Who Is Your Creator message forum

 

Who Is Your Creator message forum
This Forum is Locked
Author
Comment
The problem....

What is the problem that evolution seeks to explain? We observe that there are a great diversity of living things, many of which are very similar to each other and others that are quite different. For example, humans and chimps are astoundingly similar to each other but quite different from slime molds. Nevertheless, at a cellular and genetic level, even slime molds share a great number of complex similarities with chimps and humans.

Why is it that entire groups of organisms are restricted to geographical regions? For example, there are only hummingbirds in the Americas and none in Europe. Also, there are clear patterns of similarity between regional biotas. Assemblages of species are often similar, but different between disjunct geographic regions.

What are fossils? Why are they arranged into layers in the rock? Why are the fossils in different layers different from each other?

Why do whales have to breath air, even though they live in the ocean - other things that live in the ocean don't have to breath air! Also, why do the bones of whales look so much like the bones of tetrapods? For that matter, why do some snakes have internal limb bones?

These, and many many many other observations from nature can be explained by the theory of evolution, without invoking any supernatural explanations. Thats why scientists and the science-educated public accepts the theory of evolution. It has great explanatory and predictive power. Even if evolution was entirely wrong, there is no reason to invoke any of the god stories that abound. Also, isn't the God-did-it explanation unsatisfying? I mean, it really takes the wind out of the many fascinating facts of nature - like the ones that I listed above.

Science has Answers...But Not Always

Scott:

You bring up some good questions, but are you suggesting that because Darwinian evolution is somehow satisfying to those who like the story, we should believe and accept it?

That is not science, it is mythology. As free moral agents we can believe what we want, but ideas have consequences, and to substitute reality with myth, no matter how desirable, is to live in a fantasy world.

Do you agree?

Re: Science has Answers...But Not Always

Creating hypotheses to explain observations, and then collecting new data to test the predictions made from these hypotheses is how science works. If the new data don't fit, create new (perhaps only refined) hypotheses. That IS how science works, and that IS how the modern theory of evolution and its many many predictions have been tested. Repeatedly. So accepting the theory of evolution IS science, not mythology. I'm satisfied with the validity of the theory of evolution - but not with the completeness of our knowledge about HOW, WHY, or WHEN everything evolved. Also, I'm not yet satisfied with our understanding of all of the underlying MECHANISMS of evolutions.

My point was that while the theory of evolution is satisfying to a scientific mind - for all of the reasons that I have listed - the god-hypothesis doesn't measure up. Its funny that you mention mythology - because, historically, many ancient myths have been about gods, haven't they? I would add one more god to that list.

Enough of evolutionary psychology. Where's your proof?

1. Creating hypotheses to explain observations is perfectly acceptable to devise a theory. However, for a theory to be considered factual, it requires actual facts or observations substantiating it. Otherwise, it's just a premise.

2. Determining what is science by satisfying anyone's mind is pure nonsense.

3. If you want to pursue this type of debate, please email the other participants personally. This forum is for evolutionists to attempt to scientifically prove that evolution occurs, not to explore it's philosophical consequence.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Creating hypotheses to explain observations, and then collecting new data to test the predictions made from these hypotheses is how science works. If the new data don't fit, create new (perhaps only refined) hypotheses. That IS how science works, and that IS how the modern theory of evolution and its many many predictions have been tested. Repeatedly. So accepting the theory of evolution IS science, not mythology. I'm satisfied with the validity of the theory of evolution - but not with the completeness of our knowledge about HOW, WHY, or WHEN everything evolved. Also, I'm not yet satisfied with our understanding of all of the underlying MECHANISMS of evolutions.

My point was that while the theory of evolution is satisfying to a scientific mind - for all of the reasons that I have listed - the god-hypothesis doesn't measure up. Its funny that you mention mythology - because, historically, many ancient myths have been about gods, haven't they? I would add one more god to that list.

Re: Enough of evolutionary psychology. Where's your proof?

Two tenets of the theory of evolution are that 1) all living things are related to each other (i.e., have a shared ancestry) and, 2) ancestor-descendent lineages accumulate changes over time (i.e., evolve away from their starting point). Predictions that arises from these tenets are that some species should be more similar to each other (in terms of morphology) than they are to others. Furthermore, they should be more similar at the genetic level - not only when considering genes that affect their morphology (that might be considered circular), but also at genetic loci that have no morphological effects. When we collect data to test these predictions, we find that they are correct.

This is not hypothetical. These are "facts" that support the theory of evolution.

Since you are new, we'll give you slack.

Unless you provide the actual proof that substantiates your 'facts,' they are nothing but your opinion.

Since you make the claim of 'data,' provide your data and we'll go over it with you.

Otherwise, any further postings without specific references to data and research will be deleted.