Belief in evolution?

[WombatWarrior17]

your right... Romans 1: 18-23: go read it.

Exactly.

 

[AlphaSheep]

Normally I avoid responding to threads like these because any discussion about evolution inevitably becomes a religious debate (that in itself is a huge red flag that something is wrong here), and I seriously don't enjoy being involved in religious debates. I was raised in a good Christian home by amazing parents, and I grew increasingly religious and got increasingly involved in a fantastic church through my late teens and early 20s. When I started losing my faith at the age of 23, it was quite traumatic. If you are raised in a religion, it is almost impossible to see that you view the world with the Bible as a filter, and you miss almost everything around you. It's very unsettling when that filter breaks, and you feel betrayed by the world you loved. I hope none of you ever have to go through that, but please, even while you choose to keep that filter up, for the sake of this argument, acknowledge that it's there, and that for someone who is extremely critical who has been questioning everything he believes in, the argument appears very different.

Let me make it clear, that as far as I can tell, there is almost certainly no God, and the Bible is almost certainly a book written by men, for men. Notice my careful use of the words "almost certainly". This is deliberately to emphasise that this is not something I have absolute faith in. I've already had my world shattered once, and I've been very careful about the ideas that I've let replace them. My strong belief in evolution is something I have carefully concluded by weighing up evidence, and reading thoroughly on BOTH sides of the matter.

The vast majority of the arguments against evolution weigh it against religion. If you already dismiss religion, these arguments immediately hold no water. It's frustrating to read through a thread like this and see references to Bible passages. It's like being in an echo chamber with the same meaningless phrases being thrown about with no substance to back them up.

Other arguments all bring up common misconceptions, such as macroevolution vs microevolution. The difference is purely scale - modern society depends on the mechanism of natural selection (or artificial selection, in the case of breeding) in everything from farming and agriculture to medicine and disease control. Natural selection is a mechanism that forms an unstable dynamic system with a positive feedback loop - one of an infinite number of such unstable dynamic systems that have been studied endlessly by scientists and engineers. One special property of all unstable dynamic systems with a positive feedback loop is that, unless some other mechanism interferes, all of them have effects that magnify at scale. I've read the arguments that macroevolution is somehow different in behaviour from microevolution, but not one argument - not a single one - has ever been able to provide a mechanism whereby the process of natural selection would somehow be bounded at scale to maintain the species that we have alive today.

I don't have the time or the patience to refute all of the blatent misconceptions about evolution in this thread, but let me say that I have not read a single argument against evolution in this thread that doesn't exhibit some misconception or well documented flaw.

If you really strongly believe evolution to be false, I encourage you to read Richard Dawkins' Greatest Show On Earth. It is an amazing book by a man who has spent his entire life doing actual scientific research in biology, and he lays out and explains most of your misconceptions, giving well documented counter-examples. Evolution is not at all incompatible with religion - there are many Christians who believe in evolution as a process set in motion by God. If you choose not to read the book, ask yourself why. Are you afraid it may change your mind? Or are you just not interested in reading opposing points of view?

I still find it absolutely absurd that so many people think it's acceptable to dismiss an entire field of science simply because they think it might disagree with some interpretation of a translation of some book they more often than not haven't even bothered to critically read from cover to cover.

 

[One Wheel]

@AlphaSheep that's a very careful, thoughtful, and impassioned response. Thank you.

I am not a scientist, I don't have a lot of time to read as many books as I'd like, so perhaps you could answer a couple of questions for me.

You say that there are misconceptions about microevolution vs macroevolution, but in my mind the facts that microevolution is A) repeatable and therefore B) falsifiable are absolutely critical. If faith is belief in the absence of definitive evidence, then the lack of repeatability and falsifiability in macroevolution puts in on a similar epistemological plane as the resurrection of Christ: there is evidence for both macroevolution and the resurrection, but you can't put either one "in a test tube and boil it," as one of my college professors put it. To be clear, I'm not arguing that belief in macroevolution and Christianity are mutually exclusive, nor am I arguing that microevolution and macroevolution operate by different rules. I'm just arguing that both macroevolution and Christianity start with something concrete and at least partially verifiable and falsifiable (microevolution and the Bible, respectively) and extrapolate beyond what reproducible evidence demands.

Personally, I find the evidence for and the implications of the resurrection to be more compelling than the evidence for and implications of macroevolution. I don't believe they are necessarily incompatible, but I'm my mind the simplest explanation is a young-earth creation. Furthermore, inasmuch as my belief in the origin and development of life on earth affects my day-to-day life (very little, I think), I would rather live as though God created the universe and everything in it.

 

[TDM]

@AlphaSheep that's a very careful, thoughtful, and impassioned response. Thank you.

I am not a scientist, I don't have a lot of time to read as many books as I'd like, so perhaps you could answer a couple of questions for me.

You say that there are misconceptions about microevolution vs macroevolution, but in my mind the facts that microevolution is A) repeatable and therefore B) falsifiable are absolutely critical. If faith is belief in the absence of definitive evidence, then the lack of repeatability and falsifiability in macroevolution puts in on a similar epistemological plane as the resurrection of Christ: there is evidence for both macroevolution and the resurrection, but you can't put either one "in a test tube and boil it," as one of my college professors put it. To be clear, I'm not arguing that belief in macroevolution and Christianity are mutually exclusive, nor am I arguing that microevolution and macroevolution operate by different rules. I'm just arguing that both macroevolution and Christianity start with something concrete and at least partially verifiable and falsifiable (microevolution and the Bible, respectively) and extrapolate beyond what reproducible evidence demands.

Personally, I find the evidence for and the implications of the resurrection to be more compelling than the evidence for and implications of macroevolution. I don't believe they are necessarily incompatible, but I'm my mind the simplest explanation is a young-earth creation. Furthermore, inasmuch as my belief in the origin and development of life on earth affects my day-to-day life (very little, I think), I would rather live as though God created the universe and everything in it.

In response to the bolded sentence:

I've heard some good arguments for the resurrection of Christ, and it's something that I personally haven't come to a conclusion about yet. However, I will argue that the part of the Bible concerning Christ and the part of the Bible which describes the start of life are very far from each other, and although they may be part of the same book, I don't think that one part being true implies the other part is true as well. One thing which I've never been sure about is how we can know to take the entire Bible as truth: are we sure it's okay to extrapolate in this situation?

 

[One Wheel]

In response to the bolded sentence:

I've heard some good arguments for the resurrection of Christ, and it's something that I personally haven't come to a conclusion about yet. However, I will argue that the part of the Bible concerning Christ and the part of the Bible which describes the start of life are very far from each other, and although they may be part of the same book, I don't think that one part being true implies the other part is true as well. One thing which I've never been sure about is how we can know to take the entire Bible as truth: are we sure it's okay to extrapolate in this situation?

That's a fair criticism. The answer I've heard to that is that multiple passages in the Bible assert that the whole thing is true, and you can't just pick and choose. If the evidence for the resurrection of Christ is compelling, as I believe it to be, then that proves that he was the Son of God, as he claimed. His other claims, most of which presuppose the truth of the Old Testament in one way or another, must then be considered true until proven otherwise, since they were made by a proven reliable witness.

 

[cuber314159]

Jesus was either
A) an idiot
B) a good teacher
or C) the son of God, as he claimed to be.

An idiot wouldn't say such meaningful, helpful things as he did, would not be able to do miracles and the be willing to be crucified, he could have run away if he chose.
A good teacher wouldn't claim to be the son of God- how is lying about your identity 'good' under anyones morality, it is also very unlikely a good teacher would just allow themselves to be crucified on an unjust trial ( Jewish law forbid trials at night, without legitimate witness and during Passover, all of which happened at his trial according to the Bible)
That leaves us with this situation- what if Jesus was actually who he said he was- if we know that then we can know the rest of the Bible is true, Jesus quoted from many of the writings in the old testament himself, and if Jesus really was who he says he was then we all need salvation in him as no one goes to heaven except through Jesus (John 14:6), all have sinned (Romans 3) and therefore all need salvation. If the Bible is true and you ignore it you will regret it for all eternity so it is worth looking into very carefully.

It is also worth considering that is documented outside the Bible that 11 other 12 disciples were martyred for their preaching and yet they stood firm with it, in the Bible it talks about how they were scattered after Jesus died, Peter even said he didn't know him 3 times (Luke 22) but after the acclaimed resurrection they were willing to preach out to everyone spreading the message as far as Ethiopia, Spain and even India. You can disprove the Bible essentially by disproving the resurrection, the entire Christian faith is based on that one event, because only God can cause someone to rise from the dead.

Mods: please don't delete this thread, I have no intention of saying anything offensive, I have read the terms of service, this may not be cubing related but it is the off topic discussion.

 

[TDM]

That's a fair criticism. The answer I've heard to that is that multiple passages in the Bible assert that the whole thing is true, and you can't just pick and choose. If the evidence for the resurrection of Christ is compelling, as I believe it to be, then that proves that he was the Son of God, as he claimed. His other claims, most of which presuppose the truth of the Old Testament in one way or another, must then be considered true until proven otherwise, since they were made by a proven reliable witness.

But what if those parts are the bits we can't trust?

Mods: please don't delete this thread, I have no intention of saying anything offensive, I have read the terms of service, this may not be cubing related but it is the off topic discussion.

I haven't seen anything offensive since the most recent bump, and it's not looking like the thread will be locked any time soon unless the discussion starts going in a totally different direction. And yep, it's fine to have discussion like this here - as long as it stays in the Off-Topic forum.

 

[One Wheel]

But what if those parts are the bits we can't trust?

I was thinking specifically of Jesus' claims, the trustworthiness of which ultimately hinges on the resurrection. If the resurrection is true, there is really no reason to disbelieve the rest. If the resurrection is false the rest is a moderately entertaining fairy tale that may have some historical basis here and there.

 

[AlphaSheep]

@AlphaSheep that's a very careful, thoughtful, and impassioned response. Thank you.

I am not a scientist, I don't have a lot of time to read as many books as I'd like, so perhaps you could answer a couple of questions for me.

You say that there are misconceptions about microevolution vs macroevolution, but in my mind the facts that microevolution is A) repeatable and therefore B) falsifiable are absolutely critical. If faith is belief in the absence of definitive evidence, then the lack of repeatability and falsifiability in macroevolution puts in on a similar epistemological plane as the resurrection of Christ: there is evidence for both macroevolution and the resurrection, but you can't put either one "in a test tube and boil it," as one of my college professors put it. To be clear, I'm not arguing that belief in macroevolution and Christianity are mutually exclusive, nor am I arguing that microevolution and macroevolution operate by different rules. I'm just arguing that both macroevolution and Christianity start with something concrete and at least partially verifiable and falsifiable (microevolution and the Bible, respectively) and extrapolate beyond what reproducible evidence demands.

Personally, I find the evidence for and the implications of the resurrection to be more compelling than the evidence for and implications of macroevolution. I don't believe they are necessarily incompatible, but I'm my mind the simplest explanation is a young-earth creation. Furthermore, inasmuch as my belief in the origin and development of life on earth affects my day-to-day life (very little, I think), I would rather live as though God created the universe and everything in it.

Macroevolution is actually testable and falsifiable because it can be used to make plenty of predictions in advance, and then we can go out into the world and look to confirm whether or not the predictions are true.

I should probably apologise for such a long post. It has to be long because there's actually a lot of scientific evidence for macroevolution.

I'm going to refer to the fossil record in this post, and I know that dating of fossils is often called into question by young-earth creationists (for obvious reasons). Fossils are typically measured by dating the rocks they are found in, which is typically done by measuring the relative ratios of radioactive isotopes. It's probably worth mentioning that this process is reliable enough that we use the same idea in atomic clocks, and to time signals sent to and from satellites to triangulate positions. This is the basic idea of how GPS works. However, even if you choose to completely ignore the fossil record, I feel there's still more than enough convincing evidence for evolution.

Anyway, here's an attempt at a summary of evidence for evolution as I understand it. This is a very long post, because there is a lot of evidence. It's also not an easy read. I don't expect to change anyone's mind, but I might as well just give all of the information. I've quickly adapted the info here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/. Follow the link for a ton of references and scientific studies which back up the claims I make in this post.

1. If all life is descended from a single common ancestor, then we would expect functions common to all life to be fulfilled by the same inherited structure. All life is able to perform the tasks of replication, inheritance (ancestors pass characteristics to descendants), catalysis (speed up or slow down certain chemical reactions) and convert energy. What is amazing is that although chemists in laboratories are able to produce hundreds of different polymers (large molecules) that can fulfil these functions, all of known life, be it plants, animals, bacteria or viruses, use the exact same four polymers out of all those available to perform these four tasks. This prediction was made in the mid 19th century and it was only around a century later that we started to be able to look at life on the molecular level. If we'd found a variety of structures, it would have been evidence against a single common ancestor, but we still haven't. It's significant is that all known living organisms share the same genetic code, and this was only shown to be the case three years after it was published as a necessity for the common ancestor idea to be true. We have sequenced the genetic material of tens of millions of species, only one of which needed to be different to falsify the common ancestor idea.
2. If the species we have now are generated by chance, we expect to see a nested hierarchy between species, with groups of groups, rather than a continuous variation (this can be mathematically proven, not by evidence, but in the same sense that you prove a geometry theorem in your math class). This is why we see definite boundaries between groups of species, and why there is nothing half way between between mammals and reptiles, for example. Of course, anyone could classify species however they want, but cladistic analysis is done objectively in a manner that is completely independent of the process itself. That is, someone can come up with a completely different quantitative method for classifying organisms, and should still be able to classify species into the same hierarchy. There are statistical tests that can be used to measure the probability that a hierarchy was not generated by chance. If we find a single hierarchy within all of taxonomy that showed up as significantly unlikely to have arisen by chance, then evolution would be disproven. Every single hierarchy that has been tested is compatible with ones that would have arisen by random chance.
3. As I mentioned above, completely independent processes for classifying species should produce basically the same hierarchy if evolution is true. With living organisms, they do. For anything that was designed (cars, computers, etc) or created by natural process (rocks, minerals, atomic elements), they don't, because there's no reason for the to be no oven mark between shared characteristics. What's also impressive is that classifications based on physical characteristics give the same hierarchy as classifications based on DNA, or chromosomal organisation. Had these vastly different process produced different results, it would have been really strong evidence against evolution.
4. We expect all fossilised organisms to fit into the same hierarchy as living organisms. Of course, I'm sure you are aware that the fossil record is incomplete, so finding fossils that fit into the hierarchy is not strong evidence. The big testable prediction is actually about which fossils we won't find. If you consider the hierarchy of modern species, we can see relationships between the these modern species. We don't expect to find any intermediary between birds and mammals, for example, as birds are far more closely related to reptiles. So while we've found a fairly complete line of fossils showing evolution of birds to reptiles, there is no fossil line between mammals and birds. There are plenty of other examples, but the key is not that we are finding fossils that fill in missing links but that we are not finding any fossils whatsoever for links that are incompatible with the hierarchy we have.
5. When we do find intermediaries, we expect them to be in chronological order. While the dating of some fossils are not as accurate as we would like, when you arrange large numbers of fossils, you can do statistical tests to be fairly confident in the result. It's just like when you flip a coin and get a heads, it tells you nothing because it could have gone either way, but if you flip a coin a hundred times and get all heads, you can be quite confident that the coin is rigged. If we find a series of intermediaries that statistical tests suggest are in the wrong order, that would be strong evidence against evolution. Statistical tests suggest the probability that we've got the lineage of fossils between birds and reptiles in the wrong order is less than 0.01%.
6. We expect to see vestigial structures inherited by organisms that their ancestors needed, but are are no longer used, or used for something that far simpler structure would be suited for. For example, wings are highly complex and expensive, yet flightless birds have them and use them for trivial tasks such as balance and courtship rituals. What's more important, we don't expect to see such complex structures if they didn't fulfil some more complex function in an ancestor. If we found an organism with some vestigial structure without an evolutionary explanation, that would be strong evidence against evolution. This also goes down to the molecular level. For example, while our ancestors, like most mammals, could produce their own Vitamin C, primates can't and need to consume it through their diet. It was predicted that primates would still have the necessary genes for this function, but they would not be functional. After this prediction was made, the gene responsible was indeed found to be present in a non-functional state in primates. Further more, the degree of mutation of this genre is exactly as expected given the relationships and ancestry between the primates. Had we not found this gene, it would have again been evidence against evolution.
7. We expect characteristics that are present in ancestors but absent in parents of a species to reappear from time to time. However, we do not expect characteristics not present in ancestors to suddenly appear. For example, people are very rarely born with tails, whales are very rarely born with legs (even with feet with toes in extreme cases), horses occasionally have extra toes, earwigs which are normally wingless occasionally have wings. It's through this that we've been able to breed dogs with webbed toes or hair instead of fur. But we don't see any characteristics suddenly appearing that aren't present in ancestors (I'm specifically referring to characteristics that appear over a single generation here, not characteristics that while slowly over many generations)
8. An organism develops by a process that modifies the structures present in its ancestors. As an embryo develops, structures undergo a series of developmental changes that eventually lead to the final animal. The jaws of mammal and reptile embryos start off in the same way, as multiple bones. As the embryo develops in mammals, the lowest bones fuse together and the rest move up and form the hammer an anvil of the ears. In reptiles, most of the bones remain in the jaw which forms a hinged jaw, and they have less complex ears with a single bone. There is also a series of fossils indicating that the bones in mammal ears were adapted from bones originally in the jaw. Mammal and fish embryos both start out with small arched pouches. In fish, these develop into gills, whereas in mammals, they develop into structures such as the sinuses and middle ear. While we expect to see things like the start of gills and hinged jaws in human embryos because those were present in our distant ancestors, we don't expect to see things like nipples or middle ears or hair in any stage of development of fish, amphibian, reptile or bird embryo.
9. Species are separated by geographic location. The distribution of species should be consistent with where they are located. Recently related species should be found close together. It would be evidence against evolution if the animals found in different parts of the world had no way of getting there. For example, the continents in the northern hemisphere are connected for animals capable of surviving arctic weather. So we find bears and wolves and reindeer across the entire northern hemisphere. The continents in the southern hemisphere are completely separated by vast oceans, so the animals in South America are completely different from the animals in Africa, and the animals in Australia are another thing altogether. Until humans brought them there, New Zealand had no mammals whatsoever since it was never connected by land to the rest of the world. However, similar unrelated animals still fill the niches in the corresponding habitats. For example, most marsupials in Australia have corresponding animal adapted to the same habitat in South America, and a different one in Africa, and in New Zealand, the same habitat would be occupied by a bird. If we found a species native to South America recently related to one native to Australia that could not have gotten there by migration (getting harder to show since humans move so many animals around), this would have been strong evidence against evolution.
10. We expect this to extend back in time too. For example, the earliest fossils of marsupials indicate that marsupials originally appeared in the Americas. We know from geological evidence that South America and Australia were connected via Antarctica for some time after that, so in order for marsupials to have migrated from America to Australia, they must have gone via Antarctica. And indeed, there are fossils of marsupials in Antarctica, even though they no longer live there today. There's a similar lineage for horses with a practically compete fossil record spanning over 50 million years. We also find fossils along the lineage from apes to humans to together in Africa and its surrounds, and no where else in the world. If we found fossils that did not agree with the spacial location of their ancestors, that would have been strong evidence against evolution.
11. We expect to see the same body structures adapted to fulfil different functions in different related species - e.g. wings in birds and claws in mammals are the same structure, as are feet in hoofed mammals, whale fins, penguin flippers, and the webbed feet of amphibians. We also see a clear progression in the fossil record from reptile claws to bird wings, and never anything going the other way around. If we were to discover any species such as Pegasus or a dragon, where wings were not adapted from existing limbs, this would be compelling evidence against evolution. All birds, reptiles, amphibians and mammals have the same structures. We see the same similarity between all of the insects, all of the molluscs, etc.
12. What's really impressive is how this similarity goes right down to the molecular level. Animals have adapted similar proteins to fulfil different functions. This could be falsified if we found proteins performing recently evolved functions that were vastly different to other proteins already present. We don't. Proteins for recently evolved functions always appear to be adapted from proteins performing core functions
13. The other side of the coin is that we expect species from very different lineages with different structures to have adapted different structures to fulfil the same purposes. An example is that desert plants in the Sahara have adapted completely different structures for storing water than American desert plants. The wings of birds and insects are completely different. Another example is that fish, whales, and turtles all have different ways of handling breathing. It would be strong evidence against evolution if we found an animal that had adapted a structure not present in it's evolutionary history, such as a whale with gills or a bird with insect wings. Again, this goes down to the molecular level. For example, creatures with vastly different ancestries use different proteins to facilitate digestion, even though these proteins behave exactly the same.
14. Structures adapted to fulfil a certain function don't do it in the most efficient manner. An example is that the layout of the respiratory and gastrointestinal tracts in mammals is unnecessarily complex and linked together, so we can't breathe while we are swallowing - we choke. This doesn't make sense from a functional point of view, but it does make sense when we look at lungfish who adapted to breathe on land by swallowing air. There are countless other examples. If we ever found a mammal without a crossed respiratory and gastrointestinal tract, that would be evidence against evolution. Again, this applies on the molecular level too. 45% of our DNA serves no purpose, but are responsible for a large number of illnesses and cancers. There's no reason for us to have those genes now, but all of them can be explained by evolutionary history.
15. Certain genes responsible for certain essential life functions are found in all living organisms, from bacteria to birds to plants to insects to fungi to mammals and these genes perform the same function, regardless of species. I'm not talking of DNA here, I'm talking of the actual protein molecules that make up DNA, RNA and other genetic material. There are many many different forms of each of these genes that could perform the same function, yet every single living organism that exists has the exact same sequences of genes to fulfil specific functions. There is no reason why this has to be the case - a sequence of genes could easily be replaced with a different sequence that performs the exact same function but that's not the case. The sequence of genes is passed from parent to child, and this is the only mechanism that has ever been observed to pass sequences from one species to another, so sequences of genes suggest a genealogical relationship between all life. If all life did not share a common ancestor then the chances of us sharing the same sequences are astronomically small. If you look at the genes of humans and chimpanzees, and then consider all possible genetic sequences that could have encoded the exact same thing, then the odds of the two matching as closely as they do is 1 in 10^93... Yes, that's like taking 5 scrambled 3x3 cubes, applying some random moves without looking, and having all 5 solved by pure luck. The whole common ancestor idea could be falsified completely if we found a species that used one of the many other possible genetic sequences that perform the same function, or that had a genetic sequence that could not function in any other animal, but this has never been found.
16. This gets even more remarkable when we look at DNA. For example, we can measure things like how rapidly DNA mutates by comparing DNA of parents to that of their children. We can then put lower bounds on how far back in time we'd have to go to find a common ancestor. The other way works to, if we know how far back a common ancestor is, we can calculate how different we expect the DNA of two species to be. If we found two species whose DNA were too different for the differences to be explained by mutation, it would completely disprove evolution. We have found no such cases.
17. There are elements of DNA, called transposons which can move around the DNA sequence arbitrarily without affecting the function of the DNA. Transposons have been studied in huge detail in bacteria, yeast, corn, flies, humans and other species are are very well understood. They have a small chance of moving each generation, and when they do, the move and replicate almost at random. The chance of it landing in any given location in the DNA is very very small. The locations of transposons on DNA form patterns which slowly shift over many generations. Because it's so unlikely for two different species to have transposons in the same place, transposon location is a very strong indicator of relatedness. This is the idea behind paternity or sibling testing, and those tests that tell you what mix of breeds your dog is. Since it's so incredibly unlikely for two completely unrelated species to have transposons in the same place, the fact that we do find this consistently suggests that species are related.
18. Animals carry pseudogenes, which are genes that used to perform a function but have some fault in their sequence that prevents them from functioning. Many animals carry a redundant pseudogene as well as a functional gene that fulfils that same missing function. We have observed the creation of redundant pseudogenes both in the laboratory and in the wild. Since there's no real negative impact of a mutation of a pseudogene on survival, we expect to see a much greater rate of mutation in pseudogenes than in the corresponding functional genes. We do. In addition, we expect the difference in degree of mutation in the same pseudogene between two species to correspond to how closely the species are related. We also expect to see a pseudogene with the specific mutation that made it non-functional in all descendents of the ancestor that first had the pseudogene. If any other species not descended from that ancestor had the same exact pseudogene, or any species descended from the ancestor did not have the pseudogene, then that would be pretty massive blow for evolution. We have found absolutely no such cases for the first, and the only cases found for the second have been in bacteria, which have extremely short generations and efficient means of removing excess DNA.
19. As above, retroviruses insert themselves into DNA and get replicated along with it. We expect closely related species to have retroviruses in the same places, but we do not expect more distant species to share these retroviruses. This is indeed what we find. It would be evidence against evolution if, for example, a retrovirus present in humans, but not present in apes, were to be found in dogs in the same location as in humans.
20. Characteristics of species follow genetic change. Genetic changes are heritable and irreversible. Once a mutation of a gene occurs, it can't revert back to its former state except for by the astronomically rare coincidence that a new mutation just happens to undo the previous mutation. This is specifically what allows such drastic changes in organisms to occur over a vast number of generations. There is no mechanism ensuring that species remain the same. This is the unstable dynamic process I spoke of in my previous post.
21. We expect to see species undergo changes over a number of generations. Practically every type of morphological change (that is, a change in size, shape, colour, or other physical characteristic of an existing structure) has been observed and recorded in nature. This goes beyond just microevolution, because almost all differences between all mammals, amphibians, birds and reptiles are just changes in size, shape and colour of the same structures. This is important because if we found any characteristic which could not change from generation to generation, it would have disproved evolution.
22. Organisms have also been observed to gain new functions. Important examples are bacteria that have gained the ability to synthesise new amino acids, or developed a resistance to viruses. In laboratory, organisms have been evolved to exclusively use nylon (an entirely man-made material) as their sole carbon source.
23. As we look further and further back along the fossil record, we expect much greater differences from the species that exist now than in much more recent fossils. If all of the fossils we've found were randomly scattered through rocks of all ages, that would have been evidence against evolution. But what we do see is a strong correlation between the distance of the fossil from modern species and the age of the rock.
24. If species gradually branch into new species, we expected to see all stages of this in progress today. The stages we see are populations that can interbreed freely, populations that interbreed partially, populations that interbreed with reduced fertility or infertile offspring, all the way down to populations that are genetically incompatible and cannot interbreed at all. What's really fascinating are ring species. This is where you have a continuous line of perfectly compatible interbreeding populations that wraps around a geographical barrier, and the two ends are completely genetically incompatible and function as two separate species. There's a species of salamander that lives around the Californian Central Valley that is like this, and what used to be considered two separate species of gull that live in England that actually can both interbreed with a continuous line that wraps around the arctic.
25. Humans have successfully bred different separate species of bacteria and several plants, (including maize, radishes, cabbages, hemp, and ferns) as well as in fruitflies, beetles and mosquitoes. Speciation in nature is incredibly rare and is therefore difficult to observe. However, it is possible. Speciation has been observed in house mice several times in the isolated islands of Madeira.
26. When we look back at evolutionary history, it looks like the rate of change in morphology is unbelievably quick, but it's important to realise these changes happen over a very long time scale. The greatest changes we see in the fossil require changes of size of about 0.06% from one generation to the next. We don't expect that that rate has slowed down in the modern day. We expect the rates of change in shape, size, etc in modern species to be just as fast as it was in the past (in fact, we expect it to be much faster, since evolution is a very inefficient mechanism). If they aren't then evolution would be difficult to justify. When we measure rates of change in the wild we find that the slowest changes are still at least 10 times faster than that of the fossil record. The fastest changes in nature a thousands of times faster than those in the fossil records.
27. As above, we expect rates of mutation in DNA to in modern species to be fast enough as well. The measured mutation rates in modern species are enough to explain the average mutation rate that we expect from the fossil record i. Mutation rates have been measured in humans and compared to the fossil record, and rate that would be needed to explain the difference between humans and chimpanzees.

The only possible conclusions are either that evolution is true, or that whatever did give rise to all of the species on Earth did so in such a way that by some astronomically unlikely coincidence is completely compatible with evolution.

 

[Gomorrite]

Now I would like to see that evidence on resurrection. Even evidence that Jesus ever existed is very weak.

 

[One Wheel]

@AlphaSheep wow! That's a tome! I read it all yesterday, and you make some very compelling arguments, most of which I don't have any answer for at all. Point #8 is a restatement of "ontology recapitulates phylogeny", which according to that repository of all reliable information, Wikipedia, is an outdated myth. I find your argument about clustered groups and the lack of a "missing link" particularly compelling, though. You're probably right about not changing anyone's mind: for my part you've answered a lot of my questions about evolution, but I still don't see anything in there that couldn't be explained by intelligent design or its subset creationism. I also find the "irreducible complexity" argument used by ID theorists to be very compelling. Ultimately, the philosophical ramifications, not to mention theological ramifications, of macroevolution and abiogenesis mean that for me the evidence would have to be absolutely overwhelming.

@Gomorrite this may be a bit of a cop-out, but rather than write a tome on my phone I'm going to link the first result that comes up when I Google "evidence for the resurrection." It's actually a very good article.
I would add that, with regard to the existence of Christ, I've read elsewhere that the sheer number and quality of extant texts (mostly but not entirely biblical) regarding Jesus from that era is unparalleled. I don't recall the exact figures, but the number of texts relating to Jesus that were written within a couple hundred years of when he lived is in the thousands, but the texts mentioning Plato written within 1,000 years of his life are in the dozens, if that. I've read that there is actually better evidence for the existence of Christ than for the existence of William Shakespeare, but I haven't researched Shakespeare extensively.

This article seems to do a fairly thorough job of discussing non-Christian references to Jesus in antiquity, and a few other articles that I looked at seem to concur with the Wikipedia article on the Historicity of Jesus that Jesus was a real historical figure, and at the very least was crucified, consistent with the scriptural account. It is interesting to me that Wikipedia lists Jesus' baptism by John the Baptist as another nearly universally accepted fact of his life.

I guess on second thought that's getting close to a tome. It's a fascinating subject, thanks for getting me looking at it again.

 

[JustAnotherGenericCuber]

@One Wheel that first article was a very interesting read, but I have some things I want to say about it.
From the article: Since the disciples could not have been lying or hallucinating, we have only one possible explanation left: the disciples believed that they had seen the risen Jesus because they really had seen the risen Jesus.
The evidence given for the resurrection is that the disciples were not lying and they were not hallucinating. So because these two options are said to be false, the "only other" option is true. (There are passages provided too, but... depends if you believe in the Bible or not)
Then, the resurrection is used as proof for many of the points later on, despite not being indisputably proved itself. Here are some from the article:
Surely you are going to accept the testimony of one who rose from the dead over the testimony of a skeptical scholar who will one day die himself--without being able to raise himself on the third day.

Don't get misled by the numerous skeptical and unbelieving theories about the Bible. Trust Jesus--He rose from the dead.

How are we to know which religion is correct? By a simple test: which religion gives the best evidence for its truth? In light of Christ's resurrection, I think that Christianity has the best reasons behind it.

Jesus is the only religious leader who has risen from the dead. All other religious leaders are still in their tombs. Who would you believe? I think the answer is clear: Jesus' resurrection demonstrates that what He said was true.
the resurrection of Christ proves that God will judge the world one day.

The resurrection proves that those who trust in Christ will not be subject in eternity to a half-human existence in just their souls. It proves that our bodies will be resurrected one day. Because of the resurrection of Christ, believers will one day experience, forever, the freedom of having a glorified soul and body.

Please tell me what you think of my argument, this discussion is so interesting.

 

[One Wheel]

@JustAnotherGenericCuber I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to argue. Are you saying that the options that the disciples were lying, hallucinating, or telling the truth are not exhaustive? Or that just believing that they were telling the truth doesn't mean that they actually were? I think the latter would fall under hallucination, and I'm really not sure what else you would add to the lie-hallucination-truth trichotomy.

 

[JustAnotherGenericCuber]

@JustAnotherGenericCuber I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to argue. Are you saying that the options that the disciples were lying, hallucinating, or telling the truth are not exhaustive? Or that just believing that they were telling the truth doesn't mean that they actually were? I think the latter would fall under hallucination, and I'm really not sure what else you would add to the lie-hallucination-truth trichotomy.

Yeah I was thinking that the options were not exhaustive but I can't think of any others. Thanks.

 

[Cubed Cuber]

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to argue. Are you saying that the options that the disciples were lying, hallucinating, or telling the truth are not exhaustive?

It would be highly improbable if the disciples just lied because who would even die for a lie they made up for themselves.
And also over 500 people believed in it. It would be very hard for 500 people to say the same lie without changing it.

 

[Spock loves cubing]

To start out, I do not believe in evolution. I am a Christian.

My first question: if evolution is true, how did matter come into existence? Surely there was something that started it all.
I'm not saying I have all the answers (neither does science), I'm just curious in what you guys think.

Evolution does not treat with the beginning of the universe - for that we must unify general relativity with quantum mechanics first, check quantum loop gravity and string theory if you want to know more - it is about how life evolves and diversifies over time.

 

[Ordway Persyn]

I believe that evolution is the best theory as to how all the different species of life on earth came to be. Could it be wrong? Yes, but everything in science can't be 100% proven, only to percentages that approach 100.

Keep in mind that there are many christians that believe in evolution, the big bang and such other theories that are supposedly against christianity. if you are trying to convince people to become christians by convincing them evolution is fake, it's not going to work well, in fact you are probably going to scare people away.

 

[CrystallineCuber]

Hey y'all! This is my first foray into the true depth of the off topic section. It's cool that we at least aren't insulting each other, hope we can keep that up.

Christian here, passionate scientist, creationist. Someone fill in the hole for me about how micro evolution and macro evolution follow from each other. My logic finds a hidden assumption somewhere but I'm not sure if it's just a limited conception of the data.

Please note I'm not looking for refutations of any theory or religious canon, I just like knowing what everyone believes so I can evaluate it properly.