The Truth Surrounding the Theory of Evolution and its Rationale

[trulyenlightened]

Topic 4: The Truth Surrounding the Theory of Evolution and its Rationale

First we must make a few inductive and deductive assumptions, based on our intuition and common sense. We must accept that less complicated and specialized life-forms existed before more complex and specialized life-forms did.This would also mean that at one point in time there were no life-forms at all. A time before the most simplest of organism came along. This would mean that Apes and monkeys evolved before man did. We must also assume that millions of different early life forms, representing different species, did not spontaneously appear, or initially evolved independent of each other. Finally we must include time to allow the mechanisms for change to occur. Remember organisms must survive long enough to adapt to changes in their environment, in order to procreate and transfer that information to their offsprings.

The Theory of Evolution is the most consistent and accurate explanation, of the Origin of different Species(NOT life), and the process of Natural Selection(NOT survival of the fittest). The Origin of Species describes the mechanism that causes change. There are those that argue that a Theory is no more than a well argued bit of guesswork. But a capitalized "Theory" in science is much more than just that. In science, it is a group of principles and laws, developed over many years from rigorous testing. Such Theories are backed up with mathematical formulas and the convergence of evidence that when taken together, explains a series of observations. Gravity can be explained by a number of Theories(Newton, Einstein, Gravity Field, etc.), but no one say that Gravity does not exist. Biological evolution is supported by so much evidence from different scientific disciplines, that it is a fact every bit as true as gravity. The ToE is not about whether or not evolution occurs, but how it occurs. It is only our understanding of the process of evolution that has changed over time and will continue to change. Natural Selection has sometimes been reduced to a Tautology(the survival of those who survive), but this is an oversimplification. I will not be speaking about Artificial Selection, where humans choose which traits are desirable and which are not. I will focus only on Natural Selection, where traits that increase the likelihood of survival and reproduction will become more common within a species population.The truth is that individuals never survive. What survives is the process for making another individual. This resides in the genes found within the general population.

If we believe that the ToE is true, then we must expect the fossil records to demonstrate a progression of gradual changes in earlier species. We must expect that all species share a common chemistry and anatomy with each other. And the closer species are related, the more features/commonalities they will share. We must also expect that all species have a record of genetic changes over many generations. We would also expect to find and follow a record of the geographical distribution of all related species. Finally, we would expect that the geological, archeological, meteorological, and environmental sciences, be consistent with the evidence supporting Evolution. This evidence is supported overwhelmingly, by the convergence of evidence from many scientific disciplines(Genetics, Anatomy, Physiology, Paleontology, Molecular Biology, Chemistry(oxygen markers in fossils), Radiometry, Biochemistry, Physics, Molecular Biology, Molecular Physiology, Cell Biology, and General Biology). Guess what? This is exactly what we find.

It is not mere coincidence that 99% of the molecules that make up all living things, are made from only 6 of the 92 common elements. It is not coincidence that 99.9% of all organisms that lived on this planet are now extinct. It is not mere coincidence that DNA coding for amino acids are the same in all organisms. It is not coincidence that most biochemical processes are the same in all organisms. It is not coincident the function, or nonfunction of vestigial organs in humans and other organisms are still present. It is no coincidence why sexual reproduction evolved as being more favourable than asexual reproduction. I'm afraid that the debate over Evolution ended in the 19th Century, and Evolution won. Without it NOTHING makes any sense in Biology. Maybe you might be able to present an alternative explanation, that explains the Origin of Species, Natural Selection, or the Origin of the first Life?

However, if the ToE is not true and can somehow be falsified by any number of obvious ways, then all of Biology would no longer make any sense. The sum total of the advancements made in science, would be reduced to, "God did it". We would then have to explain why similarities exist among all species, past and present. We'd need to explain why all DNA coding for protein is the same in all species. We'd need to explain why Evolution appear as small changes over long periods of time? We'd need to explain why all the evidence indicate that there must exist a Universal Common Ancestor? We'd need to explain why isolated species evolved differently, than migratory species due to continental drift or other environmental factors.

I will provide more explanations and details, when addressing comments. If there are any. Don

[Philip]

Truly: We would then have to explain why similarities exist among all species, past and present. We'd need to explain why all DNA coding for protein is the same in all species. We'd need to explain why Evolution appear as small changes over long periods of time? We'd need to explain why all the evidence indicate that there must exist a Universal Common Ancestor? We'd need to explain why isolated species evolved differently, than migratory species due to continental drift or other environmental factors.

Of course, whether one believes it or not, a Common Designer God would easily explain those correlations.

[trulyenlightened]

Truly: We would then have to explain why similarities exist among all species, past and present. We'd need to explain why all DNA coding for protein is the same in all species. We'd need to explain why Evolution appear as small changes over long periods of time? We'd need to explain why all the evidence indicate that there must exist a Universal Common Ancestor? We'd need to explain why isolated species evolved differently, than migratory species due to continental drift or other environmental factors.

Of course, whether one believes it or not, a Common Designer God would easily explain those correlations.

It would easily explain anything. Don

[trulyenlightened]

I only asked for one thread, hence the different but related topics. Why don't you let me speak only on one thread? Where is Christian understanding, patience, and compassion? I'm really starting to feel that I am just not wanted. "Where there is little knowledge, there is great ignorance. Where there is little ignorance there is great fear and mistrust". I was a skeptic, but not anymore. Thank you. Don

[Philip]

Truly: I only asked for one thread, hence the different but related topics. Why don't you let me speak only on one thread? Where is Christian understanding, patience, and compassion? I'm really starting to feel that I am just not wanted. "Where there is little knowledge, there is great ignorance. Where there is little ignorance there is great fear and mistrust". I was a skeptic, but not anymore. Thank you. Don

Truly, I think you've misunderstood - there's no problem with mentioning related thoughts in one thread - I think Rick just wanted any discussion that FOCUSES on evolution alone to have a separate thread. And, of COURSE, many such topics are related, with any one of them perhaps best being discussed in a specific thread - that is, if one veers very SIGNIFICANTLY into a peripheral subject that isn't necessarily the focus of the current thread.

[PaulSacramento]

To sate it once and again, and hopefully for the last time:

For something to be "science" or "scientific" it must be:

Observable
Testable
Repeatable
Falsifiable

If it isn't, it isn't science and the method used to reach the conclusions/views was NOT scientific.

[PaulSacramento]

What about the other TOE's?
And why bring up Darwin's "Origin of Species"?
That has been updated quite a bit since then.

[RickD]

I only asked for one thread, hence the different but related topics. Why don't you let me speak only on one thread? Where is Christian understanding, patience, and compassion? I'm really starting to feel that I am just not wanted. "Where there is little knowledge, there is great ignorance. Where there is little ignorance there is great fear and mistrust". I was a skeptic, but not anymore. Thank you. Don

You asked, but the answer is no. The way we do things around here, is different subjects get different threads.

I don't know how to say it other than if you don't like it the way we do it, go somewhere else.

There's no other member here who can come in and just demand the forum changes the way it operates, just to suit them.

And btw, that guilt trip crap doesn't work with me.
From now on, if you have an issue with the way moderators enforce the rules and policies of this forum, please take it to a pm. Stop complaining about it in the forum. And since I have a tiny bit of patience, compassion, and Christian understanding, I'm warning you without a ban. Consider that as unmerited grace.

[Kurieuo]

Truly: We would then have to explain why similarities exist among all species, past and present. We'd need to explain why all DNA coding for protein is the same in all species. We'd need to explain why Evolution appear as small changes over long periods of time? We'd need to explain why all the evidence indicate that there must exist a Universal Common Ancestor? We'd need to explain why isolated species evolved differently, than migratory species due to continental drift or other environmental factors.

Of course, whether one believes it or not, a Common Designer God would easily explain those correlations.

It would easily explain anything. Don

As does evolutionary theory it seems, or a combination of both "Common Designer God" and "Evolution".

Yet, if our senses of the world and rationality were naturally evolved without any intention to work this way and that, one might wonder as to whether we were able to sense and know what is actually true, or whether what we sense and know is merely adapted to get by in life and survive.

[trulyenlightened]

Truly: We would then have to explain why similarities exist among all species, past and present. We'd need to explain why all DNA coding for protein is the same in all species. We'd need to explain why Evolution appear as small changes over long periods of time? We'd need to explain why all the evidence indicate that there must exist a Universal Common Ancestor? We'd need to explain why isolated species evolved differently, than migratory species due to continental drift or other environmental factors.

Of course, whether one believes it or not, a Common Designer God would easily explain those correlations.

You are correct. It is truly an answer that would explain anything and everything, thus, it explains nothing. It is an answer based only on Belief, not evidence. Evolution is based on the evidence we can see, falsify, induce, predict, and test. We can never apply the scientific method to a mental construct, because the results are completely subjective and lack any explanatory value at all(how, what, where, and why). Science is completely objective, and must produce the same results for anyone, or it will be abandoned. Don

[trulyenlightened]

Truly: I only asked for one thread, hence the different but related topics. Why don't you let me speak only on one thread? Where is Christian understanding, patience, and compassion? I'm really starting to feel that I am just not wanted. "Where there is little knowledge, there is great ignorance. Where there is little ignorance there is great fear and mistrust". I was a skeptic, but not anymore. Thank you. Don

Truly, I think you've misunderstood - there's no problem with mentioning related thoughts in one thread - I think Rick just wanted any discussion that FOCUSES on evolution alone to have a separate thread. And, of COURSE, many such topics are related, with any one of them perhaps best being discussed in a specific thread - that is, if one veers very SIGNIFICANTLY into a peripheral subject that isn't necessarily the focus of the current thread.

Fair enough. But other than by you, I'm not feeling very welcomed, let alone my opinions. Let's just see how this will play out. Don

[Kurieuo]

Truly: I only asked for one thread, hence the different but related topics. Why don't you let me speak only on one thread? Where is Christian understanding, patience, and compassion? I'm really starting to feel that I am just not wanted. "Where there is little knowledge, there is great ignorance. Where there is little ignorance there is great fear and mistrust". I was a skeptic, but not anymore. Thank you. Don

Truly, I think you've misunderstood - there's no problem with mentioning related thoughts in one thread - I think Rick just wanted any discussion that FOCUSES on evolution alone to have a separate thread. And, of COURSE, many such topics are related, with any one of them perhaps best being discussed in a specific thread - that is, if one veers very SIGNIFICANTLY into a peripheral subject that isn't necessarily the focus of the current thread.

Fair enough. But other than by you, I'm not feeling very welcomed, let alone my opinions. Let's just see how this will play out. Don

Let me be honest with you, maybe brutally so. I'm neither intending to be welcoming or not. I owe you nothing, you owe me nothing. You want to play ball, play ball. Don't cry foul or "unChristian" when people don't roll over and praise you for knocking their beliefs. Expect resistence, expect argument, expect to play ball.

I will state, whenever someone visits this board who is clearly non-Christian and thinks themselves all intelligent and Christians ignorant (right truly enlightened one?), who thinks they can after many milliea knock belief in God out of the ball park, in particular the monotheistic God rooted Judaism, which has infact stood the test of time admist all sorts of other beliefs and philosophies -- such a person is kidding themselves.

Further, such just wreaks to me of self-grandeur, an Atheism-like rational snobbery common to the New Atheism movement which seems to be dying as quickly as it started, makes me roll my eyes, and really the words coming out of such a person to me are on the level of a chimp going "ooh ooh ooh eee eee eee aah aah aah."

I hope that isn't being unwelcoming to you. Understand not everyone is going to agree with each other or just accept what another says, especially on a discussion board like this. Aussies in the past who have come here have had such thin skins it embarrasses me. I hope you're not one. Just say what you want to say, make your arguments, and let people respond how they respond. You're being given a lot of leeway here if you take a read the board purpose and separate discussion guidelines.

[trulyenlightened]

To sate it once and again, and hopefully for the last time:

For something to be "science" or "scientific" it must be:

Observable
Testable
Repeatable
Falsifiable

If it isn't, it isn't science and the method used to reach the conclusions/views was NOT scientific.

Are you suggesting that all related Evolution Scientist are not doing science? Are you suggesting that the 100's of thousands of Evolution-related scientist's work, is solely based on a consensus of opinions or beliefs, and not evidence? Are you suggesting that Evolution is not falsifiable? So if we find a modern-day rabbit fossil(or any modern mammals) buried with dinosaur fossils, would that not be enough to falsify the Theory? Would the Theory be falsified if we noticed that the same gene coded for two different amino acids in different organisms? What if the more closely related the species are, the more dissimilar they are. Would this be enough to falsify The ToE? Would the Theory be falsified if mutation was not the mode of change for different traits to be inherited? We can also see the evidence of gradual change from stubs to limbs, or gills to lungs, from the fossil, chemical, and genetic records. We certainly can't sit and observe life evolving over millions of years, and note all the tiny changes that occurs. Do you notice the small changes during ageing, or the movements of a clock's minute hand? No one can observe the tiny changes that occur over millions of years. It is not a practical ask. It is also totally irrelevant. Do you need to sit through the entire game to know which team won? We can only observe the cumulative effects of change. The Pharmaceutical and Research Industries test the principles of Evolution in developing new vaccines and antibiotics to fight new strains of antigens everyday. All GM foods are produced based on the principles of how things evolve and adapt to change.The Theory of Evolution is also used to manage fisheries for a greater yield. It is the principles of Evolution that allowed scientist to produce bacterial strains to even decompose hazardous materials.

If we trace genes of a known function and compare how they are related to unknown genes, we can predict the unknown gene's function. This was the foundation for drug discovery. Many statistical techniques, including analysis of variance and linear regression, were developed by evolutionary biologists. Anti-evolutionary ideas have been around for a thousand years, and have not yet contributed anything with any practical application. I have only mentioned a tiny fraction of the Theory's applications, but suffice to say, not only are many of the principles of the Theory testable, falsifiable, predictable, observable, intuitive, rational, observable, and repeatable, but only a non-scientist would ever claim that the ToE is just not science. No matter how many times you say it, you will still be wrong, and a very exclusive member of a very exclusive club. Of course I could be wrong. Maybe you have an alternative explanation you wish to promote, that will also have many other practical applications? You might add "practical" to your list as well. Don

[trulyenlightened]

What about the other TOE's?
And why bring up Darwin's "Origin of Species"?
That has been updated quite a bit since then.

What other ToE's? Since the Theory has been updated, are the updates correct? Other than Radiometrics and Genetics, what are some of these updates? Don

[trulyenlightened]

Truly: I only asked for one thread, hence the different but related topics. Why don't you let me speak only on one thread? Where is Christian understanding, patience, and compassion? I'm really starting to feel that I am just not wanted. "Where there is little knowledge, there is great ignorance. Where there is little ignorance there is great fear and mistrust". I was a skeptic, but not anymore. Thank you. Don

Truly, I think you've misunderstood - there's no problem with mentioning related thoughts in one thread - I think Rick just wanted any discussion that FOCUSES on evolution alone to have a separate thread. And, of COURSE, many such topics are related, with any one of them perhaps best being discussed in a specific thread - that is, if one veers very SIGNIFICANTLY into a peripheral subject that isn't necessarily the focus of the current thread.

Fair enough. But other than by you, I'm not feeling very welcomed, let alone my opinions. Let's just see how this will play out. Don

Let me be honest with you, maybe brutally so. I'm neither intending to be welcoming or not. I owe you nothing, you owe me nothing. You want to play ball, play ball. Don't cry foul or "unChristian" when people don't roll over and praise you for knocking their beliefs. Expect resistence, expect argument, expect to play ball.

I will state, whenever someone visits this board who is clearly non-Christian and thinks themselves all intelligent and Christians ignorant (right truly enlightened one?), who thinks they can after many milliea knock belief in God out of the ball park, in particular the monotheistic God rooted Judaism, which has infact stood the test of time admist all sorts of other beliefs and philosophies -- such a person is kidding themselves.

Further, such just wreaks to me of self-grandeur, an Atheism-like rational snobbery common to the New Atheism movement which seems to be dying as quickly as it started, makes me roll my eyes, and really the words coming out of such a person to me are on the level of a chimp going "ooh ooh ooh eee eee eee aah aah aah."

I hope that isn't being unwelcoming to you. Understand not everyone is going to agree with each other or just accept what another says, especially on a discussion board like this. Aussies in the past who have come here have had such thin skins it embarrasses me. I hope you're not one. Just say what you want to say, make your arguments, and let people respond how they respond. You're being given a lot of leeway here if you take a read the board purpose and separate discussion guidelines.

I have read the boards purpose and guideline, unfortunately, a lot is left up to interpretation by the moderators. I assure you I have very thick skin. It is more than just faith that strengthen my beliefs. I have never demanded anything to be done for me on this forum, and I'm not so naive to think that I will threaten anyone's faith, or try to convert anyone. How people respond to my posts only reflects the strength of their own convictions. I have no problems if I am wrong about anything. That is a win-win for me, since knowledge should always be free and available. I expect an argument based on my ideas and the facts I present, not on insults and threats BECAUSE I presented them.

Anyway, I don't want to argue over the open forum. Would it be alright if you would continue to insult me, with your version of the brutal but honest truth, as a PM? I don't want to be accused of whining(without merit), despite being an Aussie. Don