Evidence for Evolution

[Ken]

Could it ever involve into an into a creature that could sin? Or that has a soul and that could live eternally?

So you don't believe in dog heaven?"

I don't. And I am truly curious how anyone can reconcile the theory of evolution from a common ancestor with what the Bible says about the soul, sin, forgiveness, redemption, and the new birth.

I don't think it is too much of a stretch to think that God at set forth a process for the development of all life on earth. And then at some point when humans became intelligent and self-aware enough to grasp free will and right from wrong they were granted souls, the responsibility for distinguishing right from wrong, and the reward of redemption and new birth. Admittedly it takes faith, but then so does every other aspect of Christianity.

[Ken]

I’d like to know how I could evolve wings and fly. This would be a really handy skill for my grandchildren.

You couldn't. Because individuals do not evolve. Your genes will always be what they were on the day you were born.

But populations can and do evolve over long periods of time. And wings have independently developed in birds, fish, reptiles, mammals, and insects.

[AndersonD]

Darwin is dead and not coming back!

[ohio jones]

I’d like to know how I could evolve wings and fly. This would be a really handy skill for my grandchildren.

I don't think you are ever boeing to do that.

[Ken]

Darwin is dead and not coming back!

That video isn't an an example of any actual science. It is just a bunch of old guys pontificating and philosophizing. I any event, What do you actually think Behe is saying here?

He invents this ill-defined concept of irreducible complexity but doesn't actually define what he means by parts or whole. Logically one would start with individual atoms which is what biochemists such as himself would start with. But he starts with molecules in some examples and whole structures in other examples. And many of the complex processes he talks about as being irreducibly complex have simpler analogs in more primitive protist and bacterial cells.

Creationists such as Behe used to point to the human eye as their keystone example of an irreducibly complex organ. That was one of Behe's key examples of irreducible complexity. But in recent years scientists have documented a myriad of examples of more primitive vertebrate eyes, both in living organisms and the fossil record. In fact, today the eye is now one of the anatomical structures about which we have the most complete understanding of its gradual evolution. So you don't hear Behe talking about the human eye anymore. Instead he has retreated to more obscure examples such as the bacterial flagellum or protein transport

The whole notion of irreducible complexity misunderstands how organs (or cell organelles) work, and how evolution works. It is true that the human eye or some cell organelle won't work if you remove one single part. But evolution doesn't work by adding fully formed parts to a pre-existing structure in the same way that say mechanical engineering works. Where an engineer might swap out one part for another. Rather, the entire structure evolves as a unit: Organelles, cells, and the whole organism.

In any event, all of the major claims in his 1996 book "Darwin's Black Box" have since been refuted and disproven by various scientists. And it turns out that Behe himself lied about his book undergoing peer review when it turns out that it did not. His own department at Lehigh University has repudiated his work as unscientific.

Look, I get that I'm not going to convince you of anything here (and vice versa). But pseudoscientists like Behe who lie and distort facts do not make a compelling argument for or against anything.

Like I said, actual scientists make their names and go down in history by overturning existing theories and proposing new and better ones. When someone uses science to actually overturn the theory of evolution by natural selection and propose some different and more powerful theory that explains the change that we observe in the natural world all around us. Then they will become world famous and be listed among the greats like Newton, Einstein, Pasteur, and yes, Darwin. It would frankly be one of the most exciting scientific developments of the century. I would be immensely intrigued and excited so see that sort of new scientific breakthrough.

This video clip of a few old guys pontificating amongst themselves is not that.

[ken_sylvania]

So you don't believe in dog heaven?"

I don't. And I am truly curious how anyone can reconcile the theory of evolution from a common ancestor with what the Bible says about the soul, sin, forgiveness, redemption, and the new birth.

I don't think it is too much of a stretch to think that God at set forth a process for the development of all life on earth. And then at some point when humans became intelligent and self-aware enough to grasp free will and right from wrong they were granted souls, the responsibility for distinguishing right from wrong, and the reward of redemption and new birth. Admittedly it takes faith, but then so does every other aspect of Christianity.

Yes, Christianity certainly does take faith, but that is contrary to the scientific method, not? Wouldn't your scientific friends argue that morality, altruism, and religion itself are all traits developed through evolutionary processes simply because they benefited the population?

[AndersonD]

My favorite astrophysicist, Dr Jason Lisle.

[Ken]

I don't. And I am truly curious how anyone can reconcile the theory of evolution from a common ancestor with what the Bible says about the soul, sin, forgiveness, redemption, and the new birth.

I don't think it is too much of a stretch to think that God at set forth a process for the development of all life on earth. And then at some point when humans became intelligent and self-aware enough to grasp free will and right from wrong they were granted souls, the responsibility for distinguishing right from wrong, and the reward of redemption and new birth. Admittedly it takes faith, but then so does every other aspect of Christianity.

Yes, Christianity certainly does take faith, but that is contrary to the scientific method, not? Wouldn't your scientific friends argue that morality, altruism, and religion itself are all traits developed through evolutionary processes simply because they benefited the population?

Perhaps. Many species social species are extremely altruistic. Ants and bees, for example. Or dolphins.

One can make an atheistic argument that all religion is a human construct that simply reflects fundamental nature of humanity. In other words, humans at their core have a fundamental understanding of right and wrong that is expressed by various religions around the world. But that knowledge comes from within rather than without. What makes us human is that we all have the capability to understand right from wrong and to work cooperatively and lovingly with each other. And that we don't need a God to come down and tell it to us via the 10 Commandments, Gospels, Koran, Bhagavata, or any other religious teachings.

Put another way, religious teachings such as Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc. are not wrong. They all reveal essential truths about humanity. But they are human constructs that come from within us, not from without. And likewise, all contain the same flaws that humans have.

And agnostics might argue that it doesn't really matter either way. Whether one leads one life from a moral code dictated by a higher power. Or by moral code that comes from within us that is inherent in human nature. It all leads to the same place in terms of how we live our lives and treat one another.

Do I have faith? Yes, I do. Do I think I know the answers to many of life's mysteries? No I absolutely do not. Nor do I think they are necessarily found by proof-texting ancient texts that have been written by humans and translated, edited, combined, and changed over time. But that doesn't stop me from understanding the difference between right and wrong and trying to live my life in the best way that I know how.

[Ken]

My favorite astrophysicist, Dr Jason Lisle.

Can you actually summarize without posting an hour and a half sermon from some community church?

[temporal1]

https://youtu
My favorite astrophysicist, Dr Jason Lisle.

thanks for sharing. cliffsnotes: the Bible got it right.