Do you believe in organic evolution?

[Anddenex]

Two question should be added, or at least one: Do you believe in micro-evolution? Do you believe in macro-evolution?

The problem with these questions is a person assumes all of organic evolution is true. I believe in organic evolution that is common, not theoretical which is claimed as fact. I accept the following definition of organic evolution,

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next..." (except for the individual organisms do not evolve, which is a conundrum because if we say evolution in the broadest sense  is change, and if an individual changes on a biological level they have evolved).

If we bring organic evolution simply to "change" -- biological change -- this is undisputed. The problem is the sweeping generalization that if change occurs micro, than change would occur macro.

My personal thoughts micro evolution is the change we see in ourselves our own offspring, which is still after its kind. Macro-evolution would be the change of horses (zebras and our thoroughbred stemming from common ancestor) or dogs (whether by man (ID) or natural). They are still of the same kind, and that is your macro. The change of my sons, which are still human, is the micro.

Edited August 2, 2018 by Anddenex

[Traveler]

19 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Where the rubber meets the road-

There isn't empirical evidence that all life evolved from a common ancestor. Nor is there empirical evidence that man evolved from a lower order of species.

What your response looks like:

There isn't empirical evidence that all life was created from the same source.  In short there is no empirical evidence of a universal G-d from which all things have in common. 

The point is - if there is nothing in common as to indicate a single source of what we understand as biological life - then there is nothing to indicate a universal G-d that created all biological life.  What science interprets as a common ancestor is the same as (no different than) the evidence of a common creator.  So when you say there is no such evidence of any thing in common then neither religion nor science should purport it to be so.

 

The Traveler

Edited August 3, 2018 by Traveler

[Traveler]

17 hours ago, Anddenex said:

Two question should be added, or at least one: Do you believe in micro-evolution? Do you believe in macro-evolution?

The problem with these questions is a person assumes all of organic evolution is true. I believe in organic evolution that is common, not theoretical which is claimed as fact. I accept the following definition of organic evolution,

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next..." (except for the individual organisms do not evolve, which is a conundrum because if we say evolution in the broadest sense  is change, and if an individual changes on a biological level they have evolved).

If we bring organic evolution simply to "change" -- biological change -- this is undisputed. The problem is the sweeping generalization that if change occurs micro, than change would occur macro.

My personal thoughts micro evolution is the change we see in ourselves our own offspring, which is still after its kind. Macro-evolution would be the change of horses (zebras and our thoroughbred stemming from common ancestor) or dogs (whether by man (ID) or natural). They are still of the same kind, and that is your macro. The change of my sons, which are still human, is the micro.

I appreciate your input.  I believe it shows study and openness and willingness to learn.  I can honestly say that my understanding of evolution has itself evolved.  But to all Judo-Christians that hold religious significance for the Biblical Book of Genesis - I would ask a question?  Why would G-d command all living things to multiply and replenish the earth AFTER THEIR OWN KIND if it was not somehow - even remotely - possible for them to do something else?  Such a command would make G-d a giver of really stupid commandments unrelated to the reality of what is.

 

The Traveler

Edited August 3, 2018 by Traveler

[Traveler]

20 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Oh, that's easy.  On online forums such as this, the purpose isn't to convince or change the mind of, those entrenched on the other side.  The purpose is to help undecided folks, or folks open to additional information and knowledge.  When someone desirous of grappling with the different notions of a topic, watches two sides battle online, they have the opportunity to tally their own score to pick a winner.  When those tally marks are given on the basis of rational thought or spiritual confirmation of truth, people will indeed change.

I'm pretty loud and obnoxious these days, but for a decade starting in the mid '90's, I basically lurked, read, searched, thought.  I solidified my testimony by searching out claims of critics, and seeing what everyone had to say about it, and then reaching my conclusions.  Absolutely zero critics budged a single dang inch in their opinions during the process. 

It is interesting that Jesus employed logic - both to those that sought disagreement and those that sought understanding.  What is interesting is that even with pure logic and the spiritual power of G-d - those that sought disagreement seldom were convinced to consider anything new.

 

The Traveler

[john4truth]

On 7/31/2018 at 9:22 PM, Scott said:

I'm just curious about the numbers.   There are already plenty of other threads to debate it out on.  Feel free to vote.  None of this will be used against you or be used as scientific information.   I promise not to sell your personal information to FB either.  😏

I suggest we know less than 1% of the full truth. We are only given what we need in this dispensation. Everything thing else is a wild guess. It is ok to think about what we will never know but don't waste too much time guessing

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

What your response looks like:

There isn't empirical evidence that all life was created from the same source.  In short there is no empirical evidence of a universal G-d from which all things have in common. 

The point is - if there is nothing in common as to indicate a single source of what we understand as biological life - then there is nothing to indicate a universal G-d that created all biological life.  What science interprets as a common ancestor is the same as (no different than) the evidence of a common creator.  So when you say there is no such evidence of any thing in common then neither religion nor science should purport it to be so.

 

The Traveler

I don't purport it to be so. I fully recognize it requires faith to know the Creator. But, so too it is with science in stating all life share a common ancestor- that requires faith as there is no absolute empirical truth.

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

I appreciate your input.  I believe it shows study and openness and willingness to learn.  I can honestly say that my understanding of evolution has itself evolved.  But to all Judo-Christians that hold religious significance for the Biblical Book of Genesis - I would ask a question?  Why would G-d command all living things to multiply and replenish the earth AFTER THEIR OWN KIND if it was not somehow - even remotely - possible for them to do something else?  Such a command would make G-d a giver of really stupid commandments unrelated to the reality of what is.

 

The Traveler

God actually makes the statement that life can only reproduce it's own kind.

[NeuroTypical]

Quick question: There's a kind of white moth that occasionally produces dark grey offspring. (Like 10% of the time).  Someone observed the phenomena of groups of white moth in a certain city becoming groups of dark grey butterflies, and then white again, over the course of the better part of a century.  The going theory is pre-industrial revolution, the buildings were white, giving the moths natural camouflage against predators, and the dark grey got eaten by birds.  Then, as the city dirtied up with coal and smoke and whatnot, the dingy coal soot was everywhere, and suddenly the dark grey moths had the advantage and the white ones got eaten.  As the city dealt with and reduced the pollution problem, the buildings whitened up again, and the dominant trait returned. 

Does anyone think the moths all went to hell for breaking the commandment to replenish the earth after their own kind?

 

[Guest Godless]

21 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I don't purport it to be so. I fully recognize it requires faith to know the Creator. But, so too it is with science in stating all life share a common ancestor- that requires faith as there is no absolute empirical truth.

The only absolute truth in science is that there is no absolute truth. That said, there are volumes of evidence that support organic evolution, speciation, and the common ancestor theory. There are still a lot of unanswered questions and gaps in our knowledge, but we have more than enough information to accept the theory of evolution based on more than just "faith".

9 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

God actually makes the statement that life can only reproduce it's own kind.

And life always has. That's why macroevolution/speciation takes so long. Homo neanderthalensis didn't just wake up one day and breed a homo sapiens on a whim. 

[person0]

19 hours ago, Anddenex said:

The problem is the sweeping generalization that if change occurs micro, than change would occur macro.

Another problem is found in asking what causes macro-evolution to stop?  If we recognize that God is a man, and that He is 'more intelligent than they all', would that not indicate a clear end to evolution once man is achieved?  Yet the principles of macro-evolution would dictate that mankind, subject to the right circumstances, could continue to evolve into a greater class of being than we are at present.

[Vort]

7 minutes ago, Godless said:

The only absolute truth in science is that there is no absolute truth.

Scientians* like to say this, but it's bunk. There is no absolute truth, except that anthropogenic global warming is (a) real and (b) bad. There is no absolute true, except that the oceans are rising and will destroy us all. There is no absolute truth, except [insert sociopolitical opinion with some science-y backup of some sort and use the great God of Science to establish that opinion].

*Or those who worship Science. I just coined that word. Pretty neat-o, huh?

[person0]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

I just coined that word. Pretty neat-o, huh?

It's kind of hard to say.  How about Scienites? 

[Rob Osborn]

15 minutes ago, Godless said:

The only absolute truth in science is that there is no absolute truth. That said, there are volumes of evidence that support organic evolution, speciation, and the common ancestor theory. There are still a lot of unanswered questions and gaps in our knowledge, but we have more than enough information to accept the theory of evolution based on more than just "faith".

And life always has. That's why macroevolution/speciation takes so long. Homo neanderthalensis didn't just wake up one day and breed a homo sapiens on a whim. 

Yeah, it's all a fairytale. I have always wondered in amazement at how science can state that it's a theory that life came from a common ancestor when by their own standard it defies the very definition and rigor to be classified as anything more than just an idea.

[Vort]

40 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Yeah, it's all a fairytale. I have always wondered in amazement at how science can state that it's a theory that life came from a common ancestor when by their own standard it defies the very definition and rigor to be classified as anything more than just an idea.

Here is a dictionary definition of "theory" -- the first definition listed, in fact:

theory

noun, plural the·o·ries.

1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.

Can you explain how organic evolution does not fit the above definition of "theory"?

Edited August 3, 2018 by Vort

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

On the genetic level Evolution does not work. There has not been enough time for the kind of leaps that have come about under the theory of evolution. Back to the drawing boards Atheists. Even many Atheists have begun to talk about seeming evidence for a extremely advanced civilization perhaps having guided the creation of the Universe, sounds rather similar to God.

[Anddenex]

4 hours ago, Traveler said:

I appreciate your input.  I believe it shows study and openness and willingness to learn.  I can honestly say that my understanding of evolution has itself evolved.  But to all Judo-Christians that hold religious significance for the Biblical Book of Genesis - I would ask a question?  Why would G-d command all living things to multiply and replenish the earth AFTER THEIR OWN KIND if it was not somehow - even remotely - possible for them to do something else?  Such a command would make G-d a giver of really stupid commandments unrelated to the reality of what is.

 

The Traveler

My understanding of evolution has evolved also, as to micro-evolution. In the beginning I was against micro-evolution until further study. Now, I accept that it is possible, and for me the hybrid (natural) between the Cutthroat and Rainbow trout are good evidence for this. I am not sure the extent but seeing two trout of two species produce a new offspring of their kind (trout - fish) seems pretty clear it occurs.

In my opinion, the command was to multiply and replenish the earth. "After its own kind..." is instructional or descriptive. To provide the reason why I feel this way is that in Abraham we find a similar statement of "after its own kind" with "whose seed in itself yieldeth its own likeness upon the earth."

I would say God isn't commanding. God is giving instruction and description that each animal will yield seed after its own likeness. Similar to Seth being in the likeness of Adam.

Edited August 3, 2018 by Anddenex

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

Here is a dictionary definition of "theory" -- the first definition listed, in fact:

theory

noun, plural the·o·ries.

1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.

Can you explain how organic evolution does not fit the above definition of "theory"?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

I was speaking of the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor. That "theory" is not technically a theory at all but rather just a postulation of an idea.

[Vort]

20 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

I was speaking of the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor. That "theory" is not technically a theory at all but rather just a postulation of an idea.

If your claim above is true, then you need to ramp up your critical reading skills and your specificity in writing. You were responding to Godless, who was clearly talking about organic evolution, not abiogenesis. And your very first sentence was, "Yeah, it's all a fairytale." NO reasonable reader who was paying attention would have understood your "yeah" response was for a completely different topic from the one you were responding to.

[Traveler]

2 hours ago, Godless said:

The only absolute truth in science is that there is no absolute truth. That said, there are volumes of evidence that support organic evolution, speciation, and the common ancestor theory. There are still a lot of unanswered questions and gaps in our knowledge, but we have more than enough information to accept the theory of evolution based on more than just "faith".

And life always has. That's why macroevolution/speciation takes so long. Homo neanderthalensis didn't just wake up one day and breed a homo sapiens on a whim. 

Thanks for recognizing the difference between empirical evidence and absolute truth.  At least a little.  Perhaps since you were once LDS you may remember that Joseph Smith said that truth (absolute truth) is the knowledge of things as they were, as the currently are and as they will become.  By definition empirical evidence only deals with things as they are.  Or at least things as they can be experienced by our senses.   In doctrine we are both physical and spiritual beings.  Sometimes there is great confusion between the physical and spiritual.  We learn the truth of things physical through our senses - this is call empirical evidence.  But things spiritual cannot be learned except by faith in things spiritual.  Confusion comes when someone insists on learning things physical through faith in things spiritual or by trying to learn things spiritual through the exercise of our physical senses or what we call empirical evidence.  Without exception in all cases that I have personally observed - attempting to understand the physical by ignoring empirical evidence has resulted in unmitigated failure.

But I would bring up something about evolution.  Most assume that evolution takes place over long periods of time - the reality is that there are times of great stress when it seems that evolution happens on a large scale over many species over a very short period of time.  Often these periods of stress are labeled as a time of mass extinction.  Creatures as a type or species that existed before these periods of great change or "evolution" we see disappear completely - this is why these short periods are called a time of extinction.  Afterwards we see an abundance of new species.  On the other hand we can see hundreds of thousands of years with very little change to most species.   I am not sure how "kind" in scripture relates to "species" in science but well over 90% of all known species are now extinct.  If we are to assume that religionists are correct about all things producing after their own kind - then the G-d of such religious thinkers failed to create very many species or kind (with a very few exceptions) that are capable of fulfilling his objective.  In my business failure to complete design specifications in a completed product is called a failure.

 

The Traveler

 

[Lost Boy]

Absolutely evolution takes place.  Just look at dogs.  Humans have changed them significantly over the years.  Imagine what mother nature has done over hundreds of millions of years.  Or over the course of a thousand years if that is what floats your boat.

Millions of years seems so much more plausible to me than God just poofing everything here.

[SilentOne]

On 8/2/2018 at 1:39 PM, Traveler said:

It appears to me that the main problem is that many steeped in religious culture have come to believe that G-d, his works and all things related to the divine are so far above mankind that it is impossible to understand as mere humans. So the conclusion they draw, is that anything discovered, understood, replicated (reversed engineered) or accomplished by man must not have anything to do with G-d. That the very intelligence of G-d and his essence cannot possibly be understood. In essence their proof of G-d comes exclusively from things which cannot be explained or in essence is anything divine is unknowable and outside the able to be explained - if it is knowable or explainable it would disprove G-d. A notion that is contrary to knowing the one True G-d and being born of the Spirit. Religion based on a G-d of the gaps of explanation is the essence of lies and descriptions. The more we understand and know the Truth the more we will understand and know G-d. The less we understand and know truth the less we will understand and know G-d. The more truth (anything that is true) that is rejected - the more we reject G-d and become a slave to lies and descriptions.

3

You reminded me of this "proof":

 

[Guest Godless]

4 hours ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

There has not been enough time for the kind of leaps that have come about under the theory of evolution.

I dunno, 3 billion (with a B) years seems like an awfully long time to me.

Quote

Back to the drawing boards Atheists.

You spelled "scientists" wrong. There are many theist scientists, including some BYU professors, who accept organic evolution as a reality.

Quote

Even many Atheists have begun to talk about seeming evidence for a extremely advanced civilization perhaps having guided the creation of the Universe, sounds rather similar to God.

You seem to be talking about abiogenesis here, which is a highly theoretical field of study that has, in fact, spawned some weird ideas.

Edited August 4, 2018 by Godless

[Guest Godless]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

Thanks for recognizing the difference between empirical evidence and absolute truth.  At least a little.  Perhaps since you were once LDS you may remember that Joseph Smith said that truth (absolute truth) is the knowledge of things as they were, as the currently are and as they will become.  By definition empirical evidence only deals with things as they are.  Or at least things as they can be experienced by our senses.   In doctrine we are both physical and spiritual beings.  Sometimes there is great confusion between the physical and spiritual.  We learn the truth of things physical through our senses - this is call empirical evidence.  But things spiritual cannot be learned except by faith in things spiritual.  Confusion comes when someone insists on learning things physical through faith in things spiritual or by trying to learn things spiritual through the exercise of our physical senses or what we call empirical evidence.  Without exception in all cases that I have personally observed - attempting to understand the physical by ignoring empirical evidence has resulted in unmitigated failure.

Very well put. I have always been of the opinion that science and theology have a very thin (and that may be generous) overlap of intellectual authority. They don't necessarily negate each other. I say "necessarily" because theology is in many ways a subjective pursuit, and I think that's the root of the conflict between science and faith. 

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

But I would bring up something about evolution.  Most assume that evolution takes place over long periods of time - the reality is that there are times of great stress when it seems that evolution happens on a large scale over many species over a very short period of time.  Often these periods of stress are labeled as a time of mass extinction.  Creatures as a type or species that existed before these periods of great change or "evolution" we see disappear completely - this is why these short periods are called a time of extinction.  Afterwards we see an abundance of new species.  On the other hand we can see hundreds of thousands of years with very little change to most species.   I am not sure how "kind" in scripture relates to "species" in science but well over 90% of all known species are now extinct.  If we are to assume that religionists are correct about all things producing after their own kind - then the G-d of such religious thinkers failed to create very many species or kind (with a very few exceptions) that are capable of fulfilling his objective.  In my business failure to complete design specifications in a completed product is called a failure.

 

The Traveler

 

I read an interesting article a while back (unfortunately my attempts to find it again were fruitless) about a lizard species in the Gulf that underwent some relatively rapid Darwinian changes as a result of Hurricane Harvey. It could also be argued that the Ice Age forced very rapid mammalian evolution, including in hominids. It's definitely something I'd like to research further.

[Fether]

2 hours ago, Godless said:

a highly theoretical field of study that has, in fact, spawned some weird ideas

Are you talking about Mormonism?

[Guest Godless]

26 minutes ago, Fether said:

Are you talking about Mormonism?

Not specifically. Theist creation accounts in general strike me as being pretty far-fetched. I was merely acknowledging that there some off-the-wall abiogenesis theories on the secular side as well, including some that may mirror theist beliefs to an extent.