bodswood, could you please make up your mind whether you want to arue about evolution or abiogenesis or the beginning of the universe. these are three completely different subjects, none of which have any relationship to any other.
To get back to your ostensible OP, you have asserted that evolution requires “faith.” If this is still your position could you provide some sort of argument that actually pertains to evolution and not the Big Bang or abiogenesis?
I’m going to say it for the Nth time.
It doesn’t matter how the universe started. It doesn’t matter how life began. Neither one of those thing has any effect on evolutionary theory.
Are you getting this yet? Evolution is exactly the same if God created the universe or if he didn’t. Evolution is exactly the same if God created life or if he didn’t. Evolution does not depend on an atheistic view of the universe. Evolution happens.We know it because we’ve seen it. We know it because the mechanisms for it have not only been proven to exist but that the existence of certain factors make evolution inevitable.
In order to disprove evolution you would have to prove that at least one of the following doesn’t exist.
-heredity
-mutation
-speciation
All three of these things have been directly observed. There si no question whatever that they exist. If all three of these factors exist then evolution must occur over time. It would be impossible for it not to occur. It’s a rock rolling down a hill. You would have to show some factor that would stop it from occurring, and you would also have to provide some explanation as to why all of the available evidence looks exactly like evolution and supports every prediction it makes. Your new explanation must also contain its own falsifiable predictions to merit any scientific credibility. Good luck.
So you see. The acceptance of evolution is in no way predicated on belief but simply an understanding of the evidence, of biology and of basic physics. How the universe began does not change anything about evolutionary theory. How life began does not change anything about evolutionary theory. You question about the “first atom” is a non-sequitur with regards to evolution. It’s exactly the same as saing that you doubt the earth revolves around the sun because you don’t know how the solar system began.
Why do you insist that evolution requires **MORE ** faith than religion? I might find it easier to understand your position if you said they required the same amount of faith, or that both involve faith at some level, but why MORE?
I can interpret the question two ways - how is intelligence involved in natural selection, and how does natural selection lead to intelligence. For the first, the answer is that there is no intelligence in natural selection at all, and anyone having a glimmering of what the concept means would know that. Natural selection simply states that those traits leading to an increase in reproductive success (NOT survival!) tend to flourish, since they are present in relatively more offspring. No intelligence needed.
For the second, it appears that in some species greater intelligence is associated with reproductive success - certainly humans, without a lot going for us except our brains, have out competed pretty much all the mammals.
If you had read and understood even the most basic book on evolution, this would not be news to you.
One possible interpretation is that evolutionsits need more faith in the scientific process and must support it despite all the people wanting them to switch their brains off and follow dogma because it is “easier”.
Why would you take seriously a statement that the universe has always existed. Where is the proof for that. How this universe began, where it came from, how it came, and how it developed are all unknowable. There is no way we can say we know the answer to any of it.
If there is no intelligence in natural selection how does it know what to select. Here we go back to randomness. There is intelligence in the universe from the very beginning, it is Intelligent Design, without intelligence nothing but chaos exists.
I don’t need to read the current book on evolution, I know the foundation of evolution is assumption, we can’t know where this universe came from, so everything from there on is also assumption.
Your assertion that you don’t need to read books on evolution is contradicted by the evidence.
Are you assuming that evolution has some goal? That the purpose of natural selection is to produce us? That is totally wrong.
Look, there are two zebras. One has the genes to be slightly faster than the other. They are standing together, when they see a lion. They both run. The lion catches the slower one, the faster one escapes, has baby zebras, thus preserving the fast genes. That, though very simplistic, is all natural selection is. No goal, no intelligence.
There are plenty of other examples. The giraffe with a slightly longer neck can get more leaves in times of drought, and be more likely to survive and have healthy children. A person with relative immunity to the flu in 1918 survives and has children. The insect with better camoflage does not get eaten by the bird. Please let me know what part of this you don’t understand.
I know what evolution is, the way you explain it is called “survival of the fittest.”
With due respect in real life it does not happen like this: Many times the strong will sacrifice themselves for the weak in the animal world as well as the human world.
Examples please, where the individuals in question are not genetically related?
We are also talking statistics here, not that in every case the faster creature will survive. As they say, the race may not always go to the swift, but that’s the way to bet.
BTW, evolution is more than just selection. It is also modification, by either genetic diversity or mutation. But you knew that, being the expert on evolution that you are.
I said nothing of the kind. Go back, read what I wrote. Please don’t put words in my mouth.
I don’t care where the Big Bang came from, it’s immaterial in this discussion. My point is that since the beginning of known time, there has been order in the universe.
I don’t know why you guys keep trying to debate with lekatt. Do you really think you’re going to get him to engage in a rational dialogue? You might as well try to nail soup to a door.
You know those little “Love Is…” cartoons in the paper, with the two little naked people, that are so unbelievably lame? I’ve always wondered who reads those, but for some reason, after reading this thread, I think I know.
bodswood objected to Dawkins saying that those who did not believe in evolution were ignorant, stupid, or insane. (I think we can agree that lekatt is not wicked.)
I wonder if after reviewing this thread he understands Dawkins comment a bit better.
Voyager, I fear you have evolved a selective reading thingmy. What I felt Dawkins was ill-advised to write was that some people who claim not to believe in evolution were wicked. Suggesting such a thing is irresponsible in my opinion. Some here agree.
I wasn’t aware that Wells was a Moonie, if indeed he is (or was). But surely the fact that an individual is “notorious” or an “apologist”, or that he follows a particular religion or philosophy should be irrelevant? Many members of academe with whom I am familar follow various religions, philosophies and ways.
Which brings me to my next question. If evolution is a fact (as well as a theory, as claimed by some here), then why do so many people not believe in it? And how can something that relies to such a large extent on (many) unobserved and unobservable changes years and years ago be so confidently called a fact.
Putting evolution on a par with a round earth (which I believe in by the way) and with gravity (which I also believe in) seems a bit naughty analogy-wise.
Sorry bodswood but I’m only trying to keep up with you as far as logical fallacies. Raising the issue of the Moonie cult was indeed argumentum ad hominem although your attack on the soundness of evolution is an example of argumentum ad numerum. Do you believe the idea of a flat Earth only became unsound when a large number of people stopped believing in it?
Flat Earth, Intelligent Design and Creation Science are all example of nonsense espoused by ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked people.
The fact of evolution is that species die out and other species which weren’t there before take their place, over millions of years. Who does not believe this, other than cranks who believe the Earth is 6000 years old?
I guess there might be people who believe that God continually creates new species, but they would seem few and far between. Rather, most people would appear to believe that God somehow “set evolution in place”.