Evidence for Evolution

[Ken]

Appreciate your honesty in this Ken.

Your first paragraph probably sums up a good chunk of the population I rub shoulders with and is why maybe my experience is typically people dogmatic that evolution is fact and to think otherwise is illogical.

It isn't just evolution. That is only about 5% of any HS biology curriculum depending on how the units are organized. So out of a 36 week school year that is 2 weeks at the very best which is 10 days of which only 8 are going to be new material. It is the same in every other topic in biology. Probably less than that because you lose weeks to standardized testing, assemblies, snow days, and all kinds of other things.

Every science topic is presented the same way. Cell biology blows through a whole bunch of quick facts in maybe a 10-day unit: What is the cell theory and who discovered it, prokaryotic vs eukaryotic cells, plant vs animal cells, structure of the cell membrane, cell transport (osmosis, active transport, etc.) what are the various organelles (ribosomes, nucleus, mitochondria, etc.) do a couple of cell microscope labs looking at cheek cells, onion skin cells, maybe aquatic plants if you can get them or else prepared slides, do an osmosis lab, then boom, wrap up the unit and on to the next unit on respiration and photosynthesis. There is no time to slow down and look at say the various theories as to the structure and development of the plasma membrane. Or dive deep into mitochondria and theories about their origin. Nothing about cell development and differentiation, stem cells, etc. Certainly nothing about current controversies or new developments in the field of cell biology. At best, most students might be able to explain what a cell is and distinguish between prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells, and between plant cells and animal cells, explain osmosis, and that is about it. They may memorize some terminology that they will quickly forget after the unit test.

Evolution gets the same treatment except usually later in the year when they are more checked out. Maybe 10 days including review, learn some basic history along with some basic concepts and terminology. They learn how to read a cladogram, do a Hardy Weinberg equilibrium calculation, do some sort of DNA sequencing lab and construct a phylogenetic tree, and that is about it. Then you are off to classification: kingdoms and domains. Bacteria, viruses, fungi, protists, etc.

To even scratch the surface of evolution as an area of scientific inquiry you pretty much have to take an evolutionary biology class in college and devote a whole semester to it. And then you are only just beginning. But of course that is the same for any other topic in biology.

That is the nature of high school. Students have 6 periods per day and they have four core areas to cover: Math, science, English Social Studies. Plus language, health, PE, and an elective like music, art, CTE, computer science, shop, etc. Most states require 3 years of science to graduate HS so biology, chemistry, physics or alternatives for one or two of them like environmental science or biomed, and any fourth class is an elective for which they give up something else like band, language, or art.

So the idea that you can do a deep and sophisticated dive into any topic at all is pretty ridiculous whether it is evolution, Shakespeare, coding, or civil war history. I mean you *can* if you want to stroll off the reservation as a teacher. But that almost certainly means you will be skipping some other big chunk of the required curriculum.

[Sudsy]

It is interesting to me how certain parts of the Bible are deemed to be taken without question as literal while at the same time other parts are not. I'm thinking of the mode of water baptism as an example or what Peter said when they asked what they need to do to be saved. I guess we all do that with drawing our lines in the sand on what can be taken literal and what not.

I have heard that the Salvation Army people think the requirement to be baptized is to be taken figuratively, but I can't think of any Anabaptist people I know who wouldn't believe that he literally meant for people to be baptized. That's why we require baptism as a prerequesite for church membership.

I know this is off topic but since it was ventured into - the Salvation Army did not baptise in water or take communion as William and Catherine Booth decided to exclude the sacraments of baptism and communion because these had been abused and lost their meaning and had even become means for salvation and even power of the church. These had also become an issue of division amongst Christians of various faith groups as to the right way to baptise in or with water.

I think this is still quite true today with some Christian faith groups who do treat salvation as getting baptised in water and joining a local church. Sometimes in door-to-door evangelism we ran across people who thought being born again was just that. They were baptised by water, often as an infant, and had joined their church. They did not seem to understand that salvation baptism is the life changing baptism of the Spirit. Booths were quite concerned over this idea that the sacraments were regarded as conditions of salvation. Note also that the SA do not prohibit their own people in any shape or form from taking the Sacraments. They say, ‘If this is a matter of your conscience, by all means break bread.’ To some extent some would prefer to change their practise and treat these in their group as ordinances but it is hard to break with traditions as some Mennonites know.

But since it was also mentioned here, local church membership with it's church covenants and statements of faith are not explicitly found in the NT either. Christianity of all types is quite different from the early churches in practise in many ways.

[RZehr]

Anyway, science currently says I have evolved from a primordial soup...where that soup came from has yet to be discovered...I also came from fish cuz when I look at my hands, those were formerly fins and had webbing between the fingers. My atheist friend is certain we are from the water, to which I tell him I would sink like lead, so it isn't reasonable for me to think that I came from the water. I really am wondering now if I didn't come from a Mallard duck because their feet are also webbed and they can walk about on land. I am very comfortable on land, very fearful of water.

Evolutionists are an amazing species in their own right...and after much study, I have concluded that people like Darwin were very shoddy with the scientific method.

I ran across this, and thought of your post. Notice that they did this with aborted babies: “used foetal tissue from Addenbrookes’s Hospital in Cambridge that was between five and nine weeks post-conception.”

Scientists finally put their finger on the fascinating way our digits are formed


Fingers are formed from a blob of tissue that is “chiselled away” in the womb to reveal individual digits, a study has found.

Rather than growing from five stumps, the study found some tissue formed the foundations of the fingers, while other cells around them were eventually discarded to make the spaces in between.

Development of fingers and toes is a process that occurs rapidly between weeks five and nine of pregnancy.

Previous studies in animals suggested there was a mechanism in which skin retreated into the gaps between bones to leave behind the five components of a foot or hand. However, this had never been seen in humans.

Scientists from Wellcome Sanger, near Cambridge, and Sun Yat-sen University in China, used foetal tissue from Addenbrookes’s Hospital in Cambridge that was between five and nine weeks post-conception.

Certain genes were coloured with glowing tags and this revealed that genes IRX1 and SOX9 gather in five pillars that go on to form the fingers. However, gene MSX1, which is a sign of immature cells, occupies the spaces in between.

The study found that the tissue of the fingers takes shape between weeks five and nine of pregnancy.

In around week seven, the tissue between the fingers is killed off to create 10 independent digits.

“It is like watching a sculptor at work, chiselling away at a block of marble to reveal a masterpiece,” said Professor Hongbo Zhang, senior author of the study from Sun Yat-sen University in Guangzhou.

“In this case, nature is the sculptor, and the result is the incredible complexity of our fingers and toes.”

The project, part of the Human Cell Atlas initiative to learn more about all cells in the human body, also sheds light on congenital limb issues, where people are born with shortened fingers, extra fingers or webbed hands.

Dr Sarah Teichmann, senior author of the study from the Wellcome Sanger Institute, and co-founder of the Human Cell Atlas, said: “For the first time, we have been able to capture the remarkable process of limb development down to single cell resolution in space and time.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/scientists-d ... 11625.html

[AndersonD]

1) No empirical proof exists that macro-evolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another) is occurring at present, or has ever happened in the past. No one, throughout recorded history, has ever seen it.

Evolutionist anthropologist Jeffrey H. Schwartz stated in his 1999 book Sudden Origins . . . that with the exception of Dobzhan sky's claim about a new species of fruit fly (micro-evolution, not macro-evolution), the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.

2) The 2nd law of thermodynamics does not support evolution.

[Falco Knotwise]

Just for fun, somebody ask ChatGPT, “How can a common ancestor give birth to descendants that cannot interbreed?” and let’s see what it says.

(Does anyone here have an answer for that? Because I really don’t.)

Ken, what’s your answer to that?

[Josh]

Just for fun, somebody ask ChatGPT “How can a common ancestor give birth to descendants that cannot interbreed” and let’s see what it says.

(Does anyone here have an answer for that? Because I really don’t.)

Ken, what’s your answer?

In speciation, an ancestral species splits into two or more descendant species that are genetically different from one another and can no longer interbreed 1. This process can occur due to various factors such as geographic isolation, genetic drift, natural selection, and mutation. Over time, the genetic differences between the two populations accumulate, leading to the development of new species that are reproductively isolated from each other 1.

It is important to note that the inability to interbreed is a defining characteristic of different species. If two organisms can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, they are considered to be members of the same species 1. Conversely, if two organisms cannot interbreed or produce viable offspring, they are considered to be members of different species 1.

This was a tautological response (which GPT is really good at generating). In short, what it says above is that "Things happen that make it so the descendants of a common ancestors can't interbreed anymore". The details about what those things are? Non-answers like "genetic drift" (duh, the question is HOW does this happen).

Here's another example:

In the standard theory of macroevolution, it is believed that animals like dinosaurs or lizards eventually evolve into avians like birds such as sparrows or condors. How did this happen, and how can we be sure it did since we cannot directly observe macroevolution from reptiles to avians?

According to the standard theory of macroevolution, modern birds descended from a group of two-legged dinosaurs known as theropods, whose members include the towering Tyrannosaurus rex and the smaller velociraptors 1. The theropods most closely related to avians generally weighed between 100 and 500 pounds and had large snouts, big teeth, and not much between the ears 1.

For decades, paleontologists’ only fossil link between birds and dinosaurs was archaeopteryx, a hybrid creature with feathered wings but with the teeth and long bony tail of a dinosaur 1. However, recent discoveries have shown that bird-specific features like feathers began to emerge long before the evolution of birds, indicating that birds simply adapted a number of pre-existing features to a new use 1.

The transformation from dinosaurs to birds was a gradual process that occurred over millions of years. It involved a series of small evolutionary steps, such as the adoption of a more babylike skull shape into adulthood, which likely played essential roles in the final push to bird-hood 1.

While we cannot directly observe macroevolution from reptiles to avians, we can infer it from the fossil record and genetic evidence. The fossil record provides a detailed history of life on Earth, including the evolution of birds from dinosaurs 1. Genetic evidence, such as the discovery of genes that control the development of feathers in birds and scales in reptiles, also supports the theory of macroevolution 2.

In conclusion, the transformation from dinosaurs to birds was a gradual process that occurred over millions of years. While we cannot directly observe macroevolution from reptiles to avians, we can infer it from the fossil record and genetic evidence 12.

"We've never observed it and the fossil record is scant, but we'll just infer it anyway."

[Soloist]

Waste of time

Which is more complex, a computer or a single cell bacteria

A computer is more complex than a single cell bacteria. Computers are highly advanced machines that consist of multiple hardware components, programming languages, software applications, and an operating system, among other things. They can perform complex calculations, process large amounts of data, and execute various tasks simultaneously.

On the other hand, a single cell bacteria is a simple living organism. It consists of a single cell that carries out essential functions such as reproduction, metabolism, and responding to stimuli. Although bacteria can be genetically diverse and perform various functions, their organization and complexity are significantly less than that of a computer.

If cells are less complex then a computer, why can we not create a cell?

Creating a cell is an immensely complex task that is currently beyond the capabilities of modern science and technology. Cells are not just made up of molecules and structures; they also possess intricate biochemical processes, self-regulating mechanisms, and genetic information. Scientists are still working to fully understand all the complexities of cellular life. While we can manipulate certain aspects of cells, such as genetic engineering or culturing cells in a laboratory, creating a fully functional, complex, and self-sustaining cell from scratch remains a formidable challenge.

Additionally, cells are products of billions of years of evolution, fine-tuned through natural selection to adapt and survive in various environments. Recreating such a complex system would require a profound understanding of the underlying principles and mechanisms of life itself, which is currently incomplete. However, ongoing research in synthetic biology is making progress towards constructing simpler artificial cells, known as protocells, but these are still far from the level of complexity seen in biological cells.

Kind of a trick question but it shows the futility of trying to discuss theoretical science with a computer programmed with answers.

[Falco Knotwise]

Just want to clarify that I’m making no dogmatic statements wrt evolutionary theory. I still think it’s just *possible* that the species are fixed, meaning one species cannot produce another over time, no matter how much they evolve otherwise. If that were true, it would certainly be at odds with Darwin’s theories about the “Origin of the Species.” On the other hand, it’s also still *possible* there’s something to Darwin’s theories, too.

Interesting to me how that jibes with Kant’s antinomies. To me it suggests there will always be found genuine scientific arguments to support either side, never becoming totally conclusive one way or the other. Which is perhaps just as it should be, otherwise there would be no place for faith.

At any rate, I am content with the mystery of life and feel quite sure that “science,” however you want to define it, will NEVER be equipped to solve such mysteries.

The whole thrust of Darwinian theory is that everything in existence happened accidentally and without intelligent purpose which simultaneously means that it will never be able to explain such apparent purpose and order as there does seem to be in it.

Amplified Bible

By faith [that is, with an inherent trust and enduring confidence in the power, wisdom and goodness of God] we understand that the worlds (universe, ages) were framed and created [formed, put in order, and equipped for their intended purpose] by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.

— Hebrews 11:3

It still holds true today. It is by faith, not by science . . . If it were known by science, one way or the other, faith would no longer be needed.

P.S. I’m not even saying THIS dogmatically! All I’m saying is that’s kinda where I’m at with it all right now. There are very interesting questions that Eric Voegelin raised about the ToE and i admit that I still don’t even understand the questions he was asking!

And lately, because this thread has peaked my interest again, I’ve really been trying, too! All to little avail!

[Ken]

1) No empirical proof exists that macro-evolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another) is occurring at present, or has ever happened in the past. No one, throughout recorded history, has ever seen it.

Evolutionist anthropologist Jeffrey H. Schwartz stated in his 1999 book Sudden Origins . . . that with the exception of Dobzhan sky's claim about a new species of fruit fly (micro-evolution, not macro-evolution), the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.

Schwartz is out of date. There are examples. I cited some upstream. But "empirical proof" also isn't any sort of scientific standard whatsoever. There is no empirical proof that gravity waves exist. We have never seen them. Yet we accept the existence of gravity due to endless amounts of observational evidence of its effects. There is also no empirical evidence that the sun exists. We can see its effects in terms of solar radiation and the effects of the sun's gravity on the orbit of the earth and other planets. But no one has actually gone there and touched the sun to see if it is real. Evolution is no different. We have endless amounts of observational evidence of the effects of evolutionary change. And new evidence, such as genome sequencing, confirms older evidence such as comparative anatomy and fossil records.

Nothing in the real world can be proven with absolute certainty. And scientific theories are not about absolute proof. They are about constructing explanations for observable facts and phenomenon. The evidence for evolution is extensive across many fields of science and it is consistent. And each new observation tests the rest. It would be preposterous to refer to this enormous body of evidence as anything other than facts.

2) The 2nd law of thermodynamics does not support evolution.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is irrelevant and inapplicable. It only applies to closed systems. Essentially the law states that that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease.

The earth is not a closed system. It is the opposite of a closed system. A total of 173,000 terawatts (trillions of watts) of solar energy strikes the Earth continuously. That's more than 10,000 times the world's total energy use from all sources (electrical, hydrocarbon, nuclear, etc.). So yes, if you turn off the sun and leave the earth as a cold rock in distant empty space then yes, no evolution would occur, it would be a dead frozen planet. But we don't live on that earth.

The only processes necessary for evolution (i.e. genetic change) to occur are reproduction, genetic variation, and some process of selection. All of these are seen to happen all the time, so, obviously, no physical laws are preventing them.

[AndersonD]

1) No empirical proof exists that macro-evolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another) is occurring at present, or has ever happened in the past. No one, throughout recorded history, has ever seen it.

Evolutionist anthropologist Jeffrey H. Schwartz stated in his 1999 book Sudden Origins . . . that with the exception of Dobzhan sky's claim about a new species of fruit fly (micro-evolution, not macro-evolution), the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.

Schwartz is out of date. There are examples. I cited some upstream. But "empirical proof" also isn't any sort of scientific standard whatsoever. There is no empirical proof that gravity waves exist. We have never seen them. Yet we accept the existence of gravity due to endless amounts of observational evidence of its effects. There is also no empirical evidence that the sun exists. We can see its effects in terms of solar radiation and the effects of the sun's gravity on the orbit of the earth and other planets. But no one has actually gone there and touched the sun to see if it is real. Evolution is no different. We have endless amounts of observational evidence of the effects of evolutionary change. And new evidence, such as genome sequencing, confirms older evidence such as comparative anatomy and fossil records.

Nothing in the real world can be proven with absolute certainty. And scientific theories are not about absolute proof. They are about constructing explanations for observable facts and phenomenon. The evidence for evolution is extensive across many fields of science and it is consistent. And each new observation tests the rest. It would be preposterous to refer to this enormous body of evidence as anything other than facts.

2) The 2nd law of thermodynamics does not support evolution.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is irrelevant and inapplicable. It only applies to closed systems. Essentially the law states that that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease.

The earth is not a closed system. It is the opposite of a closed system. A total of 173,000 terawatts (trillions of watts) of solar energy strikes the Earth continuously. That's more than 10,000 times the world's total energy use from all sources (electrical, hydrocarbon, nuclear, etc.). So yes, if you turn off the sun and leave the earth as a cold rock in distant empty space then yes, no evolution would occur, it would be a dead frozen planet. But we don't live on that earth.

The only processes necessary for evolution (i.e. genetic change) to occur are reproduction, genetic variation, and some process of selection. All of these are seen to happen all the time, so, obviously, no physical laws are preventing them.

Comparing the theory of evolution to gravity isn't a fair comparison. I can observe gravity, I cannot observe evolution, other than micro evolution. It's very shoddy science.

My cousin's boyfriend who is a physicist is a creationist and came to faith through his studies. Many of the new discoveries in physics are leaving physicists who are naturalists out in the cold.

Currently reading, "The Return of the God Hypothesis" by Stephen Meyer. A very interesting read. They are currently finding that DNA is very resistant to change which is another problem for evolutionists.