Can you give me 3 to 10 points on why you accept in the theory of evolution and/or the big bang

[BrandySails]

i am making up my mind on the matter and would like to talk to people who have made up their minds. btw if this is in the wrong place please move it! i wasnt entirely sure where to put it. i'm new here.

 

Can you give me 3 to 10 points on why you accept in the theory of evolution and/or the big bang? this is independant of any other theories. i dont want to talk about anything other than the theory of evolution and the big bang theory.

 

I'd like it numbered. and just briefish points, like a topic, a little about it and then a brief explanation of why this makes you believe/accept/whatever evolution and/or the big bang to be true. so like evolution->point 1->title->explanation->significance->etc big bang->repeat process for evolution. I'll do some further research on whatever topics you mention so you dont need to go in super depth, but i would love links to stuff as well. and please please, dont use things derived from the theory as examples of evidence for the theory. in another forum a lot of people said things like "its a fact x million years ago this happend, therefore blablabla". this is exactly what im questioning because i have read material that says otherwise, eg the stuff here www.creation.com (i only include this link to show you why i have concerns for acception evolution, if you disagree with the things on it, tell me why) and saying things like that wont help me better understand evolution and/or big bang and wont help me come to a conclusion.

 

please and thankyou!!

[immortal]

Well, then hear the other side of the argument.

 

1. How did life originate? How did the DNA code originate?

Even though this is irrelevant to what Evolution by Natural Selection intend to explain I'm responding to it, since they have included chemical evolution in their definition and requested for a natural process on how the DNA and its code can originate through evolutionary mechanisms. Towards understanding of the origin of genetic languages.

CMI'S definition of evolution for the purposes of this pamphlet is the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ (GTE). The evolutionist Gerald Kerkut defined this as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’^{<A name=txtRef1>1} This is a perfectly justifiable definition, and one that secular scientists would agree with—and this is what the dispute is about!

 

2. How could mutations? How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist? how can scrambling existing DNA information create a new biochemical pathway?

 

Evolution doesn't work by random mutations, it works by random muttations followed by non-random selection, it works by cumulative selection i.e. accumulation of good design. The following paper shows how Evolution by NS can lead to increase in information. Explaining gene duplication.

 

3. How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years?

 

There are three kinds of natural selection mainly positive selection, normalizing selection and sexual selection. If an organism hasn't changed over the years it means they were subjected to normalizing selection and according to the mathematical models by Kauffman

 

The simulations typically contain a number of species that remain 'frozen' for quite a long period of time, in much the same way that shark and cockroaches have survived with very little change over the last hundreds of millions of years. At the same time, however, the simulations always contain a number of rapidly evolving species engaged in a kind of evoultionary race, rather like the tree and the beetle

And also the rate of evolution depends on the rate at which the mutations are fixed in the population.

 

4. How did multi-cellular life originate?

 

Metabolic cooperation through inter cellular interactions and their molecular biology has been studied extensively, experiments show that cells in direct contact communicate by exchanging large metabolites and in a growing cell having high energy requirement it would be a better strategy for the cell to share large metabolites with the other cell rather than battling alone in the battle for life. So those mutations which helped the cells to better communicate with each other got selected and passed on and there is no need for any teleological assistence for them to originate.

 

5. How did sex originate?

 

Having traits which attract other individuals of the same population is an advantage since it passes on the traits to the next generation, but these attractive traits can also attract some predators but if the risk is less compared to the selective advantage then those alleles will be fixed. evolution of sex chromosomes.

 

6. How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?

 

Even though humans exhibit extraordinary behaviours of intelligence, altruism and morality we're more or less animals in the first place, and most of the evolutionary psychology is based on this dogma. According to models of game theory applied to evolutionary biology by John Maynard Smith, the brains of the animals including humans are always developing survival strategies whether its in the wild for animals or in the gambling of humans, they exhibit innate instincts to make a choice which gives them the best possible outcome i.e. they make a selfish choice. Evolutionary psychology just explains the behaviours of living things when subjected to different environmental conditions. They just claim to explain one perspective of humans based on the dogma of seeing them as evolutionary by products.

They don't claim to explain the origin of mind, intelligence and other higher morals, if some group of people are so annoyed if we say that humans think along the same lines as evolutionary psychological patterns its not the theories fault. They just say the truth. Its for us to realize that we are living in a civilized and a moral world and infact evolutionary psychology will go on to say that any ruthless act of misbehaviour in a socialized world will inturn lead to the isolation of those individuals and there by hindering their genes to be passed on, we're all animals(machines) first and then human beings.

 

7. Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?

 

Evolution has helped us to better understand the complexities of the living organisms and how selections acts at various levels from genes to individuals to organisms and to populations. Our ability to make a distinction and divide a population into two different species even if they are so morphological identical between each other is only a great success we have had. This can lead to prediction on how the ecosystem can change over the years in the near future helps us to take actions to preserve the diversity of life that we on earth.

 

8. Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes? Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated? Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?

 

Ofcourse living organisms exhibit some amazing design solutions which is intriguing to our observation and Evolution by Natural selection is the only model which explains all the bio-diversity in the world, Yes there are some loop holes in the model which will be present in any model of physical sciences which will be later updated by new synthesis. If these proponents of Intelligent design give us a model which explains about the diversity of life on earth which can be testified based on their claim of a teleological hand behind the design of novel forms then we will be very much be happy to be included in the school curriculum but right now its not even a science and I guess it will never be a field of science and so we can just keep it far from science. We don't popularize pseudoscience in our classrooms.

 

9. Why is natural selection not a creative process?

Here is a paper which shows how smal mutations in a gene can lead to macro-evolution. How animal body shapes changed in early evolution

[wisdom-first]

Sorry for not following your instructions.. It's early in the morning here and my brain isn't handling instructions so well just yet. But i will try to give my response structure.

Evolution

 

I believe in evolution. They say seeing is believing and I, personally, believe I can see it all around me. I can see it in the races of the world and different nations. Different races tend to have different facial features, bone structure, skin color and hair. When you begin to mix the races the features begin to mix along with them. In this age of the planet we have facilitated travel and global communication making it easier for different races to inter mingle and reproduce, and their offspring show the signs of this mixing. Now add time to the mix. Within 1000 years the globe will be a very different place, with racial cocktails we haven't even seen yet. Surely this is proof of evolution. When you change the environment a creature lives in whether it be the trees the creature lives in or the neighbours in the tree, there are measurable changes in that creature and future generations of that creature.

 

2) Another place you could hypothetically "see" evolution would be if there were some kind of global catastrophe. This is going to sound silly but I believe it makes enough sense to use. Imagine some new, deadly gas began to seep out of the earth at an astonishing rate and based on its density this gas hovered between 5 feet above ground level and 7 feet above ground level effectively killing off the bulk of the human population. While most humans would have been killed by this gas, Midgets or Little People would remain largely unaffected by this gas. Little people are the result of genetic mutation. Most of the time this mutation is considered a flaw or a burden but in this specific situation it has become a clear advantage. As I said in part 1 "Add Time" 3000 years in the future the earth would be a very different place.. in fact few people would probably remember the days of the 6 foot man. This is evolution... genetic mutation and random chance. If your strange quirk benefits you in some way over time this benefit could lead to you dominating the other version of your species. Its not that everybody changed over time it's more about who is still around.

 

I am out of time so instead of a third part to evolution I will give one part to the big bang.

 

I am not sure what to believe when it comes to the big bang. From what I have seen it makes perfect sense. Each and every star in the universe is moving away from each and every star. If you were to press the cosmic rewind button on your cosmic VCR eventually all matter would be concentrated into one singular point. BUT where I have trouble is the moment of the bang. How and when and who and why did existence begin to exist?? At this moment I feel that the answer to my questions is that "questions and answers don't exist without an existence for them to exist in" (Translation) If all the mass and energy we call the universe was concentrated in one singular point, it would have been surrounded by endless nothingness. Time, space, matter, questions, answers, and reasons can't exist in nothing. SO the moment the big bang banged was the moment we started having time to ask questions about. Humans, currently, can't comprehend the origin of existence because we don't have an accurate perception of what time is.

 

Another quick piece of evidence for the big bang is the atomic bomb... We take a tiny atom and somehow create this enormous explosion of energy... Now throw that recipe into outer space where there is no friction. It would look a lot like our universe.... matter, constantly expanding away from all other matter in every direction.

[charles brough]

Wow! What a list of restrictions! Some like to give big answers and others are more to the point. Its really up to you to read and take seriously the kind of responses that appeal to you.

 

"The Big Bang" is the best explanation of what little we really know about the universe. It is consistent with what we know so far about physics, astronomy, etc.

 

The theory of Evolution is how to explain what has been observed over and over again. In other words, evolution is fact. We know it has occured because we see it operate in the biology lab, in the Earth record, and among plants. It is only how it occurs that is theory.

 

If you want a science explanation, that's it. If you want a religious one, go to the Ancient Scriptures of any of the world's old religions.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

The "Evolution does not work" discussion has been split, since it is OT for this thread.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/62139-evolution-does-not-work/

[ajb]

Big Bang.

 

1. CMBR and in particular the power spectrum.
   
2. Expansion of the Universe i.e. Hubble's Law.
   
3. Abundances of the light elements.
   

 

and other things.

 

The main point is that any "sensible" theory should make quite specific predictions that can be tested against nature.

[charles brough]

Big Bang.

 

1. CMBR and in particular the power spectrum.
2. Expansion of the Universe i.e. Hubble's Law.
3. Abundances of the light elements.

 

and other things.

 

The main point is that any "sensible" theory should make quite specific predictions that can be tested against nature.

Yes, the accuracy of a theory can be best judged by its ability to be tested from predictions based on it. No theory is completely accurate, totally complete, or "the Truth" in being the abstract, final knowledge because there is no such thing.

[ajb]

Yes, the accuracy of a theory can be best judged by its ability to be tested from predictions based on it. No theory is completely accurate, totally complete, or "the Truth" in being the abstract, final knowledge because there is no such thing.

 

One usually talks about a theory being good or bad via how close the theory matches nature. One has to also think about domains of applicability rather than a theory being correct or not.

[dimreepr]

i am making up my mind on the matter and would like to talk to people who have made up their minds. btw if this is in the wrong place please move it! i wasnt entirely sure where to put it. i'm new here.

 

Can you give me 3 to 10 points on why you accept in the theory of evolution and/or the big bang? this is independant of any other theories. i dont want to talk about anything other than the theory of evolution and the big bang theory.

 

I'd like it numbered. and just briefish points, like a topic, a little about it and then a brief explanation of why this makes you believe/accept/whatever evolution and/or the big bang to be true. so like evolution->point 1->title->explanation->significance->etc big bang->repeat process for evolution. I'll do some further research on whatever topics you mention so you dont need to go in super depth, but i would love links to stuff as well. and please please, dont use things derived from the theory as examples of evidence for the theory. in another forum a lot of people said things like "its a fact x million years ago this happend, therefore blablabla". this is exactly what im questioning because i have read material that says otherwise, eg the stuff here www.creation.com (i only include this link to show you why i have concerns for acception evolution, if you disagree with the things on it, tell me why) and saying things like that wont help me better understand evolution and/or big bang and wont help me come to a conclusion.

 

please and thankyou!!

 

The recent court case in america is what has finally decided me on the matter of evolution. the argument being that of intelligent design*. this is about as close to actual proof of the theory as is possible to get.

 

 

*the argument being that advocates say they had found a microbe which couldn't be simplirfied. Prooved wrong.

 

As for the big bang.... the universe did start somewhere thats for shizz (to quote snoop) but its now common thinking that it was more of an inflation than a simple explosion so needs definition as a question.

[Curious!]

in another forum a lot of people said things like "its a fact x million years ago this happend, therefore blablabla". this is exactly what im questioning because i have read material that says otherwise, eg the stuff here www.creation.com

 

 

 

Just a question, are actually doubting the age of the Earth? Because it certainly seems as though you are having quoted a creationist website (which by the way is the most absurd website I have ever seen, especially the page "what we believe") And if you are, have you ever considered the existence of FOSSILS

[Eugenics]

Evolution

Inactive virus found in human dna also found in chimpanzees dna in the same spot. This suggests a common ancestor.

The fossil record.

We can observe evolution happening in bacteria and viruses because they replicate much faster than animals.

 

Big Bang

Our universe is expanding which means there must have been an explosion propelling things outward from a central point.

Detectable static radiation from big bang left over.

[hypervalent_iodine]

 

 

Big Bang

Our universe is expanding which means there must have been an explosion propelling things outward from a central point.

Detectable static radiation from big bang left over.

 

No. The idea that the Big Bang was an explosion is a misconception. Rapid expansion, not explosion.

[Appolinaria]

are they not the same?

[charles brough]

One usually talks about a theory being good or bad via how close the theory matches nature. One has to also think about domains of applicability rather than a theory being correct or not.

 

Yes, but I would change your choice of words a little: "One sually talks about a theory being more accurate or less accurate than previous or other explanations for a particular natural phenonenon."

 

Can we improve upon that?

 

What do you mean in your second sentence?

[Arete]

To the OP

1) the fundamental tenets are facts:

a) There is standing phenotypic variation between individuals;

b) Phenotypic traits are heritable;

c) Differences in phenotype result in differential breeding success;

d) Differential success of certain phenotype over generations leads to phenotypic changes in a population.

e) When experimental allopatric populations undergo different modes of breeding success speciation is observed.

 

 

2) Evolutionary theory predicts genetic outcomes. E.g. the fields of phylogenetics, biogeography, molecular biology etc have put evolutionary theory to the test literally millions of times, and the prediction is accurate in a statistically overwhelming proportion of cases - thus it is the "least wrong" theory.

 

 

3) Application of evolutionary theory results in useful outcomes: e.g. vaccine development, selective crop breeding, biological control mechanisms, cancer treatments, etc.

 

 

4) Most of the arguments opposing are either logically fallacious, plain fallacious or based on a misunderstanding of the theory.

 

 

5) No alternative which explains observation based on naturalistic circumstances has been proffered.

Edited December 12, 2011 by Arete

[RichardSnodgrass]

The Bible explains a condensed version of evolution when God says "Let there be light," that could mean actual light from a big bang scenario. The Bible does not get into science detail, but you can read between the lines and say oh heres where 4 billion years of natural selection created life, The Bible is a spiritual history book and one cannot easily bridge the gap between science and history involved. Technically, it's like asking a mathematician why two plus two cannot fix a broken arm. The subjects are non sequitor fore the most part....

 

 

 

i am making up my mind on the matter and would like to talk to people who have made up their minds. btw if this is in the wrong place please move it! i wasnt entirely sure where to put it. i'm new here.

 

Can you give me 3 to 10 points on why you accept in the theory of evolution and/or the big bang? this is independant of any other theories. i dont want to talk about anything other than the theory of evolution and the big bang theory.

 

I'd like it numbered. and just briefish points, like a topic, a little about it and then a brief explanation of why this makes you believe/accept/whatever evolution and/or the big bang to be true. so like evolution->point 1->title->explanation->significance->etc big bang->repeat process for evolution. I'll do some further research on whatever topics you mention so you dont need to go in super depth, but i would love links to stuff as well. and please please, dont use things derived from the theory as examples of evidence for the theory. in another forum a lot of people said things like "its a fact x million years ago this happend, therefore blablabla". this is exactly what im questioning because i have read material that says otherwise, eg the stuff here www.creation.com (i only include this link to show you why i have concerns for acception evolution, if you disagree with the things on it, tell me why) and saying things like that wont help me better understand evolution and/or big bang and wont help me come to a conclusion.

 

please and thankyou!!

Edited December 12, 2011 by RichardSnodgrass

[charles brough]

Brandysails, please let me try to sum it up. It has a lot to do with what you WANT to believe. If you have to believe in Creation in order to fit into your church and you abhor the thought of not conforming, you may be better to keep your belief in that ancient, over three thousand year parchemented myth or concept. Then, it was advanced; now it lingers on only as a source of unity and hence a sense of community.

 

If you have had a desent science education, however, you might be willing to accept that hundreds of thousands of dedicated scientists across the world who devote their lives to finding the most accurate explanation possible for everything around us, past, present and into the future. Our whole civilization depends now upon them and the continuation of their work. Do not be pursuaded by the few scholars who try to believe both.

I checked the website you listed. You need to keep in mind that much of science is devoted to finding natural cause explanations for things. The whales in the desert, for example, were found near a port and could have been part of a sunami. The scientists are figuring out what explains it. They do not dismiss the finding of vast numbers of milllions of years old dynasour bones across the world and say they were the result of the Bible Story world-wide flood.

[ajb]

What do you mean in your second sentence?

 

For example Newtonian mechanics agrees with nature to a high degree of accuracy, provided you are not at the atomic scale (or smaller) and/or none of the bodies move at speeds comparable to the speed of light. At about the atomic scale quantum mechanical effects become important. For fast moving bodies one needs special relativity.

 

Thus we can say that Newtonian mechanics is a good framework, but with the above proviso.

 

In general saying a theory is good or bad, or agrees well with nature or not is quite subtle. There will be some arbitrariness in how well a theory agrees with nature before we say it is good. It is far clearer when a theory greatly disagrees, say predicts some phenomena that has been ruled out by experiment/observation. Then we have to think carefully about the range of parameters in the theory for which we expect it to hold well. Newtonian mechanics is a great example, the theory is very good for not too small and not too fast objects.

[Klaynos]

!

Moderator Note

More Evolution is wrong posts have been split from this thread. They are here:

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/62171-evolution-does-not-work-take2

Which is closed.

IamJoseph, do not reintroduce this topic to this thread. There is already a split thread for you to discuss this in. Hijacking is against the forum rules, I suggest you re-read them and follow them as you agreed when you signed up.

Do not reply to this modnote.

[Ringer]

are they not the same?

 

No, an expansion is just increase in volume while mass stays the same. An explosion is a rapid expansion with a release of energy. Since there was no real release in energy, because where would it go, the BB is just a rapid expansion.

 

At least that's how I understand it, I could be wrong.

[charles brough]

For example Newtonian mechanics agrees with nature to a high degree of accuracy, provided you are not at the atomic scale (or smaller) and/or none of the bodies move at speeds comparable to the speed of light. At about the atomic scale quantum mechanical effects become important. For fast moving bodies one needs special relativity.

 

Thus we can say that Newtonian mechanics is a good framework, but with the above proviso.

 

In general saying a theory is good or bad, or agrees well with nature or not is quite subtle. There will be some arbitrariness in how well a theory agrees with nature before we say it is good. It is far clearer when a theory greatly disagrees, say predicts some phenomena that has been ruled out by experiment/observation. Then we have to think carefully about the range of parameters in the theory for which we expect it to hold well. Newtonian mechanics is a great example, the theory is very good for not too small and not too fast objects.

 

I see your point. I would then modify my version in this way:

 

 

"One usually talks about a theory being more accurate or less accurate than previous or other explanations for a specific natural phenonenon."

[charles brough]

The Bible explains a condensed version of evolution when God says "Let there be light," that could mean actual light from a big bang scenario. The Bible does not get into science detail, but you can read between the lines and say oh heres where 4 billion years of natural selection created life, The Bible is a spiritual history book and one cannot easily bridge the gap between science and history involved. Technically, it's like asking a mathematician why two plus two cannot fix a broken arm. The subjects are non sequitor fore the most part...

Certainly, you could interpret it that way, but if some people interpret "let there be light" to

mean "4 billion years of evolution," they are inferring that God over-symplifies and might actually mean something else entirely. And if most people don't take the scriptures literally and instead, enterprect them so freely (and conveniently), which version of the faith is "true"?

 

You use the word "spiritual." I have never been able to find any meaning in that word other than "belief in spirits." Is that the what you meant?