The Evolution Conflict

[Vajradhara]

Namaste juan,

thank you for the post, i'm glad to see you are doing well

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I'm not fully certain I understand what it is you mean here. Allowing that you have no "belief" in "God" per se, at least in the typical Christian sense of the terms, I still do not follow.

understand that my knowledge of your tradition is limited...

however...

it has been explained to me that Gods creative acts are no longer mainfest in the universe, per se. God created the method or mechanism by which species would continual adapt to their changing enviornment, however, God is not creating new species, Ex Niliho, any longer.

i realize that this may not be a commonly held veiw. this is, however, the view that is explained when one asks if God creates each individual snowflake which falls on earth.

If evolution can be shown to be the way things change over time (the "how"), why would that preclude "God" from still creating new species (the "why and by whom")?

it is actually a theological constraint, from what i understand. clearly, there are going to be some traditions and denominations which do not share that view.

I do wish to say that I am impressed with your understanding of the Christian faith, when I am so ignorant of Buddhism.

i know less than nothing of my own faith, let alone yours! i do try to pay attention when i ask questions and thus, it is though the patient and dilligent efforts of Christians that i have any knowledge of your tradition.

Still, if things are as they are meant to be, in accord with whatever cosmic source that stands behind it all, why would that creation or (re-)generation cease once and if we could say we finally understand it? It seems to me the source (the well-spring) from which all comes would still be in action and in evidence, even to a theist.

i suppose it sort of depends on if you think that God is transcendent or immanent, perhaps a combination of both, in the universe. i've heard it explained rather like a giant clockmaker in the sense that God created the universe and all the various processes therein and simply lets those process continue in their fashion.

thus, it wouldn't be a direct act of creation as when God was creating the universe, though i suppose that you could still view it in the same manner, however, i suspect that there is a fairly significant theological issue with this view.

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, Bandit!

I think Vaj and others have made excellent points regarding this, in that evolutionary theory is not a replacement for God. It is a method of explanation humans use to explain how animals adapt and change over time. There are a few misinformed people, (unfortunately some in positions of respect such as school teachers), that beat the drum of evolution like a religious dogma or doctrine, to be accepted without question. In the field, I have learned, biologists constantly question, themselves and their colleagues, and this I think is a good thing. Evolutionary theory is not "cut and dried," there is room for greater understanding. But that understanding is not rightfully a replacement for God or religious understanding. And when it is properly presented, it makes no attempt to do so. Evolution is a human attempt to understand the "how," religion is the attempt to explain "why and by whom."

Well, like I said, the common ancestor is dirt. I actually can appreciate what you have said here Juan, however Christians will most definately continue to question evolution, because honestly & even with the defintion given today, i dont think they are ever going to figure it out. Even the 65 million year old dinasour myth, has been brought to the table with new evidence, that they are not that old, including a T REX.
I could care less how the old the earth is or wether or not Adam literally had an extra rib..

so what we are looking at is big tent layed out on the ground with no poles to support it & definately nothing to support the Aunt Lucy Monkey theory (which most certainly is still out there, so dont try to tell us it is not still in there heads).
the defintion of the science itself is going to continue to EVOLVE. So when some refer to bible believers as 'evolving' because they think they are so much smarter & we know nothing, .... (not refering to any one here, but rather in the write ups) is not very smart.

& yes there are most certainly evolutionist/scientists who indeed would like nothing better than to rid of the God of creation & the Bible once & for all & make us believe in the hootchie kooticie theory & myths they create & so on & so forth...& it goes right back to the big bang with no God to cause it.

Juan, Like I told the others, I am not ignoring you or the science, but anything I would have to add, I would only be yanking your chains with more silly questions & that is not right to those who have a passion for it.
So, when I post on things like this, do not take me serious, ...monkey face.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Bandit!

Originally Posted by Bandit

when I post on things like this, do not take me serious, ...monkey face.

That's OK, life is too short to take seriously. ...dirt bag.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Vajradhara!

Thank you for your post!

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

it has been explained to me that Gods creative acts are no longer mainfest in the universe, per se. God created the method or mechanism by which species would continual adapt to their changing enviornment, however, God is not creating new species, Ex Niliho, any longer.

i realize that this may not be a commonly held veiw. this is, however, the view that is explained when one asks if God creates each individual snowflake which falls on earth.

it is actually a theological constraint, from what i understand. clearly, there are going to be some traditions and denominations which do not share that view.

i know less than nothing of my own faith, let alone yours! i do try to pay attention when i ask questions and thus, it is though the patient and dilligent efforts of Christians that i have any knowledge of your tradition.

i suppose it sort of depends on if you think that God is transcendent or immanent, perhaps a combination of both, in the universe. i've heard it explained rather like a giant clockmaker in the sense that God created the universe and all the various processes therein and simply lets those process continue in their fashion.

thus, it wouldn't be a direct act of creation as when God was creating the universe, though i suppose that you could still view it in the same manner, however, i suspect that there is a fairly significant theological issue with this view.

I think I understand what you are getting at, for the most part. I suppose I am too much of a free-thinker. Then again, I am reminded of what you taught me, even on this subject of evolution as much as my own religious teaching:

found in the Kalamaa Sutta:

"Do not believe in anything because you have heard it.

Do not believe in tradition because they have been have been handed down.

Do not believe in anything because it is spoken and rumoured by many.

Do not believe in anything because it is found written in religious books.

Do not believe in anything merely on the account of your teachers and elders.
But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of all, then accept it and live up to it."

Perhaps the teaching of evolution isn't religion in the strictest sense, although I know you are aware I draw great similarites between them. So I do not believe "just because..." TOE does have some degree of merit, I can grant that much after all of the discussions. There are still enough contradictions and exceptions to the rule to make me take what people say about it with a grain of salt.

You are always so kind and patient with me, it is greatly appreciated. Thanks.

[THUNK]

Originally Posted by Mohsin

Kindest regards to all.
If one needs to prove something as a fact, one must satisfy its critics. Now I know that Vajradhara has got some issues against Harun Yahya, but I still say that you should reffer to the scientific aspects and knowledge provided to prove a point. These guys have gathered a lot of stuff to prove the theroy of evolution wrong and one should concider these points before making big statements.

I have seen that some people are concidering this theory as a fact. Please satisfy these comments before concidering this.
Firstly, as I mentioned earlier, the structure of an eye is very complex as a million chemical reactions take place in less then twentieth of a second to form one image in our brain. Thus, the eye is useless without complete interaction with the brain. An uncomplete eye structure is useless. What use can it be of? One of the earliest fossil record of an animal is that of TRILOBITE. This creature is still present at it's original state without any change. An artical was released about this creature.

THE EYE OF THE TRILOBITE


The trilobites that appeared in the Cambrian period all of a sudden have an extremely complex eye structure. Consisting of millions of honeycomb-shaped tiny particles and a double-lens system, this eye "has an optimal design which would require a well-trained and imaginative optical engineer to develop today" in the words of David Raup, a professor of geology.

'This eye emerged 530 million years ago in a perfect state. No doubt, the sudden appearance of such a wondrous design cannot be explained by evolution and it proves the actuality of creation. Moreover, the honeycomb eye structure of the trilobite has survived to our own day without a single change. Some insects such as bees and dragon flies have the same eye structure as did the trilobite.* This situation disproves the evolutionary thesis that living things evolved progressively from the primitive to the complex.'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(*) R. L. Gregory, Eye and Brain: The Physiology of Seeing,
Oxford University Press, 1995, s. 31.

Apart from the eye, any other sence or any other organ is useless if it is uncomplete. Does it not show that these things inside living organisms are actually created completely rather then in small changes as the evolutionests claim.

Next, I want you to concider the butterfly. Researches have shown that there are, infact no colour pigments present on the wings of the butterfly, but the surface of the butterfly's wings reflects light in such a manner that it forms the colours. This property is somewhat similar to the reflected colours from a soup bubble. There are many kinds of butterflies. There are some which actually have eye markings on their wings. These markings resembles the eyes of an owl. A butterfly uses these markings as a camouflage. When a small bird or any other predeter approaches these butterflies, they spread their wings. The attacker gets scared because they are scared of owls, and thus flies off. This technique has also been video recorded by some biologests. Now, a butterfly is a small creature who by itself cannot design its wings. It cannot know that owl is these attacter's enemy and It cannot know that the markings on it's wings can be used to scare it's attackers away. Does this not point a Creater who created it as a whole with great wisdom and knowledge.

Further more, if you look at a dragonfly, it's body looks like a helical structure wrapped with metal. Two wings are cross-placed on a body that displays a colour gradation from ice blue to maroon. Because of this structure, the dragonfly is equipped with superb manoeuvrability. No matter at what speed or direction it is already moving, it can immediately stop and start flying in the opposite direction. Alternatively, it can remain suspended in air for the purpose of hunting. At that position, it can move quite swiftly towards its prey. It can accelerate up to a speed that is quite surprising for an insect: 25mph (40km/h), which would be identical to an athlete running 100 metres in the Olympics at 24.4mph (39km/h). At this speed, it collides with its prey. The shock of the impact is quite strong. However, the armoury of the dragonfly is both very resistant and very flexible. The flexible structure of its body absorbs the impact of collision. However, the same cannot be said for its prey. The dragonfly's prey would pass out or even be killed by the impact. Following the collision, the rear legs of dragonfly take on the role of its most lethal weapons. The legs stretch forward and capture the shocked prey, which is then swiftly dismembered and consumed by powerful jaws. The sight of the dragonfly is as impressive as is its ability to perform sudden manoeuvres at high speed. The eye of the dragonfly is accepted as the best example among all the insects. It has a pair of eyes, each of which features approximately thirty thousand different lenses. Two semi-spherical eyes, each nearly half the size of the head, provide the insect a very wide visual field. Because of these eyes, the dragonfly can almost keep an eye on its back. Can any evolutionest prove that all these abilities came about by chance or in steps?

Evolutionists claim that insects started flying 300 million years ago. Nonetheless, they are not able to provide any conclusive answers to fundamental questions such as: how did the first insect develop wings, take flight or keep suspended in the air?

Evolutionists only claim that some layers of skin on the body probably could have turned into wings. Aware of the unsoundness of their claim, they also assert that the fossil specimens to verify this assertion are not available yet. Nevertheless, the flawless design of insect wings leaves no room for coincidence. In an article entitled "The Mechanical Design of Insect Wings" the English biologist Robin Wootton writes:

'The better we understand the functioning of insect wings, the more subtle and beautiful their designs appear... Structures are traditionally designed to deform as little as possible; mechanisms are designed to move component parts in predictable ways. Insect wings combine both in one, using components with a wide range of elastic properties, elegantly assembled to allow appropriate deformations in response to appropriate forces and to make the best possible use of the air. They have few if any technological parallels-yet.'

On the other hand, there is not a single fossil evidence for the imaginary evolution of insects. That is what the famous French zoologist Pierre Paul Grassé referred to when he stated, "We are in the dark concerning the origin of insects."

The cell is the most complex and most elegantly designed system man has ever witnessed. Professor of biology Michael Denton, in his book entitled Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, explains this complexity with an example:

"To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalelled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a
world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity... (a complexity) beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man..."


I would also like to say that there is no good statement about the first living cell or the first living organism on the planet. Many claims are placed forward but cannot be proved. Even a unicellular creature is very complex as it too have several mechanisms which cannot be self created or created by chance. The second and most fundamental thing is by what manner does evolution takes place. Natural selection is proven to be wrong by development in the field of genetics. The scientests resorted to mutation but cannot prove by a single experiment that it can be used in a positive way. As I siad in an earlier post, radioactive waves damage the useful data in the DNA and thus turns a creatue into a freak of nature.

Concidering all the above facts, can you still hold this theory as more then just a theory? These are the points which are also the basis of evolution and they must satisfied. The statements that evolutionests use are probably, may have, somehow, would have e.t.c. No good evidance. The skulls presented, are of apes, some extince ones and some of the modern man with racial differances. They cannot be held as evidance for evolution. For further information, again have a visit to the theory's greatest critics http://www.harunyahya.com/evolution_introduction.php

I find it hard to accept that a magical God that sprang out of nothing created all this, that he for example created not one species of Longhorn Beetle but 20000.

On the balance of probability it is much more likely that 'chance' 'differences' lead to natural selection.

Take the Moth you mention above; It is not at all absurd to suppose that a single Moth was once born with markings on its wings that happened to look at little like eyes to its predators. It therefore survived to give birth to young with similar markings. Over time these markings might be slighly more eye like in certain individuals so that those individuals are more likely to escape the jaws of predators and give birth to similarly marked young until we quite quickly end up with a superior strain of Moth that out - numbers the originals.

A study of a single species of Finch on a Galapogos island strating 1975, shows chance differences gave rise to very different birds. Now instead of 1 species there are 4 on that island all genetically traced to the first birds and the whole processed observed by study.

Sure, its all scientific theory, and you rightly point out that absolute fact is hard to prove, but then you are quite happy to put your faith in story books written by people in search of answers thousands of years ago.

[bobbyburns]

so if you believe that god sprang out of nothing and created everything, ok... then you have the brain of a piece of broccoli. but if you say something like, "uuw, I don't believe in that bullcwap", and then post about how you believe in natural selection, then you have the brain of an unevolved piece of broccoli. that said, I think we're all jumping to conclusions. the fact is, none of us knows where everything came from.

btw, I was only kidding about the broccoli. it's really interesting to read what you guys have to say.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by bobbyburns

so if you believe that god sprang out of nothing and created everything, ok... then you have the brain of a piece of broccoli. but if you say something like, "uuw, I don't believe in that bullcwap", and then post about how you believe in natural selection, then you have the brain of an unevolved piece of broccoli. that said, I think we're all jumping to conclusions. the fact is, none of us knows where everything came from.

btw, I was only kidding about the broccoli. it's really interesting to read what you guys have to say.

Well, I don't have broccoli for brains (cooked or uncooked), but I don't have a mouth like a runnaway locomotive either (kind of hard to say sorry after some one has bee run over...don't you think?).

v/r

Q

[Faithfulservant]

I dont understand why people have to be insulting when voicing their opinions on subjects like these.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Juan,

thank you for the post.

if we can't be patient with each other on an internet chat forum, there isn't much hope for us in person!!

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Perhaps the teaching of evolution isn't religion in the strictest sense, although I know you are aware I draw great similarites between them. So I do not believe "just because..." TOE does have some degree of merit, I can grant that much after all of the discussions. There are still enough contradictions and exceptions to the rule to make me take what people say about it with a grain of salt.

You are always so kind and patient with me, it is greatly appreciated. Thanks.

well... i think that it should be fairly said that, from the scientific point of view, Evolution is both a theory and a fact.

the "fact" part of is that there are, in fact, differences in the species and these differences are caused by frame shifts in the genetic code. the "theory" bit of it how this shift happens and so forth.

so... you would be perfectly correct to hold the view that the "theory" of evolution presented thus far, does not meet your standard. it would seem, however, that you would also be able to acknowledge the fact that we have observered speciation and thus evolution of the species is a fact.

naturally, i can understand if there is a religious objection to this notion.. there is, unfortunately, little that can be done in that regard... if for no other reason than the Scientific Method is different than Religion concerning what need in humans is trying to be addressed.

i, personally, find it quite interesting that, by and large, scientists that are Christians have no problem with either God nor Evolution. yet, one frequently hears that if a person is a Christian, then they can't accept evolution and if they do, then they aren't a real Christian.

one wonders what would have been said on an internet chat forum about Galileo and his Heliocentric craziness!

[lunamoth]

Dear Vaj, Just wanted to than you for your very clear and compassionate words about Christians who have no problem accepting the theory of evolution. Your eloquence on the matter suprasses anything I could come up with on the best of days.

peace,
lunamoth

[lunamoth]

Dear Juantoo3,

Referring to this statement:

Perhaps the teaching of evolution isn't religion in the strictest sense, although I know you are aware I draw great similarites between them. So I do not believe "just because..."

The theory of evolution is not a religion, nor is it a teaching of a religion. It is a testable model for explaining the observations we can make about the diversity of species present today and those found in the fossil record. One does not need to have "faith" in that model beyond what is observable and testable, and really the job of scientists is not to prove it is correct but to find where it is wrong and then try to improve on that model. If the whole thing ended up getting scrapped some day, which contrary to ID propaganda does not seem to be imminent, no one is going to feel that their god has been destroyed.

The ToE could be irrefutably verified tomorrow, or it could be totally negated tomorrow, and neither would have any impact on my belief that God created it all and saw that it was Good.

peace,
lunamoth

[brucegdc]

Or to sum it up - the theory of evolution is silent on the ultimate origin of things. it describes a mechanism for change and an impetus, but not how things got here originally....

I don't see a conflict between a creator & evolution, myself - much easier to start things up, set a few rules & let 'em rip rather than constantly working on a project when there's other things to do.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Dear Juantoo3,

Referring to this statement:



The theory of evolution is not a religion, nor is it a teaching of a religion. It is a testable model for explaining the observations we can make about the diversity of species present today and those found in the fossil record. One does not need to have "faith" in that model beyond what is observable and testable, and really the job of scientists is not to prove it is correct but to find where it is wrong and then try to improve on that model. If the whole thing ended up getting scrapped some day, which contrary to ID propaganda does not seem to be imminent, no one is going to feel that their god has been destroyed.

The ToE could be irrefutably verified tomorrow, or it could be totally negated tomorrow, and neither would have any impact on my belief that God created it all and saw that it was Good.

peace,
lunamoth

It is what? a testable model?..

"It is a testable model for explaining the observations we can make about the diversity of species present today and those found in the fossil record."

Oh, you are going to hate me for this...show the results.

Don't get me wrong. I lean towards evolution, but for you to make such assumptions and state them as fact...pudding. We want pudding.

I want facts.

v/r

Q

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

It is what? a testable model?..

"It is a testable model for explaining the observations we can make about the diversity of species present today and those found in the fossil record."

Oh, you are going to hate me for this...show the results.

Don't get me wrong. I lean towards evolution, but for you to make such assumptions and state them as fact...pudding. We want pudding.

I want facts.

v/r

Q

Q, I am glad you asked!

First, please consider that by a testable hypothesis I don't mean just the possibility of recreating the process of evolution, or descent with modification, "in the lab" as it were. By testing a model I mean whether one can make predictions based upon that model and then find evidence supporting that prediction. Really, the ToE has been tested to an amazing extent in this way. For a really well-rounded look at the evidence I would direct you to visit the website Understanding Evolution:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evohome.html

But, in addition to the multitude of references previously given by Vaj with respect to the role of speciation, I know you are famiiar with much of this already. You know that the examples from the fossil record and homolgous organs and artificial breeding and molecular genetics. The main obstacle to listing these is their sheer volume in the peer-reviewed literature.

And, as for the test of repeating descent with modification in the lab, if that is what you are looking for, then yes, the model predicts that populations will change under environmental pressure and this has beeen tested. For example:

Experiments also show that populations can evolve.
John Endler of the University of California has conducted experiments with the guppies of Trinidad that clearly show selection at work. The scenario: Female guppies prefer colorful males for mating purposes. Predatory fish also "prefer" colorful males, but for a less complimentary purpose—a source of food that is easy to spot. Some portions of the streams where guppies live have fewer predators than others and in these locations the males are more colorful (top frame). Not surprisingly, males in locations where there are more predators tend to be less colorful (bottom frame).

When Dr. Endler transferred predatory fish to the regions with brightly colored male guppies, selection acted rapidly to produce a population of duller males. This demonstrates that persistent variation within a population provides the raw material for rapid evolution when environmental conditions change.

This, of course, is a summary of Dr. Endler's experiments written up for a general audience. Vaj has given you an extensive list of similar work if you are into the original sources. But for easier reading I would recomend the website above.

peace and thank you for your question,
lunamoth

[path_of_one]

Just wanted to ditto luna's thanks to Vaj and insightful comments, and bruce's take on things.

Evolution isn't about god. It's just about mechanisms that are currently operating- like how we understand gravity.