The Theory of Evolution stated clearly

[mkprr]

My brother, who loves scientific theory, and who is agnostic (not atheist), is of the opinion that the theory of evolution and faith in God aren't necessarily mutually exclusive and that evolution is often misunderstood. He just made this video about evolution (a theory which he finds compelling) Let me know what you think. Critical constructive feedback would be appreciated. Do you see any errors that would be important to point out? Are there important facts that aren't covered appropriately? Is there anything here that you might find offensive or that you wouldn't want your kids to see in a biology class? If so please explain. This is his first version of the video and he will be making revisions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhHOjC4oxh8

[backwoodsman]

Do you see any errors that would be important to point out? Are there important facts that aren't covered appropriately?

Well, since you asked... He treats evolution as though it's science, and fails to mention that evolution is essentially a religious belief, not science. It used to be scientific theory, but it really doesn't even measure up as theory anymore. A theory is, by definition, an idea that meets all available evidence but can't be proven; but the more scientific evidence we have, the more clear it becomes that creation fits the evidence, and evolution doesn't.

For example, in the description of his "What is a gene?" video, he says, "...DNA strongly suggests that all living things are related and share an evolutionary history." If he'd have stopped with "related" he'd have been technically correct -- they're related insofar as they share a Creator who reused components where He saw fit. Darwin said he believed fossil evidence of evolution would eventually be found, and if it wasn't, then his ideas should be abandoned. Well, to date, not one shred of evidence has turned up for any intermediate form of one species evolving into another, in the fossil record or anywhere else; yet people continue to cling to an idea that, by the definition of its originator, has failed. So when he adds, "share an evolutionary history," he's leaving the field of science and stating a belief he's chosen with not a shred of evidence to back it up. Of course he's free to make that choice if he wishes, but I prefer to stay with hard facts and real science. Creation as recorded in the Bible actually does fit the available scientific evidence and is a valid scientific theory, so I'll go with that rather than the pseudo-science of evolution.

[morbo3000]

Well, to date, not one shred of evidence has turned up for any intermediate form of one species evolving into another, in the fossil record or anywhere else; yet people continue to cling to an idea that, by the definition of its originator, has failed. So when he adds, "share an evolutionary history," he's leaving the field of science and stating a belief he's chosen with not a shred of evidence to back it up. Of course he's free to make that choice if he wishes, but I prefer to stay with hard facts and real science. Creation as recorded in the Bible actually does fit the available scientific evidence and is a valid scientific theory, so I'll go with that rather than the pseudo-science of evolution.

Wow. Not one shred.

In general, when someone says "all" or "nothing" or "everything" or "not one shred" their case is exaggerated. Atheists for example are saying "there is no god" which is different than agnostics who say "there may be a god, but I don't know." God could be hiding behind a distant planet for all we know. So atheists are over-stating.

With that in mind.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/ ... dence.html

http://science.howstuffworks.com/enviro ... lution.htm

http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution/ex ... ution.html

http://science.howstuffworks.com/enviro ... lution.htm

http://www.google.com/search?q=fossil+e ... e&ie=UTF-8

I'm sure you'll find a way to shoot all this down. But evolutionary science isn't whistling in the dark. They aren't sitting around believing something without evidence to support their theories. You simply disagree with their evidence.

[steve]

The video seems flawed in its definition of evolution, which is given as something like "Any inheritable change that is passed down to successive generations." If this is evolution, then Darwin had nothing to do with its discovery. The narrator points out that human breeders (long before Darwin) were selectively breeding wolf progeny into various breeds of dogs. By the video's definition, this was evolution. No one disagrees with that, and Darwin did not come close to being the first to discovering it. All creationists have always believed in that phenomenon, so it is not a definition that makes any distinction between the views of those called evolutionists and those who are called special creationists.

To say that the evidence suggests that all living things are related and come from a common ancestor is a huge stretch. The video begins with an amoeba dividing into two, and later shows some other protozoan multiplying into dozens of protozoa. What was omitted (and I was watching for it with interest) was the point at which these fully-independent protozoa divided into two, but remained one organism—hence, the first metazoan. It is often imagined (by non-scientists, who only read the propaganda), that, since this kind of thing occurs in the womb with every zygote, that the gluing together of two paramecia or amoebas into a multicellular creature would be the natural progression of evolution.

What scientists know, but may neglect to make clear to the layman, is that what happens to the zygote occurs because the fertilized egg has the full complement of human DNA to dictate the differentiation of one cell into many kinds (species?) of cells—brain cells, nerve cells, muscle cells, skin cells, etc. The amoeba has only the DNA to make one kind of cell—another amoeba. An amoeba is a complete, fully-functioning, independent organism. A skin cell or a nerve cell is not.

To glue two, ten or a million amoebas together does not put us any closer to having a multicelluar organism. You only have a million independent organisms stuck together like some kind of Siamese twins. Where, exactly, is the science that indicates that a transition from single-celled to multi-cellular organism ever happened, could happen, or took any imaginable course to happening? If we can't get past this hurdle, the remainder of hurdles need not even be considered, since they will never be encountered.

You simply disagree with their evidence.

In most cases, the anti-evolutionist is not disagreeing with the evidence. It is a matter of disagreeing with one man's interpretation of the evidence in favor of another.

[morbo3000]

You simply disagree with their evidence.

In most cases, the anti-evolutionist is not disagreeing with the evidence. It is a matter of disagreeing with one man's interpretation of the evidence in favor of another.

That's a good clarification.

[morbo3000]

If any of you feel like hopping to another thread, I'd enjoy hearing your thoughts about the post I made on the late age of some organisms.

[Paidion]

It seems to me that creationism and evolutionism each present a model by which to explain this present world and its populations. There is no evidence for either model.

I don't think that the fact that dogs have their ancestry in wolves and/or jackals is an example of evolution (as I understand the word). I think that the ancestors of dogs had built within their genetic makeup, given to them by their creator, the propensity for great diversity. Human selection made that diversity possible. It's not a matter of random mutation. I have been given to understand that most or all mutations result in inferior offspring that often die since their physical characteristics are usually not adaptable to their environment. Not so with selection, either selection by humans or natural selection.

That particular moth in England that "changed from whitish in colour to black" did not mutate or evolve. It was simply that they had the genetic propensity to be either whitish or black or any range in between. When the industial revolution caused trees to become covered with soot, the birds which fed on the moths could easily see them and snap them up. Any moths which happened to be darker in colour were more likely to escape. These darker moths bred, and their offspring were darker—and eventually nearly black. Usually in situations such as this if the cause of the selection is removed, the creature usually reverts to its former state.

Breeders developed blue budgies by selection. The usual colour of the bird is green. However blue budgies revert to green if left by themselves.

At least one species of bird has a large range of variation. At one end of the spectrum, the bird is called a "crow", and at the other end a "raven". At both ends, the birds seem rather different in appearance and habits. Both are black, but the raven is much larger. The crow makes its "cawing" sound, but the raven makes a very hoarse sound which is quite different. The raven usually feeds on animals which have died and are beginning to decay, but the crow usually feeds on corn or other plants. Yet there is a spectrum of variation between the raven and the crow with no distinct demarcation at any point of that spectrum.

Selection can explain the variations in physical appearance, and perhaps some mental and emotional characteristics, among humanity as well.

[mkprr]

Thank you everyone for your lively discussion. I shared this with my brother and he appreciates it as well.

Paidon,
If I understand correctly, you recognize that dogs have changed drastically in a relatively short time, but you don’t think they could change enough to be considered another species no matter how much time they had? The idea of all life coming from mutations, and natural selection feels farfetched to me too, but I have heard dedicated young earth creationists talk about micro and macro evolution which seems to be what you are getting at, and I don’t see why they should draw a line. If change can occur in a short amount of time, why can’t big change occur over a long period of time? It seems to have some logical legitimacy at least, and the fossil records seem to indicate that if nothing else, evolution and natural selection do play a significant role in the diversity we see.


Steve,
I am not one to believe that all life came from a single organism (though I don’t rule it out) and I don’t know what arguments a dedicated darwinian evolutionist would have for your concerns about the transition from single to multiple celled creatures. However, if we can’t prove that it can happen, does that really mean that we should dismiss all other evidence? We don’t throw out the Bible because we haven’t found the cherubim and a flaming sword guarding the tree of life. The Bible is supported by a lot of evidence but some of the earliest stories can’t be substantiated. What do you think of some of the links posted by morbo3000 as evidence for evolution on a large scale? I think there is some good evidence there. What I don’t like is the language they use. They use very strong language to describe things that they really don’t have enough evidence to be talking so confidently about.

This might not apply to anyone here but I think that maybe some of the resistance against the theory of Darwinian evolution comes from a fear that if we can explain the way life came to be, we won’t be as likely to believe the Bible or to believe in God. I think though that the evidence for God and for the Bible is much stronger than that. We don’t have to preserve gaps in our understanding in order to sustain a belief in the divine. I am not saying that Darwinian evolution is the answer to how God created life, I am just saying that I think some of the arguments against it have more to do with traditional theology than they do with problems in the natural sciences. Science progresses best when our minds are opened as wide as possible. For this reason I think it is worthwhile to dig into both sides to see where the evidence is pointing.

[steve]

I have never seen the disproof of evolution as a necessary prerequisite for believing in either God or the Bible. If God used evolution, that would meet with no objection from me. I simply recognize that every "evidence" for evolution has an alternative, creation-oriented explanation that makes good sense. It is not the case that all the evidence has an evolution-oriented explanation that makes sense.

The so-called "evidence" that all life is interrelated comes from the study of homology. A hundred years ago, this was limited to the study of the gross anatomy of various creatures compared with each other. Today, the homology is argued at the molecular level. However, the argument remains the same: "Similarity is evidence of common ancestry." This is simply not a valid assumption, nor a scientific argument. Special creation explains the same evidence very admirably, and does not require just-so stories requiring continuous magic in a universe without a magician.

While intelligent design can accommodate all the evidence, evolution fails to answer its own key questions (and, due to their nature, is not likely to ever be able to do so), such as:

1) The origin of life (evolution does not apply to prebiotic development, so natural selection cannot be invoked);

2) The transition from protozoa to metazoa (one might as well argue that rocks can become water);

3) The absence of necessary fossils documenting key transitions between animal and plant groups (one or two oddball specimens do not even begin to do the job—any more than does a living duck-billed platypus. The platypus is a unique and bizarre mammal—not a transition between something else and a mammal—nor between two different kinds of mammals. Archaeopteryx is a unique bird—but it is a bird, not a transitional form between reptile and bird. If large-scale evolution occurred, transitional forms should be abundant—probably outnumbering fully-developed creatures, but they just refuse to turn up);

4) Evolution into higher (more complex) species requires the introduction of new genetic information. Mutations do not create new genetic information. An amoeba's DNA contains no information for the formation of organs. Where did this new information come from?

5) Evolution has been increasingly critiqued for its total inability to account for metaphysical realities like consciousness, intentionality, meaning, and value. These are human realities which cannot be adequately accounted for by appeal to merely physical activity of neurons.

Where is this so-called overwhelming evidence for evolution?

[mattrose]

I have heard dedicated young earth creationists talk about micro and macro evolution which seems to be what you are getting at, and I don’t see why they should draw a line. If change can occur in a short amount of time, why can’t big change occur over a long period of time? It seems to have some logical legitimacy at least

At first glance, this might seem to be the case. If in a relatively little bit of time, relatively small changes can take place.... then, logically, in a relatively large amount of time, large amounts of changes might take place. 'Why draw a line?' is a valid question. Why CAN'T big changes occur over a long period of time?

But I think there is an answer.

The 2 mechanisms for 'change' are, as you stated, natural selection and mutation. Natural selection favors an arrangement of genes that is more fit to survive in a given environment. Mutations are basically damaged genes. Both natural selection and mutation, it seems to me, can be compared to a deck of cards. Let's say a given species has 52 genes (like a deck of cards). As a species reproduces, those cards are shuffled differently. Certain shuffles produce an order that makes that offspring better fit to survive. Mutations are like crumpling (or even deleting) a card.

The reason there is a line... the reason there are limits to change... is because you can only shuffle a deck so many ways... and deleting or disfiguring cards NEVER produces any new information. Some mutations can, strangely enough, prove beneficial, but they never ADD information (genetic code). Without new cards, you can only go so far.