For Christians (or anyone else) who deny Darwinian evolution.

[Harry Nevis]

What are the facts of evolution, which are not to be questioned?

I have heard it said (and I believe it to be hyperbole) some question how we can have engineers, chemist, doctors, or painters that do not believe in evolution.  How can they still do their job?

However, I am going to have serious doubts about going to a doctor (except for perhaps the most simple of things) who does not believe that the body is a complex system, specifically organized and composed for a defined function.

See, you're showing your ignorance of science.  There are no facts of evolution that are not to be questioned.  But denying isn't questioning.  Making ludicrous statements about it that shows you don't know the topic is not questioning.  Saying, "I just don't believe it" is not questioning.

Many people can separate their beliefs from their careers.  I think most don't disbelieve evolution; their beliefs just tell them to profess that, but they realize these beliefs have little to do with reality.

[vorlon13]

Probably freudenschade but folks that deny Darwinian evolution I tend to hope they succumb to evolved parasites like MRSA.


It's how Darwin would solve the problem . . .

[SteveII]

The mechanism is not understood.

I find it amazing how religionists like Stevell and Godschild will just blatantly say something to be the true because they wish it were. Yes, the mechanisms in evolution are well understood. Just because it is being ever refined does not mean to say that it is not understood. It has been this way for a while now. The theory of evolution has been tested many times, both in theory using computer programs and in practice through experiments with breeding animals, on bacteria, and through observations in the wild.

Thank you for the perfect example of conflating (a fallacy) the word 'evolution'. You state that "the mechanisms in evolution are well understood"--a reference to definition #2 and then go on and cite support all having to do with #1.

It's perfectly reasoned to believe all these things, but attempting to oversell our knowledge produces nothing but long, unproductive arguments. #2 and #3 are not well understood and for obvious reasons are hard to study. 

For Reference, the word can be used in at least three senses. The reason you need to keep track of which meaning is being used, is because there is proof and universal agreement on #1. There is less on #2 and even less on #3. 

1. Evolution (defined as "decent with modification") 
2. Evolution (defined as "the mechanism that accounts for evolutionary change") 
3. Evolution (defined as "reconstructing evolutionary history")

[I_am_not_mafia]

I find it amazing how religionists like Stevell and Godschild will just blatantly say something to be the true because they wish it were. Yes, the mechanisms in evolution are well understood. Just because it is being ever refined does not mean to say that it is not understood. It has been this way for a while now. The theory of evolution has been tested many times, both in theory using computer programs and in practice through experiments with breeding animals, on bacteria, and through observations in the wild.

Thank you for the perfect example of conflating (a fallacy) the word 'evolution'. You state that "the mechanisms in evolution are well understood"--a reference to definition #2 and then go on and cite support all having to do with #1.

It's perfectly reasoned to believe all these things, but attempting to oversell our knowledge produces nothing but long, unproductive arguments. #2 and #3 are not well understood and for obvious reasons are hard to study. 

For Reference, the word can be used in at least three senses. The reason you need to keep track of which meaning is being used, is because there is proof and universal agreement on #1. There is less on #2 and even less on #3. 

1. Evolution (defined as "decent with modification") 
2. Evolution (defined as "the mechanism that accounts for evolutionary change") 
3. Evolution (defined as "reconstructing evolutionary history")

I am referring to the theory of evolution and Darwinian evolution. The theory accounts for all three of your utterly arbitrarily limited definitions. Your definitions are useless except to allow you to magic up ways to make it look like you are refuting what I am saying.

It only looks like I am overselling the knowledge we have if you yourself are ignorant. But it's easier to say no one knows than to do the research and learn what we do know. You are staying deliberately ignorant so you can believe your fantasy.

[Ravenshire]

And what's going to stop it?

Typical of you.  When reality delivers a result you don't like, you simply deny reality.

 A hypothetical is not reality now is it, and you don't like it when I'm right, sorry but right is right and C can never be, not enough info for C.

GC

---

I'd love to reply to you given you could ever string together a coherent sentence or question.

I'll pray you gain the ability.
RAmen

 God want listen to that kinda' prayer from a non-believer. Also you might find me responding to your posts if you act like an adult and use decent language.

GC

Once again the grown man who has an imaginary friend calling for others to grow up. The irony would be painful if it weren't so laughable.

[Jehanne]

 A hypothetical is not reality now is it, and you don't like it when I'm right, sorry but right is right and C can never be, not enough info for C.

GC

---

 God want listen to that kinda' prayer from a non-believer. Also you might find me responding to your posts if you act like an adult and use decent language.

GC

Once again the grown man who has an imaginary friend calling for others to grow up. The irony would be painful if it weren't so laughable.

If I encountered this board back in the 80s when I was a Christian fundamentalist, I would have renounced Christianity in a short order.

[SteveII]

Thank you for the perfect example of conflating (a fallacy) the word 'evolution'. You state that "the mechanisms in evolution are well understood"--a reference to definition #2 and then go on and cite support all having to do with #1.

It's perfectly reasoned to believe all these things, but attempting to oversell our knowledge produces nothing but long, unproductive arguments. #2 and #3 are not well understood and for obvious reasons are hard to study. 

For Reference, the word can be used in at least three senses. The reason you need to keep track of which meaning is being used, is because there is proof and universal agreement on #1. There is less on #2 and even less on #3. 

1. Evolution (defined as "decent with modification") 
2. Evolution (defined as "the mechanism that accounts for evolutionary change") 
3. Evolution (defined as "reconstructing evolutionary history")

I am referring to the theory of evolution and Darwinian evolution. The theory accounts for all three of your utterly arbitrarily limited definitions. Your definitions are useless except to allow you to magic up ways to make it look like you are refuting what I am saying.

It only looks like I am overselling the knowledge we have if you yourself are ignorant. But it's easier to say no one knows than to do the research and learn what we do know. You are staying deliberately ignorant so you can believe your fantasy.

Being precise and defining our terms is an extremely important part of any dialog. 

A simple thought experiment. If Andy believes that our current dog breeds evolved from domesticated wolf ancestors, does Andy believe in evolution? I think it is clear he does. 

But, does he believe that simplicity begat complexity through natural selection acting on random mutations? Does he believe in common ancestry of all living things? We don't know. So, it is very obvious that belief of one aspect of evolution does not entail belief in all of them. 

Regarding your last paragraph, tell me, is the science settled on the following?

a. How complex organs/traits evolved without any survival benefit until they were complete (please give examples of partially formed non-functioning abilities found in nature today)
b. How are biological networks to have evolved? 
c. Why doesn't DNA support the "tree of life"?
d. Why there is a glaring lack of fossil records/intermediate forms.  
e. Junk (non-coding) DNA, originally thought of as the leftovers of mutations/transcription errors, yet we continue to discover purposes for it. 
f. Why natural selection is not enough for traits with a low selection coefficient...yet we have them.

I realize there is a theory for every one of these items. My point is, they are not settled, we have no examples, and certainly cannot replicate them in a lab. They remain best guesses. 

So, if you wish to believe in all three definitions of evolution, it is because you believe in naturalism not because the science is compelling. A theist can decide that they will accept whatever science becomes settled--but as of now, that is not #2 and #3 meanings of the word 'evolution'.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Once again the grown man who has an imaginary friend calling for others to grow up. The irony would be painful if it weren't so laughable.

If I encountered this board back in the 80s when I was a Christian fundamentalist, I would have renounced Christianity in a short order.

Boss Lady was an evangelical, then a Catholic, then she read Richard Dawkins.

[Cod]

Who the hell is Andy?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Who the hell is Andy?

A. Person.