Evolution & Atheism... Is it really more plausible?
- Thread starter ICs2Xist
- Start date
Recommended Videos
One of the main issues concerning christians and their problems with evolution is the fact that they very often don't define where their problems lie. They instead use the broad term "evolution" and many think that they're trying to debate all of it. Natural selection, or micro-evolution is proven and happens all around us at all times.
Many christians though, have a problem with of course the "bio-genesis" and macro-evolution. The mentioning earlier of many domestic breeds of dogs coming from a wolf is of course completely 100% true. The issue is not that the dog came from a wolf. The issue is that a dog is not a different species from a wolf. It is only a different breed, much like the different races of humanity.
Wolf: Kingdom - Animalia, Phylum - Chordata, Class - Mammalia, Order - Carnivora, Family - Canidae, Genus - Canis, Species - Canis lupus
Dog: Kingdom - Animalia, Phylum - Chordata, Class - Mammalia, Order - Carnivora, Family - Canidae, Genus - Canis, Species - Canis lupus
BTW, I've heard the whole "vestigil" argument before with the human tailbone being pointed out. Honestly, that is a very important muscle anchoring point that I can guarantee you, most anyone would hate being without. It's by no means "vestigil". I'm only talking about the tailbone here though. :cough:
Also, I find it very interesting that differing bone structure in very human looking layouts have quite often been proven to being homo-sapiens that had a form of bone disease or were just different variations. If you take the bone structure of a typical African male (based on environmental factors, not racial) and the bone structure of a typical Asian male, you will find a plethora of differences in their structure, the density of the bone, the length of limbs, etc. Not to mention the fact that facial bone growth is a proven fact as individuals age. I would find it to be fascinating if many of these "neanderthal-esque" skeletons were radically aged individuals who'se facial bone structure had not stopped growing, as is the case currently, giving prominant ridges, etc... :shrug: just some things to think about from a scientific standpoint.
Many christians though, have a problem with of course the "bio-genesis" and macro-evolution. The mentioning earlier of many domestic breeds of dogs coming from a wolf is of course completely 100% true. The issue is not that the dog came from a wolf. The issue is that a dog is not a different species from a wolf. It is only a different breed, much like the different races of humanity.
Wolf: Kingdom - Animalia, Phylum - Chordata, Class - Mammalia, Order - Carnivora, Family - Canidae, Genus - Canis, Species - Canis lupus
Dog: Kingdom - Animalia, Phylum - Chordata, Class - Mammalia, Order - Carnivora, Family - Canidae, Genus - Canis, Species - Canis lupus
BTW, I've heard the whole "vestigil" argument before with the human tailbone being pointed out. Honestly, that is a very important muscle anchoring point that I can guarantee you, most anyone would hate being without. It's by no means "vestigil". I'm only talking about the tailbone here though. :cough:
Also, I find it very interesting that differing bone structure in very human looking layouts have quite often been proven to being homo-sapiens that had a form of bone disease or were just different variations. If you take the bone structure of a typical African male (based on environmental factors, not racial) and the bone structure of a typical Asian male, you will find a plethora of differences in their structure, the density of the bone, the length of limbs, etc. Not to mention the fact that facial bone growth is a proven fact as individuals age. I would find it to be fascinating if many of these "neanderthal-esque" skeletons were radically aged individuals who'se facial bone structure had not stopped growing, as is the case currently, giving prominant ridges, etc... :shrug: just some things to think about from a scientific standpoint.
The fact that there are a million mistakes from a scientific viewpoint in the bible disproves from the get-go the false nature of the bible. The flood, the fact that slavery was approved by god, incest, the fact that god was always going on about this or that to everyone back then but now he doesn't say anything to anyone besides homeless people and the fact that he is always the reason for war (or at least the excuse used) should be more then enough for any person that can comprehend simple logic that the christian god is nothing more then a myth, albeit a pervasive one in our world. The sooner we realize that this life is all we have the sooner we can start making it better for everyone instead of waiting on a flying spaghetti monster to do it for us. I realize that there are people out there that can't stand the thought that they believed a lie for their entire life but get over it. It's the 21st century not the dark ages. Time to move on.
Because our early ancestors were not a single group living in one place, primates existed all over the globe, in nearly all conditions imaginable. Different conditions demanded different kinds of qualities. In jungles the ones with long strong arms thrived, as they could avoid predators and move through the trees more easily, thus moving their genes forward. In the african savannah, where a standing position, longer legs and other human-like characteristics increased the chances of survival, the ancestors of "homo homo sapiens" appeared.Jedoro said:
The primate's habitat dictated which individuals could move their possibly favorable genetic mutations forwards. And as primates lived in different conditions, different species appeared. All this over the period of hundreds of thousands of years, not a week.
The other primates you speak of still live in conditions that haven't required/allowed them to evolve into something like humans. And all we are looking at now is but a tiny fraction of time, we(you) think animals no longer evolve, that they have reached a stable level. NO! All life constantly evolves, the other primates still keep evolving, you just won't be around to see the results 200,000 years later.
There's not a single serious biologist or scientist in the world who would deny that our genes mutate: you, whoever reading this, are a mutant: the genes of your parents mixed, were copied a million billion times over in you, and every once in a while the RNA makes a tiny mistake, a mutation. In the avarage human body, about 1,000,000,000 mutations happen every week. Only one in 1,000,000,000,000,000 is a favorable one that thrives, and it may be an insignificant tiny thing, but it happens. Give it enough time, say, a few hundred thousand years, and you might end up with a new species.
In evolution, the latest species isn't always the most advanced or the best- the evolative flowchart of life does not have an ending, it shapes and shifts according to conditions the species live in: it's not a flowchart, it's a pile of goo sliding down an endless hill. Some bits of it fall off or get stuck in the ground: the species that are extinct. the rest keep on going, constantly changing and bending to meet the requirments to keep on going. the goo might spilt in half and keep on going in two directions, some bits of it might keep together better and keep on going more easily, some slide down faster. And the goo won't stop, unless the hill (the environment) stops it.
Exactly just how the goo started flowing in the first place is not the question here. Evolution is. Evolution means life forms changing to adapt to their habitat. Not the birth of the very first cell. (although the two subjects are right next to each other.)
The theory of gravity isn't a lot less solid than most people would beleive. I'm going off topic here, but since it's been mentioned I now feel I have to rant. I hate the theory of gravity (or at least what of it is taught to mechanical engineering students). I cannot accept that there is a minute, constant force proportional only to gravity, to me it seems absurd there can be a force applied with out any change in the energy of the system. /breathAbengoshis said:
First of all, the whole 'science versus religion' discussion is based on what's called a 'false dichotomy': either one or the other can be true, or more specifically: if one is flawed, the other MUST be true. Which is a logical fallacy.ICs2Xist said:
The theory of evolution, however, is not at all an end-all and be-all explanation, as scientific theories rarely are.
In fact, the main conclusion of Darwin's 'origin of species' was that different species evolved out of necessity. He based this on observations made on a bunch of islands in the pacific (don't remember which), where he noticed that on every different island, several bird species evolved dramatically different but shared a common ancestor. For instance: one bird developed a big strong beak because of all the hard-shelled nuts there, while another apparently started hunting insects as part of its diet.
Extrapolating this back in time, it explained a lot on why we have so many resemblances to the great apes, how some birds are flightless, etcetera. And in time, it became the framework of pretty much all of biology, because man, it explained damn near everything.
In many ways, the conclusions drawn from Darwin's observations are a lot like the observations that led to the big bang theory: after observing that the universe was expanding, it was plausible by extrapolating back in time that at one point, the entire universe must have been at one place at a time.
Both scientific theories are based on the observation and interpretation of phenomena. Scientific theories, by definition, do not imply an end-all and be-all explanation for the entire natural world evarrr. Instead they are assumptions, formulated to be falsifiable (they could be disproved by observation), useful but always flawed (as human observation and interpretation always is).
Ok I have to stop talking now.
You are forgiven.
This post is a lot more neutral and non-flamebaity than most threads I've encountered so far. So +1 internet for you.
A very interesting read about genetic mutations.
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2001-01/980213843.Ge.r.html
And oh ppl are going to have a field day with this. Try to stomach the "religious speak" and read the whole thing through. (This is a professor of exercise physiology at the University of Alabama.)
http://www.leaderu.com/science/bishop.html
Oooo and more!
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/10/021025065902.htm
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2001-01/980213843.Ge.r.html
And oh ppl are going to have a field day with this. Try to stomach the "religious speak" and read the whole thing through. (This is a professor of exercise physiology at the University of Alabama.)
http://www.leaderu.com/science/bishop.html
Oooo and more!
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/10/021025065902.htm
Your post demonstrates a dearth of understanding regarding the theories of evolution and natural selection. I do not think it is fair to expect posters on an internet forum to provide such information. I suggest you do your own research into the matter if you are truly interested in the answers.ICs2Xist said:
Pretty much this. The church acknowledges evolution as a definite possibility. That doesn't mean God doesn't exist. He simply started the whole shebang is what they basically say.Twilight_guy said:
So yeah if even the church accepts it then whats the issue.
You need evidence for evolution? There's piles of it everywhere, but check Wikipedia for a summary.
Theropods evolved into birds.
Apes evolved into humans.
Fish evolved into amphibians. Amphibians to reptiles. Reptiles to mammals...
The egg came first, a something that wasn't a chicken laid it.
Theropods evolved into birds.
Apes evolved into humans.
Fish evolved into amphibians. Amphibians to reptiles. Reptiles to mammals...
The egg came first, a something that wasn't a chicken laid it.
That's actually closest to what i believe, that evolution does happen, but that it is a result of God's larger plan. That he created all life 4.7 billion years ago (or whatever the number is, that seems to stick out from earth science), and knew that we would evolve as the dominant species on Earth. More or lessAardvark said:
I'm a Christian. I also believe in Evolution, because it is based upon fact. Through observation, Evolution is the most plausible theory on life at its current state. That doesn't make me less Christian (unless you're a Biblical Fundamentalist), it makes me a logical human being.
evolution is logical smart and very complicated, asuming that everything was made by a god is just to easy of an answer.
also there are no cheerios in front of me if there was a god i would have cheerios.
also there are no cheerios in front of me if there was a god i would have cheerios.
Didn't yet read all 5 pages, but if it hasn't been linked yet...ICs2Xist said:
"29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Talkorigins was made to refute common arguments made by creationists. But this little page here gives proof for 'macro'evolution as criticized by creationists. It'll act as a good starting point for evidence to evolution. But beware! It may contain scientific terminology that depending on your education might or might not go over your head. An excerpt from "Part 3. Evolutionary opportunism, Prediction 3.2: Molecular parahomology"
"On the molecular level, the existence of parahomology is quite impressive. Many proteins of very different function have strikingly similar amino acid sequences and three-dimensional structures. A frequently cited example is lysozyme and α-lactalbumin. Almost all animals have lysozyme. It is a secreted protein used to degrade bacterial cell walls as a means of defense (Voet and Voet 1995, p. 381). α-Lactalbumin is very similar structurally to lysozyme, even though its function is very different (it is involved in mammalian lactose synthesis in the mammary gland) (Acharya et al. 1989; Voet and Voet 1995, p. 608). It can often be inferred from molecular phylogenies, as it has been here, that the protein with the more basic function (e.g. lysozyme) is also the older protein (Prager and Wilson 1988; Qasba and Kumar 1997)."
The reason why direct evidence is rarely givn, is because many of us do not have the background knowledge required to truly understand or analyze the evidence beyond the very basics.
That is also why many people don't bother with it, quite unfortunetaly. When they'd have to read dozens of books worth of texts, studies and predictions made using terminology that might as well be in ancient Sumerian writing for all they understand of it, interest in the subject vanes fairly quickly. By all means, demand evidence. That is well and good! But be prepared to do the work to understand that evidence.
The problem with "evolution makes more sense" is that when I WAS catholic, I honestly believed that "the big bang" which is what most atheists that I've met online claim was a random act of the universe being random, was put into place BY God. ie: God started it off and it went from there through a design he set forth prior to that point. Meaning evolution, dinosaurs, and all that made perfect sense WITHIN the biblical sense. After all, what better way to logically explain Adam and Eve then something akin to Cromagnun Man (sp?)
The idea that God just put down a fully realized world with everything instantly in place makes no sense, especially if you follow the "dinosaurs are a conspiracy!" idea. It seems awful convenient to call that a conspiracy. Considering the first dinosaurs were found CENTURIES ago, I seriously doubt Chinese miners 1200 years ago were coming up with a way to fake huge bones of mystical looking creatures to explain away the lack of reality in a faith that was based in, and followed in nations that they refused to trade with.
I'm not saying there isn't a God, or anything else, I happen to follow a different faith sure, but it just doesn't make sense to think that there's no way anything else could be possible. Atheist or not, you shouldn't try to convince a person nothing else is possible EXCEPT what you believe. I'm the first to admit it's POSSIBLE the dinosaurs are actually a conspiracy, it's INCREDIBLY unlikely, which is why I put in what I did up there, but it's not impossible. As "The Guide" has taught us, nothing is actually impossible, just not very probable.
The idea that God just put down a fully realized world with everything instantly in place makes no sense, especially if you follow the "dinosaurs are a conspiracy!" idea. It seems awful convenient to call that a conspiracy. Considering the first dinosaurs were found CENTURIES ago, I seriously doubt Chinese miners 1200 years ago were coming up with a way to fake huge bones of mystical looking creatures to explain away the lack of reality in a faith that was based in, and followed in nations that they refused to trade with.
I'm not saying there isn't a God, or anything else, I happen to follow a different faith sure, but it just doesn't make sense to think that there's no way anything else could be possible. Atheist or not, you shouldn't try to convince a person nothing else is possible EXCEPT what you believe. I'm the first to admit it's POSSIBLE the dinosaurs are actually a conspiracy, it's INCREDIBLY unlikely, which is why I put in what I did up there, but it's not impossible. As "The Guide" has taught us, nothing is actually impossible, just not very probable.
You can argue against Atheism all you want. At least that's something debatable. Saying evolution is completely wrong is just a lack of knowledge. Evolution has more the theory of evolution has more evidence than gravitational theory, but I seriously doubt you would deny the existence of gravity. Even most Christians accept evolution, it's just something you need to learn.
Bugger me.
I sleep for three hours people and you cook up an ubor war.
The OP didn't seem bigheaded or a dick of any sort, which is why it confuses me why so many of you went out of your way to start flames...
Well, what the hell. This thread isn't exactly going to get any worse, so I'll add my two cents to it.
If all atheists are as big a dickheads as the rest of you lot, count me in on that relgion stuff.
I sleep for three hours people and you cook up an ubor war.
The OP didn't seem bigheaded or a dick of any sort, which is why it confuses me why so many of you went out of your way to start flames...
Well, what the hell. This thread isn't exactly going to get any worse, so I'll add my two cents to it.
If all atheists are as big a dickheads as the rest of you lot, count me in on that relgion stuff.