Thread: Who do you "pray" to?

Originally Posted by jcd

Evolution has passed possibly the ultimate test: it has produced viable technology.

If you have been immunized against anything, you are using technology that would not have been devoloped if Evolution were false. If you go to the hospital with an unknown infection, they would not have a clue how to identify it if Evolution were false.

Denying Evolution while benefiting from it's technology is like listening to the radio while denying the existence of the electromagnetic spectrum. Or looking at Hiroshima while denying atoms. Or building an elaborate trap to kill someone by dropping a piano on their head, while denying gravity.

Evolution in regards to survival of the fittest, etc, and the passing on of genetic information may well be proven fact. I believe this is what you are refering to? Bacteria can easily be seen across many generations, developing resistance, what have you, right?

But Evolution in regards to one organism evolving into quite another over time I do not believe has been proven. However long you let those bacterium reproduce I do not think it has been shown that they become anything else than what they are.

It appears to me there are at least three representations of evolution:

#1- Survival of the fittest, change over time within a species

#2- Evolution in regards to one organism having developed from another through a great period of time, via a similar method as item #1 above, except not staying within a species.

#3- Using that method to extrapolate that this is how all life came to be.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Evolution in regards to survival of the fittest, etc, and the passing on of genetic information may well be proven fact. I believe this is what you are refering to? Bacteria can easily be seen across many generations, developing resistance, what have you, right?

But Evolution in regards to one organism evolving into quite another over time I do not believe has been proven. However long you let those bacterium reproduce I do not think it has been shown that they become anything else than what they are.

I wasn't just referring to evolution being observed forwards, with lineages splitting into a tree like structure. It can be varified backwards, from the branches to the trunk, using genetic markers, so despite what you say, it has been proven. This is what is used to identify unknown organisms, and allows them to be attacked if necessary. (This is the same technology which will verify if the child who looks suspiciously like the mailman really is who he is supposed to be.)

You allude to, but don't use the (horrible) terms micro/macro evolution. You believe in micro, but not macro. This position doesn't have a basis because
a) there are no barriers (even proposed barriers) to prevent many micro events adding up to a macro event.
b) macro evolution has been proved to have happened, using genetic evidence.

Proved when, and by whom?
At least as of the last biology class/textbook I had (2003) mutation resulting in a new species was completely unverified. Adaptation within a species is of course completely verified.

Originally Posted by jcd

I wasn't just referring to evolution being observed forwards, with lineages splitting into a tree like structure. It can be varified backwards, from the branches to the trunk, using genetic markers, so despite what you say, it has been proven. This is what is used to identify unknown organisms, and allows them to be attacked if necessary. (This is the same technology which will verify if the child who looks suspiciously like the mailman really is who he is supposed to be.)

You allude to, but don't use the (horrible) terms micro/macro evolution. You believe in micro, but not macro. This position doesn't have a basis because
a) there are no barriers (even proposed barriers) to prevent many micro events adding up to a macro event.
b) macro evolution has been proved to have happened, using genetic evidence.

Originally Posted by jcd

I wasn't just referring to evolution being observed forwards, with lineages splitting into a tree like structure. It can be varified backwards, from the branches to the trunk, using genetic markers, so despite what you say, it has been proven. This is what is used to identify unknown organisms, and allows them to be attacked if necessary. (This is the same technology which will verify if the child who looks suspiciously like the mailman really is who he is supposed to be.)

You allude to, but don't use the (horrible) terms micro/macro evolution. You believe in micro, but not macro. This position doesn't have a basis because
a) there are no barriers (even proposed barriers) to prevent many micro events adding up to a macro event.
b) macro evolution has been proved to have happened, using genetic evidence.

Can you please provide a link that documents clear genetic evidence linking two seperate species?