Evolution: There is no debate
By Alan D. Griffin
The debate between intelligent design and evolution has become a mainstay in popular culture as well as academia. The problem with this face-off of ideas is that intelligent design deals with the intervention of a higher entity in the creation of the world and the current animal and plant species which were created in their current biological state. The reason you cannot pit this religiously based concept of intelligent design against evolution is the simple fact that the theory of evolution being scientific cannot claim or deny the intervention of an intelligent designer because there is no observable or
measurable way to test for the existence of such a designer. If there is an intelligent designer or not does not affect the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution only accounts for changes in allele frequencies in population; also known as microevolution, not the primary mover or chemical reaction that sparked the animation of the initial living organism.
To truly understand the effectiveness of the theory of evolution there are a few terms and concepts that must be understood. A gene is a portion of the DNA molecule containing base pairs that is the fundamental physical and functional unit of heredity. Alleles are alternate forms of genes, for example the gene for a human blood type in the A-B-O system refers to a specific portion of a DNA molecule on chromosome 9 that in this case is 1,062 letters long. This gene specifies the production of an enzyme, a kind of protein that initiates and directs a chemical reaction. This particular enzyme causes molecules involved in immune responses to attach to the surface of red blood cells. Alleles
correspond to alternate forms of this gene that determines blood type, the A allele and the B allele. The Hardy-Weinberg principle algebraically demonstrates that that the percentages of individuals homozygous ( possessing identical alleles for a specific gene ) for the dominant allele, homozygous for the recessive allele, and heterozygous
( possessing different alleles for a specific gene) should remain constant from one generation to the next, provided that certain conditions are met. These specific conditions include: that mating is entirely random, the population is sufficiently large for statistical average to express itself, no new variants will be introduced into the population’s gene
pool, and all individuals are equally successful at surviving and reproducing. Geographic, physiologic, and social factors may favor mating between certain individuals over others, thus changes in the gene pool of a population take place, without which evolution could
not take place. Because alleles are not “lost” in the process of reproduction, the frequency of alleles within a population should remain exactly the same from one generation to the next in the absence of evolution. Yet, this is not what we observe to be true. The four main forces in evolution are mutation, genetic drift, gene flow, and natural selection. Mutation is a chance alteration of genetic materials that produces new variation. Although some mutations can be harmful or beneficial most mutations are neutral.
Mutations arise from copying mistakes during cell division. Genetic drift is the chance fluctuation of allele frequencies in the gene pool of a population. Genetic drift changes the
traits that get past down from generation to generation based on the survivability of individuals in a population. An example of this is of a forest animal with advantageous traits being killed in a forest fire before having the chance to reproduce thereby removing his genes from the gene pool of that population. The larger the population the less effect the death of an individual will have on the gene pool, the smaller the population then a larger effect the loss of an individual will have on the gene pool. Gene flow occurs when two populations of a species is separated for a period of time and then reintroduced to each other, introduce different genes to the gene pool of that population. An example of this would be if a river separates two populations of a species, preventing interbreeding, these two populations would accrue random genetic differences due to isolation. If the river changes course and the two populations can interbreed freely, new alleles that were only present in one population will now appear in both. Natural
Selection accounts for adaptive change, which is a series of beneficial adjustments to the environment. Natural selection comes ultimately to reproductive success, those individuals who have adapted well to their environment will have a greater survivability and therefore a greater chance of reproductive success, survival of the fittest leads to the survival of the fittest genes. Mutation and gene flow introduce new variants into the gene pool. Gene flow and natural selection show that all members of a population are not equally able to survive and reproduce and that mating is not entirely random. According to the Hardy-
Weinberg principle evolution must take place since the specific conditions needed for evolution to not take place are compromised by mutation, genetic drift, gene flow, and
natural selection. If there is an intelligent designer that created the different species in the distant past they are not the same species that we see today due to mutation, genetic drift, gene flow and natural selection from the time of creation until the present date Many intelligent design theorist will concede to microevolution and reject macroevolution.
The fact of the matter is what is observed as macroevolution is simply the result of microevolution over vast periods of time. The New Atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris try to use the theory of evolution to disprove the existence of god. This is nothing but an elaborated manipulation of a scientific theory to promulgate a philosophical stance which has undermined the true reality of the theory of evolution and all that it entails. The theory of evolution cannot prove or disprove the existence of an intelligent designer, nor can any other scientific theory that is currently known. The fascinating thing about human beings is that we have been able to incorporate evolution out of the purely biological and successfully apply it to language and technology thus creating an entirely new avenue of evolution, the evolution of the conscious mind.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
"The debate between intelligent design and evolution has become a mainstay in popular culture as well as academia."
Pop culture perhaps, but not really academia, as far as science is concerned this issue has already been settled. The theory of evolution is the explanation and list of mechanisms that cause the observable evolution we have seen to occur. Evolution is a fact and a theory no less than gravity is a fact and a theory, to pretend otherwise is simply silly. Evolution, by itself, has nothing to do with the existence of a god. That is, unless you believe in a god that poofs everything into existence in its current form, in which case evolution does tend to destroy your fantasies. Science itself is agnostic concerning the existence of deities, as it attempts to explain observable material phenomena using repeatable material causation, which puts things like gods and invisible intangible pixies beyond its usage.
Nor is evolution central to atheism, as atheism existed prior to it, and it really isn't that productive of an argument. So we figured out that the diversity of life we experience is due to a wholly naturalistic process, so what? Even if we figured out that life itself and the universe had wholly naturalistic origins tomorrow, it wouldn't matter really, because many would simply believe in a god anyway. The belief in god isn't rooted in reason or logic, it is rooted in something else, so no amount of reason and logic seems to persuade people away from that belief. Gods appear to exist in an ever-receding pocket of mankinds' collective ignorance, and no matter how small that pocket may get, some people will still see a god there regardless.
""The theory of evolution is the explanation and list of mechanisms that cause the observable evolution we have seen to occur. Evolution is a fact and a theory no less than gravity is a fact and a theory, to pretend otherwise is simply silly.""
Evolution, depending on how you define it, is no more fact then the lost city of atlantis. I'll allow microevolution because this has been observed and repeated. But macroevolution is a pure fairy tale. There is absolutely zero empirical evidence for macroevolution as changes in KINDS have never been observed. Macroevolution is completely unscientific and to pretend that macro changes can be extrapolated from micro changes is downright irresponsible. Just because finches beak sizes change, and because bacteria adapt to survive against antibiotics, doesn't mean that they were ever any other KIND of organism.
What is silly, is to pretend that a theory as baseless and far removed from good science as macroevolution, could ever be true.
From reading some other posts of yours, I was under the impression that you were smarter than the average bear.
But now I see that your subscribe to a special brand of stupidity which is disturbing and possibly dangerous. You obviously have an above-normally functioning brain, and yet you are willfully resistant to logic and evidence.
This is the kind of thinking that has schools teaching children that cavemen rode dinosaurs.
Oh Mr. Allen....i would like to say that I'm surprised at your vitriolic and offensive response to me, but alas, i am not. This seems to have become the norm amongst the self styled "intellectual" atheists of today.
I could very well turn your accusations against you and any other atheists, as i have contested elsewhere that evidence for a creator is ample and abundant and, logically, there is no problem with there being one.
So, who indeed is it that willfully ignores evidence and logic?
I certainly do not. Whatever evidence you might present for evolution or the non-existence of God, i can account for and show you why it should not and does not lead to the conclusion that there is no God.
"This seems to have become the norm amongst the self styled "intellectual" atheists of today."
"Intellectual"... I bet you feel proud of yourself for that one. The truth is, I am not an intellectual, self-styled or otherwise. I have never made any allusions to being an intellectual and I will unabashedly admit that I am a none-too bright, crotchety, old, veteran who never even finished high school.
That's what pisses me off about people like you. You are obviously smarter than I am, and were probably lucky enough to go to university, yet you willfully prance around making outrageous claims about imaginary powers. Chances are you actually don't believe any of that drivel; I suspect you are only doing it to be provocative. I've seen it before -- in my teen-aged son. You sound like a spoiled, little, fucking brat who just gets off on being a contrarian.
For the record, I will never present evidence for the non-existence of gods or anything else imaginary (leprechauns, pixies, ghosts, Santa Clause, Baba Jaga, etc., ad nauseum.) The onus is on someone who says all or any of these things are real to present evidence of said claim. Even a dullard like me knows that, so I suspect you do as well; but again, you are merely trying to be intellectually provocative.
Forgive me if I've offended you Mr. Allen, that wasnt my intention. I was making a general statement that didn't necessarily apply to you.
But in the same way that you didn't fit MY description of self styled intellectual atheist of today, nor do i fit your description of an arrogant, thoughtless, spoiled prancing brat who gets off on being a contrarian.
Further, you might be surprised just who it is that believes in outrageous and imaginary powers.
There is no forgiveness needed. If I were truly offended by anything, that would be my own responsibility. Being offended says more about the offendee than the offender (except in the case of physical attacks, of course). Righteous ire and disappointment, on the other hand...
You've a point about the vitriol, and offense, within the atheist community. There is no appropriate setting for harmful behavior.
On your point of evidence for god, however, I defer to the ultimate test: I release the concept of god from my daily life, and my finding is that I am none the worse for it. In fact, I get to experience the thrill of knowing life for the fleeting, unpredictable thing that it is, and am invigorated.
I enjoy what I can, because all that seems to await me is oblivion. It was a terrifying transition - however, you would survive it. Tonight see the stars, and enjoy them for how you see them, and wonder if it is possible you are not being watched. Maybe what you do tonight just could be happening in a void, and you on the front line.
You need never tell anyone that you thought so.
"Evolution, depending on how you define it, is no more fact then the lost city of atlantis."
Wow, and I almost thought we were going to keep this discussion to an academic level.
"I'll allow microevolution because this has been observed and repeated. But macroevolution is a pure fairy tale."
Fossil Record, Genetics, and Phylogeny all tend to blow this straight out of the water.
"There is absolutely zero empirical evidence for macroevolution as changes in KINDS have never been observed."
...and this is a useless claim. Considering NONE of you people EVER offer what the hell a kind is supposed to be, it is a nothing statement that can be flushed from the conversation without bothering to wipe. What we do have, is a clear fossil progression of things like land animals to whales, fully documented and readily available to anyone that but looks for it. We have genetic evidence that the whales closest relative on land is a hippo. We have the fact that whales still have bones for toes and hipbones made to bear weight in a quadrapedial mammal. You have.....?
"Macroevolution is completely unscientific and to pretend that macro changes can be extrapolated from micro changes is downright irresponsible. Just because finches beak sizes change, and because bacteria adapt to survive against antibiotics, doesn't mean that they were ever any other KIND of organism."
I think you fundamentally misunderstand something about evolution, something critical and important. You see, we still bear the stamp of every THING we ever evolved from. We are still eukaryotic, deuterostome, vertabrate, mammalian, primates with weak jaw muscles(no cranial anchor allows for a larger brain case) and a penchant for pattern recognition. To pretend that something must become fundamentally alien from what it was to change isn't only retarded, it has nothing to do with evolution, only a theists fevered and uneducated impression of it.
"What is silly, is to pretend that a theory as baseless and far removed from good science as macroevolution, could ever be true."
What is silly is to pretend that the unifying theory of all modern biology is false because it doesn't square with a book written by people who believed the sky was a crystal dome with windows to allow the rain in. I can't and won't tell you what you must believe, only what you need to understand if you want to be taken seriously outside of church, almost all of your arguments would simply get you failed in any biology class.
When i say changes in kinds, i mean when an animal goes from being one animal, to being a completely different animal. i.e. a cat turns into a dog, a raptor becomes a turkey. We dont see this, there is no fossil evidence of this. And because a scientist says "oh, this animals skeleton looks similar to this other ones, they must be related and have evolved from the same ancestor", doesnt mean its true. Thats not science. Science is based on observation and repetition. Something impossible since evolution (im referring to macroevolution) takes millions of years.
And absolutley none of what you said proves that every living thing we see today evolved from a single celled organism. That is my point of contention.
The fossil record, if macroevolution was true, would have to show MILLIONS of transitionary forms of animals, transitioning from one kind to another (i.e. a lizard turning into a muskrat). Not 1 example, not 2, millions.
"We dont see this, there is no fossil evidence of this."
You don't see it because you have been ordered not to.
"When i say changes in kinds, i mean when an animal goes from being one animal, to being a completely different animal."
Which is just as ambiguous, considering this doesn't suddenly occur through incremental changes, but is the result of thousands of tiny cumulative changes.
"i.e. a cat turns into a dog,"
Oh, wow, here is a problem. Evolution isn't about living creatures inexplicably metamorphosing into a separate and distinct family, if this had ever occurred it would be fantastic evidence against evolution, actually. A cat will never turn metamorphose into a dog. Furthermore a cat will never give birth to a dog naturally. A cat will give birth to another feline that is similar, but slightly different from itself, and over thousands of generations they can diversify to the point that some relatives are no longer able to breed. These branches that are not able to interbreed will then continue to diversify to the point that they are barely recognizable as the same "kind" anymore. It has happened, we can see many species that are barely recognizable as the same "kind" now, but we can tell through genetics and biology that they were the progeny of a common ancestor. Thus my whales and hippos example, they are barely recognizable, but clearly related based on every single test we have devised to quantify ancestry.
"a raptor becomes a turkey."
A raptor will never metamorphose into a turkey, and a raptor will never inexplicably give birth to one either. This is a strawman, clearly designed to attempt to discredit evolution, but rather discredits your understanding of it instead.
"We dont see this, there is no fossil evidence of this."
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Dinosuar to avian evolution has been well documented in the fossil record, your ignorance of this FACT simply illustrates your personal biases.
"And because a scientist says "oh, this animals skeleton looks similar to this other ones, they must be related and have evolved from the same ancestor", doesnt mean its true."
It is a LOT more complicated than that, and your attempt to pretend that it is something so arbitrary merely indicates your ignorance on the topic.
"Thats not science."
Educate yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleontology
"Science is based on observation and repetition."
Nope. Science is also about collecting evidence of what you can't directly observe, building predictive models based on that evidence, and then looking for those predicted indications. Newton did it. Galileo did it. Einstein did it. We can still do it. Absolutely nothing you say could ever divorce the importance of indirect observations from the scientific method. This is quite despite the fact that evolution was tested, a bunch of paleontologists decided to look for the transitions from water to land and determined where and how deep they should dig if evolution is true, they discovered Tiktaalik. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
"Something impossible since evolution (im referring to macroevolution) takes millions of years."
We know a number of things that happened prior to us being born, but I suppose that is impossible too, because I wasn't there to observe it. Your argument is specious, vacuous, and asinine.
"And absolutley none of what you said proves that every living thing we see today evolved from a single celled organism. That is my point of contention."
One that has been thoroughly and completely destroyed time and time again, decades ago, and yet you still stubbornly cling to an intradimensional wizard farting things into existence.
"The fossil record, if macroevolution was true, would have to show MILLIONS of transitionary forms of animals, transitioning from one kind to another (i.e. a lizard turning into a muskrat). Not 1 example, not 2, millions."
It does, and we are all transitional forms today, it would be an error to think evolution stopped as soon as we came about.
Forget it, Travis. No amount of proof is going to change the poisoned mind of a Theist. The bottom line is that science dosen't lie...but if someone chooses still not to acknowledge this FACT, there is nothing you can do...they are only fooling themselves.
If that is the case, how come so many who identify as atheist previously identified as theist?
Because the people that did switch had an open mind. The true theist sees no other point of view, and no amout of proof or logic will change their minds.
How do you know which theists that come here is what you call true? Could not there be some on the fence for whom these debates and conversations may be the tipping point?
That is easy: If such person can change their mind, they were never really a "true" theist!
Or was that a scotsman? I forget.
Dealing with theists is basically the same concept as dealing with a criminal who is caught dead to rights commiting a crime right on video tape, and simply says," it's NOT me, I didn't do it...I plead NOT GUILTY." bUT WE have THE TAPE, it is CLEARLY you, and you ARE commiting a crime. "It's not me." Just deny, deny, deny. Don't you know that denying means that something ISN'T happening, even though it is? People see what they WANT to see, and won't see what they DON'T want to see. Thats why it is difficult to have a sensible conversation with a theist.
"I'll allow microevolution because this has been observed and repeated. But macroevolution is a pure fairy tale."
A couple of questions...,
1. how many "micro-changes" are required before you would argue a macro difference from the original starting state?
2. Are you aware that micro scale changes just in the Phenotype alone can result in the expression of genes on at the macro scale?
3. Define "Kind" and then present me a coherent and complete scientific chart of the Taxonomic tree as at least as accurate as the one we have to which is based on genetic, physiological, geographical, homological, and anatomical data..
4. How do you suggest all living animals are unrelated when the Eukaryota single cell comprises of all living mammals and of course Primates to which also makes us all genetically related?.. Thus is your argument of "kinds" flawed if we are comprised of Eukaryota cells taking and making up the various animal forms and diversity there of?
5. How do you think DNA is passed on? And how do you think DNA relates to ancestry? Hence would you argue that genetics is inaccurate to determine who your father and mother is?
6. On Micro and Macro evolution, which of the following set of skulls presents a micro or macro scale change?.., which do you think expresses a greater divergence, and would you argue that if one is possible that the other would somehow not be?:
Wolf - bulldog:
http://m.static.newsvine.com/servista/imagesizer?file=matt-mattjwest7AAE...
Australopithecus - Homo Sapien:
http://m.static.newsvine.com/servista/imagesizer?file=matt-mattjwest2620...
This is ignoring the fact that we can compare muscle groups, where tendons attached, and the rest of the skeletal structure's homology and physiology. This ignoring the fact that Human fossil record geographically overlap the accepted ancestry in which we had come to be from in the area of the west Savannah, or that they reside in the appropriate sedimentary layers and expected time periods. This ignoring our genetic relation with other primates and the fact that we are, despite your ignorance, genetically classified as primates.
I find it interesting that you feel it's up to you to "allow" micro evolution. Where do you draw the line?
There is absolutely zero empirical evidence for any god, yet your handle seems to suggest you have no trouble accepting the existence of this mythological being. Why do you not hold your beliefs to the same standard of proof?
There is ample evidence of macro evolution: genetic, fossil, physiological, yet your ilk stubbornly refuses to acknowledge this. it seems you would rather cling to outdated spiritual mumbo jumbo than actually look at real evidence. I really only have one question for you: Why?
Well no matter what you think god loves you. In your heart you know god created all. When you go to the pearly gates you will figure out you are wrong.
Means about as much to me as it would to you if I said:
"Well no matter what you think Zeus loves you. In your heart you know Zeus created all. When you go to Olympus you will figure out you are wrong."
If he loved me no matter what I thought, there would be no need for any damnation. I don't know what he created, if anything at all, because he has left precisely no evidence of it. So what if I am wrong? If your god is half as just or loving as he is described to be, I likely have far less to worry about that the bulk majority of you Christians do.
Damn atheist creating so much damn trash in the world!
Oh, yes, because it is atheists opposing environmental reform and denying climate change. I think you need to rethink your position.
All you Atheist are just worthless trash!
...and there you go, if you don't have an argument that actually requires a brain, just resort to broad spectrum attacks. Okay, fine, lets play. I bet you are an obese 30-something Christian, who gets everything he actually knows about the universe through MMO's and preachers. I bet you think a troglodyte is a type of chocolate bar, take off you hat and open a book. Who knows, you might actually manage to accrete some knowledge through that four-inch skull if you take off all that tin foil.
LoL, Trevor.
This is actually on the intellectual level of little kids playing in the sandbox.
- "My daddy is bigger than yours!"
- "But... my daddy is stronger than yours!"
- "Nah uh!"
- "Your a poopie head!"
Thats not nice!!!
Now, now...as a "good" Christian, you are supposed to LOVE EVERYBODY. See what I mean about the religious not having any tolerance for any other belief, or point of view...THAT is exactly why there will NEVER be any peace in this world!!
Someone thinks they are cute playing the role of dogmatic internet troll.. That's being desperate for credibility for which one knows they do not have. If this is your best argument and defense of your position, I dare say you have been intellectually out matched.
Pages