Evolution and Religion

[dusken]

..."That stage of evolutionary progress at which the once actually or potentially interbreeding array of forms becomes segregated into two or more arrays which are physiologically incapable of interbreeding."...Strangely enough the evolutionists' position has been one that that has exploited the second, weaker definition.

That is not true. That is basically saying that one type of organism branches into two different organisms that can no longer interbreed. Look up the definition of speciation; it is the same thing. There is no denial or manipulation and if you read past posts, it has been discussed that way.

[Anonymouse]

For example, I've been often told how fruit flies produce "new species" and they "can't reproduce". This is pretty flimsy since it is pretty easy to artificially inseminate a female with sperm from the male of the "new species". A fruit fly changes into nothing more than a fruit fly. This is how the semantic manipulation makes people believe "Oh look we are evolving, hooray".

[Anonymouse]

I don't understand how it is a display of faith when one species has been seen changing into another. When you have two separate species, when you have enough genetic difference that two individuals can no longer produce viable offspring, that is macroevolution. That is the very definition. This is not within species variation. I don't see why you have so much difficulty seeing that.

You see, we arrive at yet another point in which semantics is manipulated to support evolution. In this case the definition of "species" is elastic. There is a strong definition of species and a weak one. The strong definition of species offered by Dobzhansky states, "That stage of evolutionary progress at which the once actually or potentially interbreeding array of forms becomes segregated into two or more arrays which are physiologically incapable of interbreeding." The weak definition offered by Ernst Mayer states, "Groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups."

Notice the clarity in the first definition and the ambiguity in the latter? Strangely enough the evolutionists' position has been one that that has exploited the second, weaker definition.

[loseyourname]

I don't understand how it is a display of faith when one species has been seen changing into another. When you have two separate species, when you have enough genetic difference that two individuals can no longer produce viable offspring, that is macroevolution. That is the very definition. This is not within species variation. I don't see why you have so much difficulty seeing that.

[dusken]

Confirmed speciation events? My reply to it is the same as before. Within species variation, is within species variation. If you are insinuating that this leads to changes of one species into a totally different new one, then you are displaying no less faith than a creationist is in God.

Speciation, by definition, is the formation of new species. It is not variation within a species; they cannot breed.

[Anonymouse]

Confirmed speciation events? My reply to it is the same as before. Within species variation, is within species variation. If you are insinuating that this leads to changes of one species into a totally different new one, then you are displaying no less faith than a creationist is in God.

[loseyourname]

The point is, I've shown you confirmed speciation events. What is your answer to this?

[Anonymouse]

To Anonymouse: Evolutionary theory does not propose that macromutations are responsible for speciation events. It is the accumulation of small mutations. Macromutations are almost impossible to even be expressed in a reproducible form, as most will be rejected in the embryonic stage. The small mutations, resulting in variation within a species have been observed. Changes from one species to another have been observed. I ask again what more do you want to see?

You have just tapped into the semantic confusion of evolutionary thought. What is macromutation but one form of species changing into another whole new species? Whether you attribute it to small changes, eventually are you not going to see a change on a macro level? It is irrelevent whether you play with semantics here or not, the point is, that within species variation, does not lead to anything else but within species variation.

[loseyourname]

Come on, man. How do I seem to be making any attempt at ruling out the possibility of an intelligent creator? Did you even look at any of those links or essays I posted that attempt to reconcile creationism with evolutionary theory? All I'm trying to establish is that evolution is the means by which the first living cells (how they came into existence, I have no idea) eventually gave rise to the diversity of forms we see today, including ourselves.

To Anonymouse: Evolutionary theory does not propose that macromutations are responsible for speciation events. It is the accumulation of small mutations. Macromutations are almost impossible to even be expressed in a reproducible form, as most will be rejected in the embryonic stage. The small mutations, resulting in variation within a species have been observed. Changes from one species to another have been observed. I ask again what more do you want to see?

[Crimson Glow]

Come on, man, I thought you were smarter than that. The origin of the first living cell does not fall under the auspices of evolutionary theory. There are several hypotheses regarding abiogenesis. None has enough evidential support to come anywhere near being called a theory.

I'm well aware of this, Adam. That was sort of my point for bringing up the question in the first place. Even IF evolution was fact, that still doesn't provide all the answers to the "origin of man" query. It still, by no means, rules out a higher being/superhuman entity. I only brought it up because way back when this thread first started, you seemed to be taking a "keep an open mind" approach, where as now, it almost seems as if you're trying to show support that evolution is fact, and that this eradicates the possibility of a god.

Alright, I'll let you two get back to clashing, since you guys seem more hell bent on destroying the TRIVIAL details about each other's arguments, as opposed to having a true, general discussion.