their knowledge.

Ebor

[Peleg]

This ridiculous notion of creating a "Christian version" of everything that's already been done makes Christianity laughable. Please, for the sake of the Gospel, let's have Christian artists and inventors who create real, original works--not copycats. The world will hate us; Christ Himself said so. But please, if they will hate us, let him hate us because we are followers of Christ, and not because we are thieves.

Amen and amen!!!  Very well said!   Frank Schaeffer deals w/ this issue in his book Sham Pearls for Real Swine.

[Ziggernaut]

Wow. If your religion is so fragile that it can be rendered irrelevant by a scientific theory, then I don't want your religion, thank you.

Science isn't out to prove anything; science exists to discover why things are the way they are. Beginning from the assumption you're trying to prove is circular reasoning, not science.

Christ is Risen!

Being neither a scientist nor a theologian, and somewhat adept at putting my foot in my mouth, so to speak, I would just venture to suggest here that while science isn't out to prove anything, there are very probably certain scientists who, because of their fallen human nature, try to use science to do just that--prove something, that is.  I'm sure the same would apply to theologians too.  Not all scientists, unfortunately, are as objective as they might be and, like so very many of us, may have agendas they are not entirely consciously aware of--that they would admit to, anyway.

Just my humble penny's-worth.

God Bless,
Jeff

[Heorhij]

Wow. If your religion is so fragile that it can be rendered irrelevant by a scientific theory, then I don't want your religion, thank you.

Science isn't out to prove anything; science exists to discover why things are the way they are. Beginning from the assumption you're trying to prove is circular reasoning, not science.

From your mouth to God's ears! Very true, IMHO. Science never aims at "proving" anything. It can, and often does, disprove - of course. Yet, so far, nobody has disproved the theory of biological evolution; to do that, one must show that genes do not exist (but they do), or that genes do not mutate (but they do), or that spatial separation of two populations does not lead to the establishment of mating preferences (but it does), etc. etc. etc.

[Heorhij]

The chances that evolution has formed all that you see in the world are similar to the chances that a tornado can shift all the debris too form a 747 after it passes through.

Ah, but that's a very common mistake. Evolution is not a game of dice. There is only an element of chance in it, but overall it is very "deterministic."

[Heorhij]

It's a catchy line, but that's all it is. I've read and heard similar things before. What does it really mean, if anything?  On what real data, on what collected and calculated numbers is it based?

Invoking "chances" of something happening is getting into the field of Mathematics.  There are mathematicians on this forum who perhaps will be willing to bring their knowledge.

Ebor

My thoughts exactly. Ebor, I am sorry that I have replied to Demetrios G. (above), not having noticed that you already had done it so well.

[Heorhij]

Science has not and cannot determine what constitues a human being. Why? Because science cannot prove the existence of the soul. Science takes a very materialistic very of the human being. They ask questions like "How big is his brain? How tall was he? What was the shape of his skull". Last time I checked, Christianity does not consider materialism as a the definitive qualifier for what makes a human being human.

Also regarding "ensoulment", God created man in His Image and Likeness. Of Cro-Mag's and Neanderthals are our biological ancestors, but didn't have a soul, then God would have inserted a soul into an pre-existing animal species. Lame.

Bottom line: If Cro-Mag's and Neanderthals aren't human, then they were animals without a soul. IMHO, they were less advanced in skills and technology, but were still humans with a soul.

But where do we go from here? What are you implying? Yes, science cannot define or study soul, and it doesn't do it. Yes, scientifically speaking, we are absolutely unable to say, just who was this first owner of a "truly human" soul. So... what?

[Heorhij]

So, Leviticus 17:11 could actually be read as:
"For the soul of all flesh is in the blood..."

How about arthropods then? They have something called "hemolymph" - it's sort of like blood, but not quite... 

[Ebor]

My thoughts exactly. Ebor, I am sorry that I have replied to Demetrios G. (above), not having noticed that you already had done it so well.

Please don't apologize.  I really  appreciate the back up on this.  The phrase is, imho, just silly.  It sounds like it means something, but there's not solid fact or numbers.  All it would seem to mean is "I don't like the idea of evolution. I can't cite solid data, so I'll toss off the idea of unlikely (and untestable) odds."
 

Real Science has Real numbers and real data with meaning that can be checked.

Ebor

[Tzimis]

Ah, but that's a very common mistake. Evolution is not a game of dice. There is only an element of chance in it, but overall it is very "deterministic."

Well, it's that element of chance that it could be false, that keeps you around. No? If it was proven than you wouldn't be here.

[PeterTheAleut]

Well, it's that element of chance that it could be false, that keeps you around. No? If it was proven than you wouldn't be here.

Maybe the beer I've just consumed has dulled my senses, but what the heck is this supposed to mean? 

[Ebor]

Maybe the beer I've just consumed has dulled my senses, but what the heck is this supposed to mean? 

Well, I haven't had any beer and can't make sense of that post either.   Perhaps the poster could elaborate on what he is trying to say?

Ebor

[Heorhij]

Well, it's that element of chance that it could be false, that keeps you around. No? If it was proven than you wouldn't be here.

Let me try to clarify. There is this classical example of what might happen because of a "pure chance." Imagine a monkey sitting at a keyboard and randomly hitting the keys. Purely by chance, the monkey really CAN write the exact copy of Leo Tolstoy's "War and Peace." But, of course, for that to happen, the monkey needs trillions or quadrillions of years, and the chance that the monkey will produce this much text of the "War and Peace" in this much time is ten in the power of negative gazillion.

Now, this really IS a PURE chance. But evolution does not work that way. Nucleotides in the DNA are, indeed, hit by mutagens at random. But then, every phenotypic expression of all these random mutations will be "tested" in a PARTICULAR ENVIRONMENT, which keeps changing. So, we are talking not about a monkey typing "War and Peace," but about, say, a monkey hitting either the "a" key or the "b" key, and another monkey who is well trained to pick the "b" and not the "a," and to produce, right away, 1234567890 copies of the "b" and not of the "a." See where the "chance" and the "randomness" go?

[Ebor]

Let me try to clarify. There is this classical example of what might happen because of a "pure chance." Imagine a monkey sitting at a keyboard and randomly hitting the keys. Purely by chance, the monkey really CAN write the exact copy of Leo Tolstoy's "War and Peace." But, of course, for that to happen, the monkey needs trillions or quadrillions of years, and the chance that the monkey will produce this much text of the "War and Peace" in this much time is ten in the power of negative gazillion.

Now, this really IS a PURE chance. But evolution does not work that way. Nucleotides in the DNA are, indeed, hit by mutagens at random. But then, every phenotypic expression of all these random mutations will be "tested" in a PARTICULAR ENVIRONMENT, which keeps changing. So, we are talking not about a monkey typing "War and Peace," but about, say, a monkey hitting either the "a" key or the "b" key, and another monkey who is well trained to pick the "b" and not the "a," and to produce, right away, 1234567890 copies of the "b" and not of the "a." See where the "chance" and the "randomness" go?

Thank you for this, Heorhij.  It seems that for some the idea of "Chance" somehow gives the idea of chaos and random happening.  But in your post about structure and order the "chance" fits in the parameters. Have I understood correctly?

There is plenty of order and structure in the Universe and all Creation, just as a general note.  So "chance" isn't as open and random as catchy phrases might make it seem.

Ebor

[Heorhij]

Thank you for this, Heorhij.  It seems that for some the idea of "Chance" somehow gives the idea of chaos and random happening.  But in your post about structure and order the "chance" fits in the parameters. Have I understood correctly?

Yes, precisely!

There is plenty of order and structure in the Universe and all Creation, just as a general note.  So "chance" isn't as open and random as catchy phrases might make it seem.

Exactly right!

[Tzimis]

Let me try to clarify. There is this classical example of what might happen because of a "pure chance." Imagine a monkey sitting at a keyboard and randomly hitting the keys. Purely by chance, the monkey really CAN write the exact copy of Leo Tolstoy's "War and Peace." But, of course, for that to happen, the monkey needs trillions or quadrillions of years, and the chance that the monkey will produce this much text of the "War and Peace" in this much time is ten in the power of negative gazillion.

Now, this really IS a PURE chance. But evolution does not work that way. Nucleotides in the DNA are, indeed, hit by mutagens at random. But then, every phenotypic expression of all these random mutations will be "tested" in a PARTICULAR ENVIRONMENT, which keeps changing. So, we are talking not about a monkey typing "War and Peace," but about, say, a monkey hitting either the "a" key or the "b" key, and another monkey who is well trained to pick the "b" and not the "a," and to produce, right away, 1234567890 copies of the "b" and not of the "a." See where the "chance" and the "randomness" go?

I see what you are eluding to. But now add in the formation of the universe as a chance that everything fell into place to allow this type of formation and you again have chaos.  You see now that you are still dealing with chance.
 Until science is able to create a life from nihl or show a mutation from one species to another. The theory will always remain a theory. I'm not saying it didn't happen this way. I'm just saying it's unproven.

[livefreeordie]

So what role do you think chance plays?  Do you believe life as we know it today is an automatic and predicable consequence of the primordial ooze, if not, where do you believe chance and luck came into play? I'd also be interested in what you see as the difference between "chance" and "pure chance". Or "luck" and "pure luck", or even  "fate" and "pure fate". 

Let me try to clarify. There is this classical example of what might happen because of a "pure chance." Imagine a monkey sitting at a keyboard and randomly hitting the keys. Purely by chance, the monkey really CAN write the exact copy of Leo Tolstoy's "War and Peace." But, of course, for that to happen, the monkey needs trillions or quadrillions of years, and the chance that the monkey will produce this much text of the "War and Peace" in this much time is ten in the power of negative gazillion.

Now, this really IS a PURE chance. But evolution does not work that way. Nucleotides in the DNA are, indeed, hit by mutagens at random. But then, every phenotypic expression of all these random mutations will be "tested" in a PARTICULAR ENVIRONMENT, which keeps changing. So, we are talking not about a monkey typing "War and Peace," but about, say, a monkey hitting either the "a" key or the "b" key, and another monkey who is well trained to pick the "b" and not the "a," and to produce, right away, 1234567890 copies of the "b" and not of the "a." See where the "chance" and the "randomness" go?

[PeterTheAleut]

Until science is able to create a life from nihl or show a mutation from one species to another. The theory will always remain a theory. I'm not saying it didn't happen this way. I'm just saying it's unproven.

You've said this before, and quite recently, too.  Do you have anything different, maybe more enlightening, to say about this?

[Tzimis]

You've said this before, and quite recently, too.  Do you have anything different, maybe more enlightening, to say about this?

The Naturalistic view always requires Proof. A theory isn't good enough.

[PeterTheAleut]

The Naturalistic view always requires Proof. A theory isn't good enough.

Essentially the substance of what you said in the posts I quote below:

It's obviously not a science if it's a theory. That said. The day I stop attending church is the day that man can create from nihl. I challenge them to show me even one molecule they created. Or just plain prove that they can create anything. Until that moment comes they have no footing to try and convince us of anything.

Drop an apple and you prove that gravity exists, Split an atom and you have an atom bomb, move electrons and you can create light, Create a life form and you have life. All I am asking for is Proof? Create a life form. It's that simple. A theory will always remain a theory until proven.

Veniamin and I both addressed this faulty logic the last time you brought it up.  Would you care to go back and read what we had to say then and respond to the substance of that?

[Tzimis]

Essentially the substance of what you said in the posts I quote below:

Veniamin and I both addressed this faulty logic the last time you brought it up.  Would you care to go back and read what we had to say then and respond to the substance of that?

Why is it faulty logic? If we had Christ with us right now we wouldn't need any faith. Because he would be here. The same applies to a theory. The atomic theory is proven the moment the boom goes off.

[PeterTheAleut]

Why is it faulty logic? If we had Christ with us right now we wouldn't need any faith. Because he would be here. The same applies to a theory. The atomic theory is proven the moment the boom goes off.

Go back and read what Veniamin said in reply the last time you brought up this line of reasoning if you really want to see why it's faulty.  At the top of each quote where you see "Quote from: Demetrios G. on December 20, 2007, 06:55:58", just click on that link, and it will take you back to the quoted post.  Then follow the discussion immediately afterward.


I'll also offer my own critique of your logic.  The theory of evolution is primarily an attempt to explain what happened in the past to produce the life forms we see today, and this by reading the fossil record as one would read a history book.  All the examples you have used to show how this is unproven are based on the law of cause and effect:  "Do this, and this will happen as a result."  Drop some neutrons into a mass of U₂₃₅, and you get a big explosion.  Drop an apple off a bridge and you hit someone in the head down below.  This is all cause and effect, which just cannot be used to prove that basically unrepeatable events ever occurred in our biological history.  (IOW, those who believe in evolution do so largely because the theory of evolution best explains the long series of unrepeatable events we see in the fossil record, but you would say, "Unless you can repeat these events that cannot be repeated, I will not believe you.")

Besides that, I already showed you how your definition of theory runs totally contrary to how this concept is used in the sciences.

[Heorhij]

So what role do you think chance plays?  Do you believe life as we know it today is an automatic and predicable consequence of the primordial ooze, if not, where do you believe chance and luck came into play? I'd also be interested in what you see as the difference between "chance" and "pure chance". Or "luck" and "pure luck", or even  "fate" and "pure fate". 

Silouan, brother, good to hear from ya!

The chance does play a certain role in evolution. Mutations are, indeed, random. But that's about all there is. Again, what really matters is not what nucleotide was hit by a mutagen at random, but whether or not the resulting change in the shape, form, etc., is advantageous in a certain environment. And these environments are many, and they keep changing. So, one mutant is better fit in the environment number one, another in the environment number two, etc. Hence the great and ever-increasing variety of life forms.

As for the predictability question - no, I don't think we can predict evolution much. We can perhaps say that our own species, Homo sapiens sapiens, will not be a precursor of any new species that would evolve from it. We are no longer merely biological beings, we have culture and technology (transportation facilitating interaction and cross-marriage). 

[livefreeordie]

But it would seem that the odds of a random mutation resulting in an advantageous trait in a species are very high, especially considering, as I understand it, very few mutations are ever observed to be beneficial, and also that it seems as a species became more advanced it would take a lot of cumulative random mutations to result in a substantive change, i.e. developing vocal chords.  Something like that doesn't happen with one change, more like thousands of changes if it's possible.  It seems like we look at the "beneficial" mutations after the fact and then try to take the actual incredible odds of a random mutation being beneficial out of the equation.  It's easy to be an armchair quarterback and look smart! Especially when you have billions of years to work with.  Lots of time for a prediction to come true! 

But isn't evolutionary theory when it looks at fossils from millions of years ago totally dealing in "prediction"?  Not in the observation of the fossil, this is clearly observation, not prediction, but in how these fossils evolved one to another. It's clear there are common traits among all creatures, that stands to reason as regardless of how were created we were all created in to live on this earth, but when you look at the traits of a monkey common to man, and then say, "we evolved from apes (or whatever the appropriate sub-human creature would be)" that seems to me pure speculation and prediction, although from your point of view I understand that this prediction is based on the scientific knowledge you must make this prediction with as a scientist.

And hey, if you will be at Father Chris's new parish in Mississippi we'll have to hook up the next time I'm down!

Again, what really matters is not what nucleotide was hit by a mutagen at random, but whether or not the resulting change in the shape, form, etc., is advantageous in a certain environment. And these environments are many, and they keep changing. So, one mutant is better fit in the environment number one, another in the environment number two, etc. Hence the great and ever-increasing variety of life forms.

As for the predictability question - no, I don't think we can predict evolution much. We can perhaps say that our own species, Homo sapiens sapiens, will not be a precursor of any new species that would evolve from it. We are no longer merely biological beings, we have culture and technology (transportation facilitating interaction and cross-marriage). 

[Heorhij]

But it would seem that the odds of a random mutation resulting in an advantageous trait in a species are very high, especially considering, as I understand it, very few mutations are ever observed to be beneficial, and also that it seems as a species became more advanced it would take a lot of cumulative random mutations to result in a substantive change, i.e. developing vocal chords.  Something like that doesn't happen with one change, more like thousands of changes if it's possible.  It seems like we look at the "beneficial" mutations after the fact and then try to take the actual incredible odds of a random mutation being beneficial out of the equation.  It's easy to be an armchair quarterback and look smart! Especially when you have billions of years to work with.  Lots of time for a prediction to come true! 

Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as an "advantageous mutation." If you live in New York City and acquire the s-hemoglobin mutation, you are a miserable patient with anemia; but if you acquire the exact same mutation and happen to live in the Amazon basin jungle, where everything is infested with Plasmodium malariae - you are the lucky guy, because P. malariae cannot survive in red blood cells with s-hemoglobin; so, unlike your "normal," non-mutant fellow tribesmen, you will survive past the age of 40 and have 12 wives, 67 children and 1297 gradchildren!

But isn't evolutionary theory when it looks at fossils from millions of years ago totally dealing in "prediction"?  Not in the observation of the fossil, this is clearly observation, not prediction, but in how these fossils evolved one to another. It's clear there are common traits among all creatures, that stands to reason as regardless of how were created we were all created in to live on this earth, but when you look at the traits of a monkey common to man, and then say, "we evolved from apes (or whatever the appropriate sub-human creature would be)" that seems to me pure speculation and prediction, although from your point of view I understand that this prediction is based on the scientific knowledge you must make this prediction with as a scientist.

Well, yes, the whole story about the "vertical descent" is a theory, not an observation. But so is the theory that there exists an electromagnetic field or a gravitational field. And people somehow don't blast physicists for using these terms, or measuring the potential energy of these "fields."

And hey, if you will be at Father Chris's new parish in Mississippi we'll have to hook up the next time I'm down!

Thank you. I'll be happy to meet. Doesn't God, indeed, work in mysterious ways?

[ialmisry]

Go back and read what Veniamin said in reply the last time you brought up this line of reasoning if you really want to see why it's faulty.  At the top of each quote where you see "Quote from: Demetrios G. on December 20, 2007, 06:55:58", just click on that link, and it will take you back to the quoted post.  Then follow the discussion immediately afterward.


I'll also offer my own critique of your logic.  The theory of evolution is primarily an attempt to explain what happened in the past to produce the life forms we see today, and this by reading the fossil record as one would read a history book.  All the examples you have used to show how this is unproven are based on the law of cause and effect:  "Do this, and this will happen as a result."  Drop some neutrons into a mass of U₂₃₅, and you get a big explosion.  Drop an apple off a bridge and you hit someone in the head down below.  This is all cause and effect, which just cannot be used to prove that basically unrepeatable events ever occurred in our biological history.  (IOW, those who believe in evolution do so largely because the theory of evolution best explains the long series of unrepeatable events we see in the fossil record, but you would say, "Unless you can repeat these events that cannot be repeated, I will not believe you.")

Besides that, I already showed you how your definition of theory runs totally contrary to how this concept is used in the sciences.

This touches on one of the nails in the coffin in my belief in evolution, hammered in at the University of Chicago (the professors didn't realize what they were doing).

It seems a lot of evolutionary theory revolves around speciation.  But by definition, speciation in the fossil record has to be conjecture, as one cannot mate them and see if they produce fertile offspring.  The problems in this can be seen when species are reclassified, which does happen from time to time.

It is a problem: replication is one of the requirements of the scientific method, said to be at the basis of modern science.

[Heorhij]

This touches on one of the nails in the coffin in my belief in evolution, hammered in at the University of Chicago (the professors didn't realize what they were doing).

It seems a lot of evolutionary theory revolves around speciation.  But by definition, speciation in the fossil record has to be conjecture, as one cannot mate them and see if they produce fertile offspring.  The problems in this can be seen when species are reclassified, which does happen from time to time.

It is a problem: replication is one of the requirements of the scientific method, said to be at the basis of modern science.

I am not quite sure what you mean. Speciation means arrival of a new species. Of course, just studying the fossil record, one cannot detect the EVENT of speciation. But there are no other ways to detect it, either. The whole point is, this "arival" does not mean, today this population was part of species X, and tomorrow it will be a new species Y. Speciation is inconspicuous, it takes thousands or millions of years. But it doesn't mean it's unreal. There is an overwhelming evidence that it is real - from population genetics, biogeographical studies and other lines of study. To reject all that is pretty much the same as to say, "I never saw these two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen in water molecules, so why should I believe in them?"

[ialmisry]

I am not quite sure what you mean. Speciation means arrival of a new species. Of course, just studying the fossil record, one cannot detect the EVENT of speciation. But there are no other ways to detect it, either. The whole point is, this "arival" does not mean, today this population was part of species X, and tomorrow it will be a new species Y. Speciation is inconspicuous, it takes thousands or millions of years. But it doesn't mean it's unreal. There is an overwhelming evidence that it is real - from population genetics, biogeographical studies and other lines of study. To reject all that is pretty much the same as to say, "I never saw these two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen in water molecules, so why should I believe in them?"

What you mean by "evidence" would be interesting.  The non-evidence is overwhelming: men have bred animals of all sorts consciously over thousands of millenia over thousands of generations, yet without producing a new "species."  The idea of random selection doing the job stretches credulity, as does the idea of primordial soup overcoming entropy to produce life.

[livefreeordie]

I already have 5 children with one wife, that will do for now!

C'mon, you know the theory of a gravitional field is a different type of thing than something like the theory of evolution.  Gravity is a very specific principle, I can test it fully in action by dropping an apple for instance.  While we can look at the supposed individual processes of evolution in this same way, i.e. gene mutation, adaptation, etc. it seems like we create a whole other category of "theory" when we say these processes result in some process we call "evolution" which results in an ape becoming man.  Isn't the difference between the theory of "gravity" and the theory of "evolution" that "gravity" is a physical law that can immediately be observed, i.e. an apple falling, while "evolution" is a more general theory or field of study that tries to explain how a bunch of observable individual theories like mutation, adaption, etc. result in the evolution of species? Isn't "gravity" an actual true observation, i.e an apple falling, and "evolution" is more of a prediction, i.e. gene mutations, adaption, etc. were responsible for life crawling forth from mud and we call this prediction "evolution."

Also, a thought I had pondering all this.  Is the only way that an evolutionist can have faith that God "created" is to say God "tuned" the universe so that when these billions of random mutations began to occur some of them would result in the evolution of life? But since mutations are completely random and rarely beneficial, does this mean that as an evolutionist you believe God still left creation to some sort of chance? Otherwise, why do you need God, why do you need to believe God "created", etc.  Of course, that's faith isn't it, something that takes over when reason fails us.

you will survive past the age of 40 and have 12 wives, 67 children and 1297 gradchildren!

Well, yes, the whole story about the "vertical descent" is a theory, not an observation. But so is the theory that there exists an electromagnetic field or a gravitational field. And people somehow don't blast physicists for using these terms, or measuring the potential energy of these "fields."

Thank you. I'll be happy to meet. Doesn't God, indeed, work in mysterious ways?

[ialmisry]

I already have 5 children with one wife, that will do for now!

The number of children or the number of wives?

C'mon, you know the theory of a gravitional field is a different type of thing than something like the theory of evolution.  Gravity is a very specific thing, I can test it fully in action by dropping an apple for instance.  While we can look at the supposed processes of evolution in this same way, i.e. gene mutation, adaptation, etc. it seems like we create a whole other category of "theory" when we say these result in an ape becoming man.  Isn't the difference between the theory of "gravity" and the theory of "evolution" that "gravity" is a physical law that can immediately be observed, i.e. an apple falling, while "evolution" is a more general theory or field of study that tries to explain how a bunch of observable individual theories like mutation, adaption, etc. result in the evolution of species? Isn't "gravity" an actual true observation, i.e an apple falling, and "evolution" is more of a prediction, i.e. gene mutations, adaption, etc. were responsible for life crawling forth from mud and we call this prediction "evolution."

Also, a thought I had pondering all this.  Is the only way that an evolutionist can have faith that God "created" is to say God "tuned" the universe so that when these billions of random mutations began to occur some of them would result in the evolution of life? But since mutations are completely random and rarely beneficial, does this mean that as an evolutionist you believe God still left creation to some sort of chance? Otherwise, why do you need God, why do you need to believe God "created", etc.  Of course, that's faith isn't it, something that takes over when reason fails us.

"That's faith.  That's when you believe what no one in their right mind would believe"-Archie Bunker.

Actually faith can, and should, take over when our reason is up and running and working.

[livefreeordie]

Of course, should have stated my last sentence better.  Although unfortunately, I usually rely too much on my own reason until I get knocked down to size.

Actually faith can, and should, take over when our reason is up and running and working.

[livefreeordie]

The number of children or the number of wives?.

Children, although my wife and I are currently look at some bigger homes with lots of land out in the country and after the move it will no doubt result in an increasing brood! Of course, as the seven of us swam and built a bonfire tonight, a couple more would have just have made it merrier!

[Tzimis]

I'll also offer my own critique of your logic.  The theory of evolution is primarily an attempt to explain what happened in the past to produce the life forms we see today, and this by reading the fossil record as one would read a history book.  All the examples you have used to show how this is unproven are based on the law of cause and effect:  "Do this, and this will happen as a result."  Drop some neutrons into a mass of U₂₃₅, and you get a big explosion.  Drop an apple off a bridge and you hit someone in the head down below.  This is all cause and effect, which just cannot be used to prove that basically unrepeatable events ever occurred in our biological history.  (IOW, those who believe in evolution do so largely because the theory of evolution best explains the long series of unrepeatable events we see in the fossil record, but you would say, "Unless you can repeat these events that cannot be repeated, I will not believe you.")

The fossil record shows no evidence, what so ever that leads to the theory of evolution. Where did you hear that?
Actually there are such large gaps that no one can fill the holes.

Besides that, I already showed you how your definition of theory runs totally contrary to how this concept is used in the sciences.

And I have showed you that science needs observable data to verify a theory.

[Heorhij]

What you mean by "evidence" would be interesting.  The non-evidence is overwhelming: men have bred animals of all sorts consciously over thousands of millenia over thousands of generations, yet without producing a new "species."  The idea of random selection doing the job stretches credulity, as does the idea of primordial soup overcoming entropy to produce life.

Chihuahua and Labrador ARE different species - they do not cross-breed. (BTW, wolf and "dog" aren't really different species.)

Primordial soup etc. is beyond the scope of the theory of biological evolution, that's the realm of a different theory (abiogenesis).

[livefreeordie]

Chihuahua and Labrador ARE different species - they do not cross-breed. (BTW, wolf and "dog" aren't really different species.)

Is the following then false ( a quick wikipedia search):

"While they may look very different, domestic dog breeds are all the same species, Canis lupus, and crossbreds are never sterile. Dog crossbreeds are called hybrids (in the secondary usage) so as to avoid confusion with the term mixed breed dog, since often people who are not knowledgeable about dogs will confuse the terms crossbreed and mixed breed. The term hybrid also is used to refer to the descendants of crossbred progeny[3], although technically that is not correct, and the advantage of hybrid vigour is lost."

It might be physically hard for a Chihuahua and Labrador to copulate and thus cross-breed , but I'm pretty sure they are still the same species. I'm no dog expert though.

[Heorhij]

Is the following then false ( a quick wikipedia search):

"While they may look very different, domestic dog breeds are all the same species, Canis lupus, and crossbreds are never sterile. Dog crossbreeds are called hybrids (in the secondary usage) so as to avoid confusion with the term mixed breed dog, since often people who are not knowledgeable about dogs will confuse the terms crossbreed and mixed breed. The term hybrid also is used to refer to the descendants of crossbred progeny[3], although technically that is not correct, and the advantage of hybrid vigour is lost."

It might be physically hard for a Chihuahua and Labrador to copulate and thus cross-breed , but I'm pretty sure they are still the same species. I'm no dog expert though.

Well, imagine a hundred chihuahuas (50 male and 50 female), and a hundred Labradors (50 male and 50 female), and allow them to mate. Imagine mating preferences?

[livefreeordie]

Well, imagine a hundred chihuahuas (50 male and 50 female), and a hundred Labradors (50 male and 50 female), and allow them to mate. Imagine mating preferences?

As man proves, there would be the oddball pair giving it a swing!

On a serious note, they can potentially breed(I imagine anyone sick enough to try it would use artificial insemination if the female was a Chihuahua), although a female impregnated by a lab would have a good chance of dying in child birth or earlier during the pregnancy due to the probable size of the puppies.  In the coincidence category, my grandfather was actually a breeder of Chihuahuas, and coon dogs. Never together though that I know of!