Posted on 06/13/2007 8:30:23 AM PDT by presidio9
Your are quite wrong. Any serious student or scientist involved in evolutionary research will not simply state "there is only one evolution and it covers everything".
I am a research scientist who has studied evolution (as a student) and has performed research using evolutionary algorithms.
As a process that maximizes the survival of entities within different environments and multiple "colonies", by the propogation of a common set of "selfish genes"; it is incredibily powerful process and able to 'create" new types of macro-level beings that had not previously existed but survive better under certain conditions than previous "beings".
What seems impossible is for things to evolve purely randomly into what we have today. But it is not a random process there is a forcing function that selects successful/unsuccessful beings in every generation and passes on the successes, speeding up the advancement exponentially.
In a way it is likely distilling out the failures, keeping the partial successes, mixing them up and then testing the resulting new beings, measuring the best, killing off the rest and begin again...and so on.
That process does absolutely exist in nature, and I am a bible-thumping evangelical Baptist.
However, in the minds on so many who do not wish to understand, they believe the word "evolution" explains "creation", the origins of life to begin with, and the creation of the soul of man, and the rapid onset of mans culture and intelligence. It certainly does not.
Origins of life is a totally different set of theories. They cannot simply be appended to a more substantiated theory of "evolution" and gain credibility because of it.
No evolutionary scientist can adequately explain the rapid development of mankind within the last 50,000 years or so either.
Not even Richard Dawkins, the high priest of atheist religion and godfather of evolution can explain why mankind suddenly developed a supreme intellect, spirituallity, and culture that has propelled the species into the ost advanced species ever created, by far. Nor caqn he explain the origins of life.
mankind is the pinnacle of evolutionary development yet those very factors which make it so successful for passing on the "selfish gene", the prime motivation behind evolution, does NOT appear in any other species!
Evolutionary theories suggest other species should also have acquired to some substantial degrees at least some of the myriad characterisitics that have made humans so wildly successfull. They haven't.
The belief in God is one of the single most important characteristics man has acquired. It has been the motivating power behind the advancement of culture and societal structures. It has driven man to cooperate together, as teams, as companies, as socieities, to build mutually beneficial systems., where before they killed each other off at tribal/family levels as potential competitors just like animals. The idea of liberty for all men is a purely God-given belief. yet it has been a powerful influence in survival of the certain cultures.
Atheism is a throwback to animalistic characteristics, which have proven so unsuccessful by comparison.
So the theory evolution is not just one theory and it does not explain "everything" it is composed of many competing theories.
Of course there are micro- and macro- forms of evolution. Richard Dawkins also coined another type of cultural evolution based on the "meme" (as opposed to the gene).
I have developed software code using micro-evolution (and genetic algorithms). it works great. I have solved scientific problems using micro-evolution. Evolution did not create the components of the software which evolved (the basic building blocks that came together to form the entity)
The Creationists are absolutely correct when they state that there are no scientific theories that have explained the origins of life with any degree of confidence.
All the scientific theories of creation rely on vast amounts of hand-waving, and wild presumptions about the conditions of the early earth.
The theory that life was initiated on earth by an "outside" influence has scientific credibility, and a probabity of being correct higher than most any other theory. (since it opens up the possibility of life being created in any one of an almost infinite number of different environments outside the earth, then brought here through any number of possible processes. mankind has already brought life to the moon, possibly to mars, by contamination)
There are plenty of atmospheric scientists that reject the idea of human caused GW. Perhaps a majority. They just don't get media attention.
That is not the case with evolution, where there are one or two cranks that dispute it, and they have obvious agendas. Google "Project Steve".
“The problem began when politicians got hold of survival of the fittest and then historians and it became Progress and Darwin expressed dismay: ‘They are taking this way too far!””
I think the problem might be people.
When you're right, you're right.
Religious views aside....it’s a big leap for me to believe in evolution. Too many gaps and holes big enough to drive a truck through.
Kinda like global warming...they can’t even predict this weekend’s weather, yet they’re trying to convince us they know exactly how many degrees it will warm to in 10-25 year!
A little common sense goes a long way in these matters~
The word 'day' used in Genesis 1 is the same word used in other areas that mean 'age', a '24 hour day', and a '12 hour day'.
Our view of 'day' as only 24 hours is simply because that is our perspective as the meaning, but, based on other passages, the original author could have had many meanings.
“Religious views aside....it’s a big leap for me to believe in evolution.”
Is this something you’ve studied? Because even evangelicals have had to come around to say that “micro” evolution is true.
There are microbes that eat only nylon. That’s not exactly something they had handy on Noah’s ark.
As an actual physicist, I find no use for evolution, or Evolution, except as it pertains to stellar evolution which is merely aging. In any case, I believe both sides of the C/E debate such as it is are wrong and there is a third side.
Good post. Good luck against the mob.
Good catch. It’s an important distinction. “Rejecting” presupposes its truth while “doubting” questions the sufficiency of the evidence.
So how do you explain the changes in species distribution over the ages?
Nah. I'm out of here now. Got more important things to do.
Easy. As a physicist it’s not my job. Weyl spinor description of neutrinos, now that’s something.
I admit to having a very limited knowledge of evolution theory (i.e., I am a product of the “government indoctrination centers”, after leaving Catholic school in 4th grade. Even though I am halfway through my Masters’, I haven’t been given a great deal of information on Darwin, aside from “survival of the fittest”, and some vague story about all of us being evolved from some aquatic amoeba that grew into a fish and then grew legs and then walked the land. ?????????), but your eloquent explanation has put into words what my instinct and gut tell me, though yours has added value because it is backed by your wisdom and extensive research. Thank you for (albeit unwittingly!) giving me such valuable affirmation. Keep up the good work, and I would love to hear more!
The corn is now popping at DC.
I’m a born-again, evangelical Baptist. I know of nobody who rejects evolution in its entirety, except those who do not understand the theory (and that is a lot).
They reject it out of ignorance, emotion and fear that it is just another attempt to destroy the credibility of the Bible.
I fear no scientific truth. no truth can harm the credibility of the Bible, not one iota. (our understanding of the Bible is also incomplete and often enlightened by new understandings of nature)
I welcome all honest research and debate on the issue. Besides evolution is good design, essential to an autonomous, self-replicating system intended to survive in continuously varying conditions. (Mankind is the first species who has developed a very robust rapid/immediate response to survival in extreme weather or climate changes)
But there is no question God fears answered truthfully.
Remember, it is Christianity, that has created the greatest environment, culture and motivation to advance science. No other cultures have been more successful, particularly since the Reformation.
The Bible implores us over and over again to seek wisdom and understanding even “though it cost all you have get understanding”.
just stay honest. (both sides)
And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: So there was no sun to mark the days until the fourth "day". Thus, it is clear the "days" referenced here are not literal.
Well stated~
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.