Thread: God or Evolution?

I'm big into science and science fiction, but the more I study evolution the more it seems to me that it is far from the 'proven' theory many claim it to be. There are still a lot of unanswered questions. I'm curious what other science lovers think. I have a forum on Amazon about this. Would you mind following the link below and giving me your thoughts on this? (if you don't want to go to the Amazon page, feel free to answer here)Amazon.com: Customer Discussions: Is God a myth? Or is Evolution simply science fiction?Thanks!

Nancy

"the more I study evolution the more it seems to me that it is far from the 'proven' theory many claim it to be"

Why? What?
If you understand how lightning works you will be less likely to think there's a mythical figure causing it (Thor, Zeus), but rather that it's the outcome of the properties of the environment.

I'm not a biologist but might help you share some of my views if you can share what aspects are puzzling you.

(unproven: We should not wantonly use anti-biotics for no reasons, because the bacteria... remain the same? or...)

I mean specifically that there are HUGE gaps and lots of missing links in the evolution theory. It is easier to list the few links they have than to go through all the missing links. It is still a theory. Antibiotics are tested and proven to have results. Evolution has not been tested or proven.

By the way...I feel the same way about the God theory.

I just think a LOT of people out there think it's A or B. And they link A (god) with religion. So you have god and religion, or evolution and science. Essentially, people are choosing between science or religion, and neither fits 100% within these groups.

I mean specifically that there are HUGE gaps and lots of missing links in the evolution theory

Unless you get specific no one can help you understand. What's confusing you? What huge gap? What missing link?

--

And by the way, there is no god theory. It doesn't even rate as a bad hypothesis. Or perhaps lack of understanding about science in general is confusing you about evolution?

HUGE gaps and lots of missing links in the evolution theory.

Gaps and links are merely problems of data, not of the theory. The theory is pretty good.

After all, the best test of theory is prediction and when it comes to predicting antibiotic resistance, or the outcomes of crossing plants to come up with new ones in order to have something new to sell, it all works just as we expect. Predicting how many animals (or children) in groups with certain genetic conditions will show up in following generations is also pretty reliable.

Our only problem with data for past evolutionary processes is that we ourselves are animals with a standard individual lifetime. If we were some other kind of thing, like a rock, that could hang around for millions of years we'd have been able to observe directly the changes that led to various extinctions and speciations.

Seriously? What missing links? There are only a FEW links, period. No two species can be absolutely linked. How much have you studied this? You seem to think this is a conclusive thing. Even the scientists don't agree among themselves about what the few links they have mean.

And, by the way, there IS a god theory, and there is evidence to support it, though not much.

I just don't understand how anyone can 'know' either way.

Either way, you have to have 'faith' in what men are telling you. Now, if we had EVIDENCE that could be tested...

I agree that the theory of evolution is very good. The question is whether it is proven. I don't blame science for not having enough data. I just think that in no other area of science would it be okay to form a conclusion on a hypothesis with such inconclusive evidence.

If evolution was a drug, would you risk your life and take it?

I agree that the theory of evolution is very good. The question is whether it is proven.

"Proved" is not really a word in scientific thinking. The theories are the best supported by observation an usually across multiple disciplines, they are highest level of confidence but aren't proved in an absolute sense. A well supported contradictory hypothesis could replace and/or modify any of them.

Seriously? What missing links?

Can you name at least one you have in mind? Broad bushing statements don't make for good conversation.

Originally Posted by NancyMadore

I mean specifically that there are HUGE gaps and lots of missing links in the evolution theory. It is easier to list the few links they have than to go through all the missing links. It is still a theory. Antibiotics are tested and proven to have results. Evolution has not been tested or proven.

By the way...I feel the same way about the God theory.

I just think a LOT of people out there think it's A or B. And they link A (god) with religion. So you have god and religion, or evolution and science. Essentially, people are choosing between science or religion, and neither fits 100% within these groups.

Actually every year the gaps get smaller. Take a look at the currently known whale evolutionary tree as an example.

Antibiotics are a very well known example of the theory of evolution being tested and surviving. So is the evolution of nylon eating bacteria and the evolution of an entire ecosystem in the Berkeley open pit Mine in Butte Montana

Originally Posted by NancyMadore

I agree that the theory of evolution is very good. The question is whether it is proven. I don't blame science for not having enough data. I just think that in no other area of science would it be okay to form a conclusion on a hypothesis with such inconclusive evidence.

If evolution was a drug, would you risk your life and take it?

If you want to "prove" evolution, you're already misunderstanding the idea behind biological theorization. Maybe you should stick to the mathematical sciences.

At this point, you still have yet offer a specific example of a gap in evolutionary theory. You can spend all day pointing out missing data sets between organisms and I can spend the next day pointing out filled in data sets. However, that's unproductive and disingenuous.

Originally Posted by NancyMadore

Seriously? What missing links? There are only a FEW links, period. ...

When Darwin developed his theory the gaps in the fossil record were one of the issues that caused him some concern. Generally, most biologists accept evolution not for the palaeontological record, but for the evidence from genetics, biochemistry, embryology, comparative anatomy, etc. Remove all the fossils on the planet and the evidence would still be overwhelming in favour of Darwinism of one flavour or another.

Personally, since I am by training a geologist, I find the fossil evidence by itself convincing. Perhaps you would care to point out the glaring gaps you imply exist in the evolutionary paths of the graptolites, brachipods or ammonites. The trails look pretty clear to me. Are there gaps in parts of the fossil record? Of course there are. It would be foolish to expect otherwise. Are these gaps being filled? Most certainly and the genetic evidence is supporting complimenting these efforts and vice versa.

Originally Posted by NancyMadore

How much have you studied this? You seem to think this is a conclusive thing....

I have studied it and other subjects sufficiently to know that in science all results are provisional. However, some conclusions are so solidly based that it would be absurd to reject them. Among these that stand on an immensely solid footing is the theory of evolution. If you have reservations about the reality of evolution then, I suggest, the lack of study lies with you. There are many here who will help you rectify that omission.

Originally Posted by NancyMadore

Even the scientists don't agree among themselves about what the few links they have mean.
...

Here you display considerable ignorance on two points. Do not take offence at being called ignorant - we are all ignorant of many things. Specifically you are, it seems, ignorant of the fact that the nature of science, a fundamental part of its methodology, lies in challenging any and every hypothesis. Scientists certainly disagree on the details of evolution and the precise way in which its varied mechanisms work and their relative importance. It's equivalent to friends being certain they want to go to the cinema, that they wish to see the latest Jason Bourne spectacular, that they will go to cinema A, but they are now disputing which row of seats to occupy. No one is even considering the possibility of going wind surfing.

The second point of ignorance is that you think there are only a few demonstrated links. Why do I suspect you are thinking mainly in terms of human evolution, as if it was somehow important?

Originally Posted by NancyMadore

And, by the way, there IS a god theory, and there is evidence to support it, though not much.
...

There is no scientific God theory that I am aware of. Perhaps i am ignorant in this regard. Please enlighten me.

Originally Posted by NancyMadore

I just don't understand how anyone can 'know' either way.
...

I know because I have seen much of the evidence and have considered it carefully and I have looked at the alternatives and I find that there is no viable alternative. Therefore, until and unless contrary evidence of considerable wright is presented I shall continue to accept evolutionary theory.

Originally Posted by NancyMadore

Either way, you have to have 'faith' in what men are telling you. ...

No faith is required. I can and have tested what 'men have told me' about evolution. I find the generalities indisputable. I have sufficient grounding in the subject that I can, in some cases, spot real or potential weaknesses in published research on the matter. So, no - I do not have faith in what men tell me, because I know that any and all their work can be repeated and validated or rejected by persons using the methdologies of science, methodologies with which I am familiar and which I have confidence in. Please note that confidence is different from faith. That confidence is based upon perosnal experience. Perhaps you should seek some of that in order to come to a better understanding of evolution.

Hi Nancy,

I don't think it has to be God or Evolution.

There's a lot of evidence that organisms adapt and evolve but its thought to be over a very long period. There are a lot of gaps in understanding exactly how this has happened. The idea of common descent, that all creatures have evolved from a single ancestral lifeform is something that I doubt there can ever be conclusive evidence of, for a start it all happened a very long time ago.

But even if we did all descend from a single life form which adapted into all the various organisms that have ever lived... this theory in no way states that it wasn't God who started it all off.

The only thing the accepted evolutionary theory can be used against is some biblical accounts of creation like genesis, which states that god created everything in seven days or something. It doesn't even really disproove this as biblical scholars will say the 7 days in genesis represent eras or something.

The fact is that God can exist, and evolution of all life forms from a single ancestor can exist, neither disprooves the other.

The idea that evolution means there is no God, from what I have learnt so far, is a falacy.

keep on questioning things, your critical thinking skills seem pretty good.

Nancy,
Evolution works and is being proven all the time in farming and the pet industries. The reason we can do it faster than nature is that we control the environment where nature works purely by trial and error (natural selection).

The problem with finding transition species is due to the age of the fossils. It is a wonder we can find fossils at all. Unless there is a special circumstance all bioorganisms will break down and and end up as oil or coal. When we take a trip to the supermarket we burn dead living things, by the trillions.

The argument for a god consists usually of the claim of "irreducible complexity". But it has also been proven that there is no irreducible complexity. it is a myth created from ignorance. Every part of a living system can be identified as having individual or multiple purposes. Occasionally these part can be combined to form a new system which is more complex, but by no means meets the standard of irreducible complexity.

The complexity of the universe is actually based on very simple mathematics (chemistry, physics).

Oh yes that's right! you may have heard them in the streets? 'irriducable complexity' they cry to all who will listen. 'Will ye witness thee complixities that connot be reduced'?