Does evolution prove there is no God?

Chris OConnor

Some theists attack evolutionary theory as if the very existence of their God depends on it's invalidation. In reality, evolution doesn't even pertain to the origin of life, just the process of change. Any opinions?

Chris

"The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them" -- Mark Twain

Mr. Pessimistic

As Michael Shermer states in "How We Believe", the god question is 'insoluble'. I still do not think there is a god, and I base this on an educated guess after examining the available evidence.

The fact that those who do believe would view evolution as a threat to everything they believe tells me that maybe they are not as convinced as they would like to appear.

Mr. P.

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

Chris OConnor

Quote:
The fact that those who do believe would view evolution as a threat to everything they believe tells me that maybe they are not as convinced as they would like to appear.

Exactly! If beliefs are built on a solid foundation the prospect of critical examination shouldn't be intimidating.

Chris

"The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them" -- Mark Twain

Brother William of Basker

Does God disprove evoultion is a far more interesting question, if you ask me.

Mr. Pessimistic

<snarky>
How so? Do tell. I could not gauge how interesting this topic would be by the lack of supportive info.
</snarky>

Just ribbin ya...no offense!

Mr. P.

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

Mr. Pessimistic

Quote:
If beliefs are built on a solid foundation the prospect of critical examination shouldn't be intimidating.

And so 'they' will cling to those foundational beliefs as their house slides down the mountainside.

Mr. P.

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

RickU · Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2004 4:18 am Post subject: in reply

As the christian song goes - the wise man built his house upon the stone and the foolish man built his house upon the sand...

Mr. Pessimistic · Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2004 8:07 am Post subject: Re: in reply

Welcome RickU. Which do you feel is the stone and which the sand?

Mr. P.

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

RickU · Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2004 11:46 pm Post subject: Re: in reply

Stone is reason and the sand is irrational unconditional faith.
And thanks for the welcome.

Mr. Pessimistic

I was really hoping Brother William would delve into how God could disprove Evolution. I just do not see how it can be done when the God question cannot be tested in any reasonable way.

The bible is the only direct word of god, and since evolution was not postulated (at least to the extent we now understand it) in those olden times, of course there is no mention of it...to my knowledge. So where would the proof FROM GOD come from?

Anyone, anyone?

Mr. P.

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

the hive queen · Posted: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:37 pm Post subject: Re: in reply

Evolution indicates that living organisms change through time based on natural selection. I think theists could believe that "natural selection" was part of God's great plan.

My issue with this line of reasoning: there is still no proof that God has anything to do with natural selection.

It always seems to come down to that same basic issue of evidence. I have never seen a speck of proof that God exists. Yet, I see evidence of evolution of every hike I go on.

Science can only measure evidence. The belief in God is subjective and apparently, NOT based on empirical evidence.

Mr. Pessimistic · Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2004 7:16 am Post subject: Re: Evolution and God

Quote:
Waiting for mr. pess's response

I'm coming. VERY hectic week at work...that always bites into my goof-off time!

Mr. P.

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

Mr. Pessimistic · Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2004 8:25 am Post subject: Re: in reply

Quote:
QUOTE:
"The idea that the origin of higher taxa, such as genera (canines versus felines, for example), requires something special is based on the misunderstanding of the way in which new phyla (lineages) arise. The two species that are the origin of canines and felines probably differed very little from their common ancestral species and each other. But once they were reproductively isolated from each other, they evolved more and more differences that they shared but the other lineages didn't."

That last sentance gets me. I just cannot see simple reproduction causing such big change, it had to have been a series of mutations or that a group of genes started to express themselves in order to create a new trait.

Not reproduction, reproductive isolation. Which means that after species X separated (for whatever reason) and became isolated, X1 & X2 went about their lives doing what they do: reproducing and living in their new environment. Millennia pass and after some mutation and environmental change, X1 gradually changes to Y. Now, simple mutations may not be THE agent of speciation (but it could if the change is extreme enough), but the changed environment, along with mutation can cause such change.

In evolution, it is the individual that is the subject of natural selection, not the gene. The genotype is the base, the starting point for the individual. As the fertilized ovum develops, the environment takes a starring role and the phenotype starts on it’s road to survival, if it exhibits traits that can handle the environment or to death if not. The interaction of the genotype with the environment, producing a phenotype is called the ‘norm of reaction’.

So, you can see that with X1 & X2 isolated and still reproducing, this can, and does, enable speciation to occur.

But that is strictly allopatric speciation. Sympatric speciation has also been suggested:

quartz.ucdavis.edu/~GEL3/...ation.html

Quote:

But certainly we can see the common ancestry, I mean most animals have 5 fingers (sort of).
But I don't buy the idea that macro and micro are very close.

Chimp DNA is about 98.5% identical to humans. If 1.5% can produce such a difference between the two species…

And you hit it on the head…the common ancestry is too common not to be related, thus Macro.

Quote:

First of all, we are almost certain that micro evolution occurs via natural selection. One example can be blood type, if say the hospitals run out of type-O blood and everyone with type-O eventually dies because for some reason they can't give tranfusions between each other, this happens to all blood types and in the end only people with blood type AB survive. This I can buy...
Now to believe that subtle changes to the gene pool like this can create a new species takes some faith.

This example is not really natural selection. And changes of this small a scale would probably not cause a speciation event…but that does not mean that other, more pronounced changes would NOT produce a new species. It is not an either/or scenario here.

Quote:

See the people with AB blood are the same as normal humans only they all have certain genes responsible for making AB blood expressed. Lets say something keeps happening to this sorry population and they all end up getting the charateristics of Richard Simmons, hair, complexion, everything. These Richard Simmon wannabes can still mate with normal humans, maybe even R.S. himself.

Natural selection played a role in all of this.
All these different types of genes being expressed got filtered via enviroment to make everyone look like R.S. Now, how can natural selection have any further responsibility? say if the earth slowly started to flood.

??! I cannot even answer that one seriously!

Quote:

The only way a further change can happen is if a group of genes suddenly decides to express itself, creating say, type-C blood (which might carry some mutant hemoglobin that can automantically obtain and transport oxygen from water without gills or whatever).

Genes do not ‘decide’ to do anything. Mutation is not a pre-determined thing…it’s a, well, mutation!

Quote:

So to me, it takes faith to say that just before a dramatic change in climate, the right gene just happened to express itself in order to create a new species. The species would at most change what features it already has to be optimal with that enviroment, but it would not gain some totaly new feature and be a new species.

It would take faith to say that, which is why it would be (is) wrong! It is not like the genes are just waiting to change into something! The individuals in the population would be selected that have favorable survival characteristics for the environment they are in. Those that do survive, those that do do not. The survivors pass their ‘more adaptive’ genes on the the next generation and so on. Now back to X1 & X2, if they are in two separate environments, the changes would be different. Now add in mutation along the way and you are on your way to evolutionary changes in the species. This will not take 100’s of years, but 1000’s or 1000000’s.

Quote:

I really don't know if theres any other evolutionary factors discovered right now. I know you might be thinking about reproduction, but they only express genes based on what was already expressed by the parents when they unify. No type-c here, sorry.

QUOTE:
"genomes (gene structures) of these early animals were not as tightly regulated as modern animals, and therefore had more freedom to change. "
I can understand perhaps a more positive response to gene mutation by the body, but I hope you don't mean that DNA looked different?

Looked different? I dunno. But MAYBE, just maybe…

Quote:
In the early 1980s Tom Cech, then a young biologist at the University of Colorado at Boulder, uncovered evidence that RNA does more than simply relay messages from DNA to proteins. In an experiment that earned him a Nobel Prize, he found that a single-celled creature named Tetrahymena possessed some RNA molecules that could act like simple enzymes. These molecules, which came to be known as ribozymes, twisted into a complicated snarl that allowed them to hack themselves apart. In other words, RNA could carry information like DNA and carry out biochemistry the way proteins do.

Before DNA

Quote:

Bottom line (incase you just scrolled down): Natural selection can not cause certain groups of genes to express themselves to make a NEW trait, that force would be mutation or something. Natural selection does change the amount of indivuals with certain traits, and I think it takes a bit of faith to say this can make a new species.

The genotype is not, from what I have read and how I understand it, the object of selection, it is the individual in the population.

Mr. P.

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

RickU

Quote:
The genotype is not, from what I have read and how I understand it, the object of selection, it is the individual in the population.

An excellent illustration of this idea was in a Discovery Channel program that was quite good called "Walking with Cavemen". Of course, it's all conjecture based on the fossil record. It shows that as Africa changed so too did certain species. The females of a pack chose mates that walked upright...a positive evolutionary trait for the environment, as it allowed them to see over the grass. As they bred this new trait into the species over time, they became a new species altogether.

Mr. Pessimistic

Wlaking upright also opens up many more 'options' in regard to sexual reproduction...but that's all positional!

Mr. P.

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT