If you accept microevolution

[jamesmorlock]

Simply because they are identical.

Consider an analogy:

Imagine that you can travel across the universe by walking. You have an infinite amount of time to do this, but you must make your journey by taking small steps. You have no destination, but you can go anywhere and you must never stop walking.

A thousand years pass. Where are you now? Further.
A million years pass. Where are you now? Even Further.
A billion years pass. Where are you now? Far, far away.

For every iteration of time, you will have traveled further and further. It is inevitable, for every small step takes you further. It is not possible to not travel far.

Microevolution is the small step. Macroevolution is the collective of small steps over a large period of time.

When walking for billions of years, how can you not be far away from your starting point?

[Clownboat]

The issue of its viability is a related but separate question. Evolution is, I said, a properly scientific theory.

And as I said, it isn't.

First, I didn't say the "vast majority of Christians" accept the theory of evolution. I said "most" of them do because, well, most of them do—roughly 76% on average, according to the Pew Research Center.

First, 76% is the vast majority. Second, if the PRC is to be believed, then fine. I disagree with the 76%.

Second, atheists are a minority—around 7% (more or less)—so by ignoring theistic views on evolution you're missing "the vast majority of those who accept it."

I am not missing them, I am disagreeing with them.

And I say yes. But that's a product of my view on the sovereignty of God. If it happens, God ordained it. Nothing escapes his notice, and nothing purposeless happens. (But that's theology and so belongs in a different subforum.)

Then we are in agreement, if it happens, God ordained it. That is certainly a compromise I can live with.

1. The statistical data show that most Christian churches—Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant (including evangelicals)—support or accept theistic evolution (around 76% on average).

Again, those 76% are folks who believe that God ordained evolution...and although I disagree with them, that isn't where my beef lies. My beef is with those who believe that evolution is true without a divine orchestrator.

2. Given your statements about dogs reproducing dogs (when talking about evolution)

Which is a true statement, btw.

, I sincerely doubt you know what theistic evolutionists believe.

Theistic evolutionists are theists, who believe in evolution. Is that in the ballpark?

3. When is something a "false teaching"? When it contradicts Scripture? Church tradition? Your personal beliefs?

Depends. Church tradition may/may not contradict Scripture. My personal beliefs may/may not contradict Scripture.

Those who are genuine, they read and interpret the Scripture as they see fit...and once they draw certain conclusions, anything that contradicts their conclusions also contradicts the Scriptures (according to them).

So, evolution contradicts my reasoning of the Scriptures...but whether or not a Christian accepts/rejects the ToE has no barren as to whether or not they are saved, nor does it violate any other central doctrine of Christianity.

By rejecting established science, flat earthers and anti evolutionists place themselves in a position of power.
Suddenly they feel like they're the experts, and that is a good feeling. Why wouldn't they want to maintain that feeling?

What they don't do is provide evidence for their preferred religous position on the matter. This is telling IMO.

[The Barbarian]

By rejecting established science, flat earthers and anti evolutionists place themselves in a position of power.

For scientists, it's not about power. As you know, a round Earth is directly observable. Likewise, evolution is observable directly. Perhaps you don't know what biological evolution is. What do you think it is?

Suddenly they feel like they're the experts, and that is a good feeling.

Truth is, the more you know about biology and evolution, the more you realize there is to find out. Everything looks simple if you don't understand it. And I've been studying biology for over a half-century.

People who don't know much about it, often feel as though they do, because everything does look simple when you don't know much about it. Why wouldn't they want to maintain that feeling?

My experience is that most people who think they hate evolution, don't know what it is. What do you think it is?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #364]

Clownboat wrote: ↑Wed Mar 17, 2021 7:35 am
By rejecting established science, flat earthers and anti evolutionists place themselves in a position of power.

The Barbarian replied » Wed Mar 24, 2021 8:40 pm
For scientists, it's not about power. As you know, a round Earth is directly observable. Likewise, evolution is observable directly. Perhaps you don't know what biological evolution is. What do you think it is?

I read Clownboat's comment as pointing out the error of flat earthers and anti evolutionists in rejecting established science, which (in their minds) places them in a position of power as self-proclaimed experts. That is, his comment supports established science such as a spherical Earth, and evolution.

I've had many interactions with flat earthers over the years and they are among the most stubborn (and frustrating) group of people to try and reason with as they simply make up their own rules and ignore all obsevational science as a giant conspiracy for which they can't explain the purpose or benefits. Anti evolutionists seem to lean more towards religious objections, although that is also true for some flat earthers.

[Clownboat]

By rejecting established science, flat earthers and anti evolutionists place themselves in a position of power.

For scientists, it's not about power.

I didn't claim it was.

As you know, a round Earth is directly observable.

This is true and was not claimed otherwise.

Likewise, evolution is observable directly.

I agree.

Perhaps you don't know what biological evolution is. What do you think it is?

Now where did this come from?
It's the change in characteristics of a population of a species over several generations that includes the process of natural selection.

Suddenly they feel like they're the experts, and that is a good feeling.

Truth is, the more you know about biology and evolution, the more you realize there is to find out.

Doesn't address what I said.

People who don't know much about it, often feel as though they do, because everything does look simple when you don't know much about it. Why wouldn't they want to maintain that feeling?

Obviously, some do want to maintin that feeling.

My experience is that most people who think they hate evolution, don't know what it is. What do you think it is?

I would agree with what you said and I already answered what biological evolution is.

[The Barbarian]

Now where did this come from?
It's the change in characteristics of a population of a species over several generations that includes the process of natural selection.

That was Darwin's description; "descent with modification." Natural selection may or may not be involved, but typically is involved when new taxa evolve. The current definition is "a change in allele frequency in a population over time."

[John Bauer]

That was Darwin's description; "descent with modification." Natural selection may or may not be involved, but typically is involved when new taxa evolve. The current definition is "a change in allele frequency in a population over time."

Microevolution = The intraspecific variation that exists within a species population (change in allele frequencies).

Macroevolution = The interspecific variation through allopatric or sympatric speciation events.

Evolution = These, taken together over geologic time, constitute the evolution of life with its patterns of descent with modification from a common ancestor found in molecular and fossil records.

[EarthScienceguy]

Your original premise on evolution is incorrect. The current view of evolution does not describe evolutionary progress as a series of small incremental steps taking place for millions of years. (millions of years is not even enough time even if this were true.) The current view of evolution describes the evolution in a series of leaps. To use your analogy a person would not be walking across the universe they would be leaping across the universe in very large multi-million light-year leaps follow by stagnation in which no movement is made. These leaps are caused by the belief of some sort of cataclysmic event taking place.

The biggest leap which would correspond to most of the universe's 13.5 billion light-years (80% to 90%) occurred at the time of the Cambrian explosion.

Besides this fact, another issue is the progression of the walk forward. OBSERVED mutations very rarely cause an increase in the functionality of the organism. Most mutations are either neutral or decrease the functionality of the organism so the steady progress forward would be mostly towards decreasing functionality not an increase in functionality.

So any way you slice it evolution is a belief system, not actually based on OBSERVABLE OBSERVATIONS, simply because there are only two options evolution and creation.

[Clownboat]

Your original premise on evolution is incorrect. The current view of evolution does not describe evolutionary progress as a series of small incremental steps taking place for millions of years. (millions of years is not even enough time even if this were true.) The current view of evolution describes the evolution in a series of leaps. To use your analogy a person would not be walking across the universe they would be leaping across the universe in very large multi-million light-year leaps follow by stagnation in which no movement is made. These leaps are caused by the belief of some sort of cataclysmic event taking place.

The biggest leap which would correspond to most of the universe's 13.5 billion light-years (80% to 90%) occurred at the time of the Cambrian explosion.

Besides this fact, another issue is the progression of the walk forward. OBSERVED mutations very rarely cause an increase in the functionality of the organism. Most mutations are either neutral or decrease the functionality of the organism so the steady progress forward would be mostly towards decreasing functionality not an increase in functionality.

So any way you slice it evolution is a belief system, not actually based on OBSERVABLE OBSERVATIONS, simply because there are only two options evolution and creation.

"The current view of evolution describes the evolution in a series of leaps."
You're as much of an authority on evolution as a flat earther is in regards to the shape of the earth I'm afraid. Yes, it's a powerful feeling to convince oneself that they know more about a subject than the actual experts do, I get that.

So, what mechanism do you put forth in place of evolution that better explains not only the animals we see here on earth now, but also in the fossil record? You must do more than just reject those who have dedicated their lives to such studies (unless the end goal is just a feeling of superiority).

What you do here IMO is nothing more than attempting to level the playing fields by arguing that both are belief systems based off of faith and such. Let's see if the faith in your mechanism for how life got here is equal to the faith you think is involved with the theory of evolution. You know, test things. Much more revealing then just making faith claims IMO.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #369]

"The current view of evolution describes the evolution in a series of leaps."
You're as much of an authority on evolution as a flat earther is in regards to the shape of the earth I'm afraid. Yes, it's a powerful feeling to convince oneself that they know more about a subject than the actual experts do, I get that.

It is actually called READING. Anyone can do it.

New statistical analyses suggest that evolution does not happen gradually through intermediary generations, but in a large single leap to new species. New findings support a theory of 'evolutionary leaps' which disagrees with neo-Darwinism on how organisms adapt to their habitat.

https://sciencenordic.com/animal-kingdo ... %20habitat.

The concept of punctuated equilibria (Fig. 1) was developed to explain a pervasive and intriguing evolutionary pattern: most species change little if at all after they first appear in the fossil record. In many cases, individual species lineages persist for millions of years without showing any significant morphological change. The idea was described in detail in Eldredge and Gould (1972), where the term was coined, although important aspects of the idea were first developed in Eldredge (1971). Punctuated equilibria actually comprises several different and related observations. These include:

the fossil record contains a rich source of data useful for developing important evolutionary hypotheses;
speciation typically happens allopatrically, in narrow and geographically restricted populations containing relatively few individuals;
species are not slowly and gradually adapting and evolving over long stretches of geological time;
species lineages that show stasis – or an absence of morphological change – dominate the fossil record and provide useful information about the tempo and mode of evolution;
the first appearance of a new species in the fossil record usually does not represent its point of evolutionary origin but rather the migration of a new geographically isolated species back into its ancestral range, with concomitant expansion in abundance; and
speciation typically takes on the order of 5,000 to 50,000 years to occur – far shorter than the average duration of species in the fossil record.
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Pun ... equilibria

So, what mechanism do you put forth in place of evolution that better explains not only the animals we see here on earth now, but also in the fossil record? You must do more than just reject those who have dedicated their lives to such studies (unless the end goal is just a feeling of superiority).

The Louvre in Paris is filled with scientific theories that men put their whole lives studying theories that have not been discarded. Scepticism is the way of science.

What you do here IMO is nothing more than attempting to level the playing fields by arguing that both are belief systems based off of faith and such. Let's see if the faith in your mechanism for how life got here is equal to the faith you think is involved with the theory of evolution. You know, test things. Much more revealing than just making faith claims IMO.

What part of my description of evolution is incorrect?

[Difflugia]

It is actually called READING. Anyone can do it.

The journalist you linked can't. This is wrong:

proponents of so-called ‘punctuated equilibrium’ argue that evolution consists of long periods without change, broken by sudden, dramatic change which can happen from one generation to the next.

The "sudden" changes are "sudden" in geologic time and their appearance in the fossil record. They don't happen "from one generation to the next."

Here's an opportunity to practice your own reading skills. From "Punctuated Equilibria: The Tempo and Mode of Evolution Reconsidered" by Gould and Eldredge (Paleobiology, Volume 3, Number 2, pp. 115-151; you can read it at JSTOR if you haven't already used up your 100 free articles this month):

The model of punctuated equilibria does not maintain that nothing occurs gradually at any level of evolution. It is a theory about speciation and its deployment in the fossil record. It claims that an important pattern, continuous at higher levels—the "classic" macroevolutionary trend—is a consequence of punctuation in the evolution of species. It does not deny that allopatric speciation occurs gradually in ecological time (though it might not-see Carson, 1975), but only asserts that this scale is a geological microsecond. Our model must be tested at the appropriate scale by considering tempos of change in species and in the process of speciation during geological time.