Is Evolution an all or nothing Theory?

It seems that everything in the Natural world is catagorised or analysed by its Evolutionary origin. Almost the first thing noted is a reference to Evolution. So, do we have to “buy in” to the whole package or can we decide (perhaps for ourselves) which elements to believe, and which to be skeptical about at best, or dismiss completely. IOW is Evolution a complete package, or is it a bundle of theories, some of which are speculative or even untenable? Do we even have enough information (as lay, rather than scientist) to make that judgement?

Richard

Well, everything biological. That’s because everything biological seen to date shows strong evidence of an evolutionary origin.

You are under no obligation to believe anything about any subject whatsoever.

Like any scientific field, evolutionary biology includes elements that are well-established and others that are highly speculative, and it’s generally clear which are which. In the case of evolution, universal common ancestry of all living species on Earth is well established, while many of the details remain speculative.

It’s possible to learn enough to make reasonable judgments about many parts of evolutionary biology, assuming one has the various resources (intellectual, educational, time, energy) required. But it’s not a trivial undertaking.

12 Likes

I have almost no training at all in biology as my degree is in EE, but the information that I have seen makes common descent a slam dunk. I have never seen an argument against it that makes sense to me. If you have one I would certainly like to hear it.

2 Likes

Have you read and understood Nick Lane’s The Vital Question, or similar work?

And that is the most speculative of the lot. It involves accepting that the evolutionary process can change and adapt a microbe into a human being, over time, of course.
Simple really! (shame irony is not visible in print)

Richard

Actually it doesn’t. You just have to accept the evidence in DNA with no reference to a “evolutionary process.”

No, it’s really not. That’s why common descent is accepted as a basic fact by virtually all biologists of whatever religious persuasion. But as I said, understanding why they accept common descent requires effort and a willingness to understand the evidence.

Learning anything about the world requires that you look at the evidence before you decide whether something is possible or not.

3 Likes

Ah, DNA. Yes. The random joining of design chips that is essential for the construction of living things. Couldn’t possibly be a sign of design. and if you add 2% to a chimp you get a human. Mathematically perfect.
I think you aught to buy a lottery ticket. Clearly probability and statistics have no bearing on reality.

Richard

I wish you would quote or reference what you are replying to. It would make it easier to comprehend. A random statement out of the blue is not always understood.

Richard

Yes, DNA. Are you willing to actually engage with evidence for common descent from DNA, or are you content with just scoffing?

Makes the assumption that commonality means descent, not design.
Does Evolution have an explanation for the appearance and “evolution” of DNA?
And how DNA actually works as a construction blueprint? We know that it does…

Richard

I have never said there wasn’t a designer. If you want to believe in ID fine, but you have to also admit that the results of that ID gives you common descent.

1 Like

Actually, no I don’t. A building block is independent. You can use it for different objects. You do not have to first build a chapel to design a cathedral.
Is a house related to a university because it was built with the same kind of bricks?

Richard

I replied to your OP. My sincere apologies if you have read and understood it or anything like it.

No, because those are outside of evolutionary theory. Abiogenesis, genetics, and molecular biology are the relevant fields, not evolution.

That is not the argument made but nice straw man.

You examine the bricks used in a house and the bricks used in a bank building. You notice the bricks in both cases contain a defect that doesn’t effect the brick’s function. What is your conclusion? The designer called for the defect or the designer used bricks from the same source? Then you examine older and older buildings and you find a time where the defect was not found but every building built after that time does. Does this tell you anything?

No, it doesn’t do that. I repeat my question: are you willing to engage with evidence from DNA or not?

2 Likes

Evidence of what? Of course I will “Listen”. But will you actually listen to any response I make? Or will you just trot out your proofs and assume that is the only conclusion possible?

Richard

But they appear to be the core of the theory!. How can you claim that DNA proves hereditary if you cannot prove the way the DNA came together and grew? The change of sequencing is the core of differentiation, yet the understanding of how this might work is beyond your scope?
Ignoring abiogenesis. You have the spark of life. And you are trying to convince me that you understand how this can grow into a human being with all its complexities and specialties. From a single cell spark of life. And this is neither speculative or in doubt?

All the problems on the Evolutionary theory stem from the conviction that there must be a way to do it. You have the result, you just need the sequence that reaches it.

Richard

Not enough. Sorry not to be conventional in my arguments.
Many parish churches have grown up from smaller buildings. You can see the development, the change of style and where the original lay. But then there is the Catholic Cathedral in Liverpool that is unique, innovative and of completely different construction. They have the same basic function but you cannot claim that the Catholic Cathedral grew out of a parish church.
There is a very long argument based on the Evolution of the motor car, and the sequence of design changes. The crux arrives with the invention of the diesel engine. Basically the argument is that the changes involved are too complex and integral to be governed by the traditional rules of Evolution. Now it would appear that the modern thought is that if you go down far enough into the structure you can make a minor change that will have radical results. Fair enough but the probability of finding that change of sequence randomly is off the charts. (especially if you do not have to understand DNA)
Evolution cannot design. It cannot build a new fully integrated system piece by piece unless each element is a stand-alone improvement worthy of Survival of the fittest. That has not changed, or at least, if it has then there is no way to argue against it. It becomes self fulfilling and immutable.

Richard

“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6

This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.