Evolution and Religion

[loseyourname]

Boohoo, you start this, not I. If you are going
to be a baby about it, we might as well not discuss it.

A baby about it? Again, all I ask is intellectual honesty. Display the slightest bit of integrity here Mousy. Evolutionary theory does not propose macromutations as a mechanism, so quit criticizing the fact that macromutations have not been observed. Just be honest with us. It isn't that hard.

[DZB84]

Hey,
A few things:
I think my anthropology teacher put it best by saying evolution is a fact AND a theory. It is obvious evolution is happening, you can look at nearly any species and seen how they have evolved (famous darwins finches as you all know), yet it is not fully known how it happens. It is believed to happen through mutation, natural selection, gene drift, and gene flow, but what actually triggers the change remains a mystery, hence the theory of it.
About the religion thing, I personally believe that religion and evolution coincide quite nicely, there are little things contradictory about it. I have heard even the pope advocates the study of evolution
-Dave

[dusken]

It is obvious evolution is happening, you can look at nearly any species and seen how they have evolved (famous darwins finches as you all know)...

[Anonymouse]

A baby about it? Again, all I ask is intellectual honesty. Display the slightest bit of integrity here Mousy. Evolutionary theory does not propose macromutations as a mechanism, so quit criticizing the fact that macromutations have not been observed. Just be honest with us. It isn't that hard.

We have been through this a thousand times and now I wonder whether you are really obtuse or merely driving the same tautologies simply to have something to respond with. We have already stated that micromutations are believed to eventually lead to macromutations. Without macromutations how can there be a change in species to another totally different form? Macromutations have not been observed, and I will continue to bring that up because that is the grand assumption. Evolution is so elastic and pliable that there are constantly reshaping the facts to fit the theory, making up comfortable excuses, and always maintaing that "evolution is a fact" or "evolution occurs". My only point was that it's not that it's wrong to believe in evolution, but that, it is no different than creation, or any other religion that is bent on explaining reality. Don't call it "fact" when alot of it is based on "educated guesses" and assumptions. That is as honest as I can get, and if you can't deal with that on its face value, you are indeed trying too hard to believe.

[DZB84]

What is that supposed to mean Dusken? Can of worms sounds like a saying I have heard but I cannot remember

[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.

[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?

[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]

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

[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.