emubird Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 Didn't the Big Bang scientist later disavow his own theory? I see nothing about that on his wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre) although I could have missed it. But that kind of misses the point. Just because the person who first came up with an idea later thinks it was a bad, unsupported idea, doesn't mean that it is in fact, unsupported. It's not what the originator thinks, but whether further observations support the idea that matters. However, I see this type of argument popping up a lot. There must be some term for this type of logical fallacy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mommyfaithe Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 I am a creationist. YE or OE doesn't really matter to me. I think it is fun to debate and to investigate but it has no real bearing on my spiritual or physical life. I don't stress or worry about either one. God didn't make it clear so it must not be too important for us to know :) I voted other. Me too...shhhhh.... LOL. In the grand scheme of life, I just don't see the point of contention. We'll all find out one day...and Oh, what a marvelous day that will be. Until then...I can assume, theorize, guess, speculate etc....but, that's all. I just don't think it is an issue of salvation....but it is an interesting topic. Faithe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brehon Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 Other, for the reasons Mrs. M. wrote. I simply couldn't vote for OE, Evolution because of the implication of monkey to human evolution. I believe wording is important even if, and perhaps especially because, in this day and age imprecise, inaccurate, and vague wording has contributed to so many misunderstandings and ill feelings (IRL as well as sometimes on the board). As an aside: regardless of what any one person believes with regard to OE/YE, creation, evolution, etc I heartily wish that everyone (again IRL as well as here) understood what the scientific definition of theory means. So, theistic evolution probably comes closest to my views. The faith tradition in which I grew up and the one I now worship in both believe that the Bible is not a scientific textbook and any one belief is not a salvation matter. People are free to study, ponder, and believe how they wish without fear of divine or other interference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
annandatje Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 But one doesn't "believe" in evolution. It's not a creed. It's just that that's where the scientific evidence points. Now one might make an argument that one "believes" in the scientific method, as opposed to other ways of knowing, but the idea of saying one "believes" in evolution is frankly just odd. I had never heard statement above re believing in evolution until I mingled in the homeschool community. As I understand, all scientific theory is tentative and subject to changing/updating as new evidence arises. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
annandatje Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 I see nothing about that on his wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre) although I could have missed it. But that kind of misses the point. Just because the person who first came up with an idea later thinks it was a bad, unsupported idea, doesn't mean that it is in fact, unsupported. It's not what the originator thinks, but whether further observations support the idea that matters. However, I see this type of argument popping up a lot. There must be some term for this type of logical fallacy. It is called a "spinoff thread." :) Once posted for peer consumption, it no longer "belongs to" original author. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MamaSheep Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 But one doesn't "believe" in evolution. It's not a creed. It's just that that's where the scientific evidence points. Now one might make an argument that one "believes" in the scientific method, as opposed to other ways of knowing, but the idea of saying one "believes" in evolution is frankly just odd. I think that usually when people talk about "believing" in evolution what they mean is not that one "believes" in it like a creed, but more that one agrees that the scientific data points in that direction and concurs with the conclusion that evolution is the process by which the things we can currently observe came to be as they are--that their belief is that evolution is real. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halcyon Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 I think that usually when people talk about "believing" in evolution what they mean is not that one "believes" in it like a creed, but more that one agrees that the scientific data points in that direction and concurs with the conclusion that evolution is the process by which the things we can currently observe came to be as they are--that their belief is that evolution is real. Sigh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audrey Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 I had never heard statement above re believing in evolution until I mingled in the homeschool community. As I understand, all scientific theory is tentative and subject to changing/updating as new evidence arises. It seems to be unique to American Christian homeschoolers, as no one in any hs'ing community that I've run into here seems to refer to evolution as a "belief." I think that's so odd. We don't say "I believe in the theory of relativity" or "I believe in gravitational pull." Evolution isn't a "belief." It is a scientific explanation of a natural phenomenon. I also think it's terribly odd that some people cannot distinguish between the scientific definition of theory and the colloquial or lay definition of theory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaillardia Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Me too...shhhhh....LOL. In the grand scheme of life, I just don't see the point of contention. We'll all find out one day...and Oh, what a marvelous day that will be. Until then...I can assume, theorize, guess, speculate etc....but, that's all. I just don't think it is an issue of salvation....but it is an interesting topic. Faithe :iagree:I have some ancient shark teeth, but I don't care if they are 100 or 1,000 or 10,000 or 10 million years old. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 (edited) It seems to be unique to American Christian homeschoolers, as no one in any hs'ing community that I've run into here seems to refer to evolution as a "belief." I think that's so odd. We don't say "I believe in the theory of relativity" or "I believe in gravitational pull." Evolution isn't a "belief." It is a scientific explanation of a natural phenomenon. But, Newton's theory of gravity was replaced with Einstein's. Einstein's has mostly been confirmed, but with some tweaking. The fact that gravity exists and the theories behind how it works are clearly separate. I think the problem with evolution is that it is all jumbled up. Micro-evolution is different than macro-evolution. The theory of abiogenesis for the beginnings of life is often considered part and parcel of "evolution," but it is the part many people disagree with. I think a lack of concise definitions is why you end up with people saying that they don't "believe in" evolution. They don't always mean that they don't believe in natural selection. Edited November 23, 2011 by Mrs Mungo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 But one doesn't "believe" in evolution. It's not a creed. It's just that that's where the scientific evidence points. Now one might make an argument that one "believes" in the scientific method, as opposed to other ways of knowing, but the idea of saying one "believes" in evolution is frankly just odd. I completely agree with you. But one accepts the current scientific Theory of Evolution. One believes in "theistic evolution", which was my point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Micro-evolution is different than macro-evolution. The theory of abiogenesis for the beginnings of life is often considered part and parcel of "evolution," but it is the part many people disagree with. I think a lack of concise definitions is why you end up with people saying that they don't "believe in" evolution. They don't always mean that they don't believe in natural selection. The mechanisms required for microevolution and macroevolution are not different. Once speciation occurs, any further adaptation of the individual species should be considered macroevolution. Regarding abiogenesis, it is most definitely NOT considered as part and parcel of evolution. Darwin himself did not address origin of life in his book "On the Origin of species". How the first life came to be is definitely a fascinating area of study, however the TOE does not depend on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovedtodeath Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 I voted Young Earth, Evolution because Young Earth Creationists do not deny evolution, they just think it happens in a different way and different time frame. I really enjoy the articles in Creation.com magazines and look up their secular references. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 The mechanisms required for microevolution and macroevolution are not different. Once speciation occurs, any further adaptation of the individual species should be considered macroevolution. Yes, the mechanisms are somewhat different. Microevolution involves genetic variation within a species with one trait becoming more prevalent due to natural selection. The other involves spontaneous, beneficial genetic mutations and *then* natural selection making such a genetic mutation a trait throughout the species. Regarding abiogenesis, it is most definitely NOT considered as part and parcel of evolution. Darwin himself did not address origin of life in his book "On the Origin of species". How the first life came to be is definitely a fascinating area of study, however the TOE does not depend on it. *People in general* consider it part and parcel of believing in the theory of evolution as the origin of life. You'll note a couple of people argued against abiogenesis as their reason for not believing in the theory of evolution. This proves the point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 I think that usually when people talk about "believing" in evolution what they mean is not that one "believes" in it like a creed, but more that one agrees that the scientific data points in that direction and concurs with the conclusion that evolution is the process by which the things we can currently observe came to be as they are--that their belief is that evolution is real. The word "belief" implies an aspect of faith - where you consider something to be true even though there is no conclusive evidence. With the theory of evolution, you may either accept the evidence or you may not. There is no question of belief. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovedtodeath Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 The mechanisms required for microevolution and macroevolution are not different. Once speciation occurs, any further adaptation of the individual species should be considered macroevolution. Here is the difference between the evolution that I accept and macroevolution: Each time evolutionary changes occur, including speciation, the gene pool gets smaller, not larger. Parts of the DNA are deleted, turned on or off, or do not get passed on to a group of offspring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 The word "belief" implies an aspect of faith - where you consider something to be true even though there is no conclusive evidence. With the theory of evolution, you may either accept the evidence or you may not. There is no question of belief. There is no conclusive evidence for evolution *as the mechanism for the origin of life*. That's what I thought we were discussing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 There is no conclusive evidence for evolution *as the mechanism for the origin of life*. That's what I thought we were discussing. I agree that the theory of evolution does not explain the origin of life. Neither does the theory of relativity explain how my microwave works. They sufficiently explain what they are supposed to explain. Just because I expect something else from the theory, does not make it false. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 I agree that the theory of evolution does not explain the origin of life. Neither does the theory of relativity explain how my microwave works. They sufficiently explain what they are supposed to explain. Just because I expect something else from the theory, does not make it false. Your analogy simply does not hold. The theory of relativity wikipedia page does not discuss microwaves. The theory of evolution wiki page *does* discuss origin theories, to include the hypothesis of abiogenesis. I think wikipedia is a pretty good indicator that many (if not most) people consider abiogenesis to be wedded to evolution. There are many people who *say* they reject the theory of evolution, when they are really rejecting the hypothesis of abiogenesis. Again, as evidence of this, a couple of people in these threads have specifically mentioned abiogenesis. Because we are discussing evolution in the context of the origins of life, I think the word "belief" is apt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audrey Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 But, Newton's theory of gravity was replaced with Einstein's. Einstein's has mostly been confirmed, but with some tweaking. The fact that gravity exists and the theories behind how it works are clearly separate. I think the problem with evolution is that it is all jumbled up. Micro-evolution is different than macro-evolution. The theory of abiogenesis for the beginnings of life is often considered part and parcel of "evolution," but it is the part many people disagree with. I think a lack of concise definitions is why you end up with people saying that they don't "believe in" evolution. They don't always mean that they don't believe in natural selection. Mrs. M... I didn't say anything about the theory of gravity. I was using a theory (relativity) and a known phenomenon (gravitational pull) as examples of scientific thinking. Neither is something you "believe in." You can either accept the data or reject it. You can't disbelieve in relativity or gravitational pull. They exist. How you might explain them is related to the development of a theory, but has no bearing on their existence, as they quite obviously continue to exist whether you "believe in" them or not. It is the same with evolution. It exists. It is a natural phenomenon. There is a theory to explain this phenomenon (a few, in fact), but evolution still exists. Believing in it (or not) doesn't change that, and is actually quite irrelevant to any discussion of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Yes, the mechanisms are somewhat different. Microevolution involves genetic variation within a species with one trait becoming more prevalent due to natural selection. The other involves spontaneous, beneficial genetic mutations and *then* natural selection making such a genetic mutation a trait throughout the species. These are not the scientifically accepted definitions of micro and macro evolution. There is no distinction made by scientists saying "microevolution is evolution without mutations" and "macroevolution is evolution with mutations". Mutations happen all the time and this has been documented and studied. Some of these mutations get fixed in a population. The distinction between micro- and macro- evolution is not whether mutations occur, but whether the gene pools of two populations have sufficiently diverged to be classified as separate species or not. *People in general* consider it part and parcel of believing in the theory of evolution as the origin of life. You'll note a couple of people argued against abiogenesis as their reason for not believing in the theory of evolution. This proves the point. If people believe that the TOE should explain origin of life, then this shows a lack of knowledge about the TOE. It is better to correct this misinformation, than to persist in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Mrs. M... I didn't say anything about the theory of gravity. I was using a theory (relativity) and a known phenomenon (gravitational pull) as examples of scientific thinking. Neither is something you "believe in." You can either accept the data or reject it. You can't disbelieve in relativity or gravitational pull. They exist. How you might explain them is related to the development of a theory, but has no bearing on their existence, as they quite obviously continue to exist whether you "believe in" them or not. It is the same with evolution. It exists. It is a natural phenomenon. There is a theory to explain this phenomenon (a few, in fact), but evolution still exists. Believing in it (or not) doesn't change that, and is actually quite irrelevant to any discussion of it. I have clarified in follow-on posts why I think belief is an apt word in the context of the discussion at hand. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audrey Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 I have clarified in follow-on posts why I think belief is an apt word in the context of the discussion at hand. :) I see that, but still disagree with you. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 These are not the scientifically accepted definitions of micro and macro evolution. There is no distinction made by scientists saying "microevolution is evolution without mutations" and "macroevolution is evolution with mutations". Mutations happen all the time and this has been documented and studied. Some of these mutations get fixed in a population. The distinction between micro- and macro- evolution is not whether mutations occur, but whether the gene pools of two populations have sufficiently diverged to be classified as separate species or not. I realize that I'm being very simplistic here. I minored in anthropology. I *know* the process, I assure you. Sure, mutations happen all the time. They are sometimes neutral and are *often* harmful. An in depth discussion of the process isn't really necessary here, imo. But, imo, the mechanisms are slightly different. If you disagree, that's fine, I just don't see any use in debating this point. If people believe that the TOE should explain origin of life, then this shows a lack of knowledge about the TOE. It is better to correct this misinformation, than to persist in it. They are discussed side-by-side as part and parcel of the whole theory in science books, on the web, everywhere. I *agree* that this should change. But, until it does, some of the people who disagree with abiogenesis will say that they don't believe in the theory of evolution. Note, I did not say that. I said that I agree with the theory of evolution, several times. But, I understand why some people do say that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 *People in general* consider it part and parcel of believing in the theory of evolution as the origin of life. You'll note a couple of people argued against abiogenesis as their reason for not believing in the theory of evolution. This proves the point. It proves nothing other than the fact some people are ill-informed about the Theory of Evolution. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 It proves nothing other than the fact some people are ill-informed about the Theory of Evolution. Bill Which high school Biology texts do you have in your home? I have 3, all secular. They all mention abiogenesis side-by-side with the the Theory of Evolution. Abiogenesis is discussed on the Theory of Evolution wikipedia page. Popular culture has married them, like it or not. I think they are *very* hard to separate in a discussion of evolution as the mechanism for the origins of life. I do not disagree that it is wrong and a problem. Until there is a bigger degree of separation, this problem will continue. But, why mention evolution at all within the context of an origins discussion, if you don't mean for people to interpret it that way? I'm afraid the waters are thoroughly muddied. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Microevolution involves genetic variation within a species with one trait becoming more prevalent due to natural selection. The other involves spontaneous, beneficial genetic mutations and *then* natural selection making such a genetic mutation a trait throughout the species. I realize that I'm being very simplistic here. I minored in anthropology. I *know* the process, I assure you. Sure, mutations happen all the time. They are sometimes neutral and are *often* harmful. An in depth discussion of the process isn't really necessary here, imo. But, imo, the mechanisms are slightly different. If you disagree, that's fine, I just don't see any use in debating this point. I am not trying to argue, but rather to clarify what I felt was an error in definitions. You did say that macroevolution involves mutation and then natural selection. My point was that microevolution can also involve mutation and natural selection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MamaSheep Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 The word "belief" implies an aspect of faith - where you consider something to be true even though there is no conclusive evidence. With the theory of evolution, you may either accept the evidence or you may not. There is no question of belief. I guess we define the words a little differently from each other. But even if I were to define "belief" the way you do, I would say that with the theory of evolution you may either accept the evidence or you may not, but even if you accept the evidence, if you have a strong scientific mind you always leave a little sliver open for the possibility that there might be some evidence that has not surfaced yet which might shed more light on the subject. I think there's an element there of "belief" that the current body of evidence is sufficient to draw a solid conclusion. Also, for me at least, "belief" in a religious sense is also largely built on evidence. I may accept the evidence or I may not, but there is real evidence, and to me it is conclusive to the same degree as most scientific evidence I have encountered (and my Dad is a retired scientist, well respected in his field of ecology, and I have been taught to evaluate scientific evidence). There is about the same amount of "even though all the evidence might not be conclusive" to me religiously as there is scientifically. Both fields do have a margin of error and the possibility of misinterpretation of available data producing incorrect conclusions. To me the religious experience and the scientific one are remarkably similar. However, I do understand that your perspective differs from mine, and I'm happy to agree to disagree. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Which high school Biology texts do you have in your home? I have 3, all secular. They all mention abiogenesis side-by-side with the the Theory of Evolution. Abiogenesis is discussed on the Theory of Evolution wikipedia page. Popular culture has married them, like it or not. I think they are *very* hard to separate in a discussion of evolution as the mechanism for the origins of life. I do not disagree that it is wrong and a problem. Until there is a bigger degree of separation, this problem will continue. But, why mention evolution at all within the context of an origins discussion, if you don't mean for people to interpret it that way? I'm afraid the waters are thoroughly muddied. Mrs Mungo, I can see why abiogenesis and TOE are discussed side by side. After all one discusses the origin of the first life form and the other discusses the diversification of the original life form into the many species we see today. However, it does not alter the fact that they are both totally different theories. The TOE does not depend on how the original life form came to be. If people who say "I do not believe in the TOE" actually mean to say that "I do not believe in abiogenesis", it does not mean their error is not in ignorance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 I am not trying to argue, but rather to clarify what I felt was an error in definitions. You did say that macroevolution involves mutation and then natural selection. My point was that microevolution can also involve mutation and natural selection. Certainly, mutations occur in both. I did not intend to imply that they don't. Scientists do not even remotely agree on how speciation occurs. The hypotheses of the mechanics vary *widely*. Therefore, I don't think a detailed discussion of it is worthwhile in the context of this thread. The mechanics are different because one does not necessarily lead on to the other. Is that better? I'm not sure how else to phrase it in a simple manner when there are complex theories (theory in the common usage) at work. I'm sorry, it's after midnight here and I get up at 6. So, I must be off. I would have already been in bed, but the Nook book I was trying to download was being stubborn. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 I'm sorry, it's after midnight here and I get up at 6. So, I must be off. I would have already been in bed, but the Nook book I was trying to download was being stubborn. ;) Have a good night :001_smile: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Mrs Mungo, I can see why abiogenesis and TOE are discussed side by side. After all one discusses the origin of the first life form and the other discusses the diversification of the original life form into the many species we see today. However, it does not alter the fact that they are both totally different theories. The TOE does not depend on how the original life form came to be. Abiogenesis is not a proper theory in the scientific sense. It is still only a hypothesis. I don't disagree with you, I am just saying that I understand why the waters get so muddied. If people who say "I do not believe in the TOE" actually mean to say that "I do not believe in abiogenesis", it does not mean their error is not in ignorance. Then, one should not mention evolution at all *when having a discussion of the origins of life.* When one is having a discussion of the origins of life *and* evolution is mentioned, then many people will associate abiogenesis with evolution. Seriously now, I must go to bed, lol! So sorry, I really hate to disrupt a good conversation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.