How can you believe in evolution?

[EvilDarkMagicians]

I truly don't understand how any intelligent, moral person can believe in evolution.
Evolution basically goes against every moral that the mighty lord has bestowed on us.

I become very frustrated when people say science is true, because we all know that the only objective truth is the holy bible.
Its sad to see so many people swayed by the devils lies.

Nonsense. Science is the only thing that can save us from vile superstition and baseless speculations of theologians. Science is the only way to show people the truth, regardless of religion. Unfortunately, some people are beginning to accept theories as "scientific" orthodoxy.

What aren't you a true believer of Jesus like myself?

[Tokos]

Come to think about it, Science does have faith as there are people who believe in it. So science has faith and evidence to support it's theories, whereas religion has faith with NO backing evidence. So science wins either way.

Don't be stupid. Many religions have various piles of evidence backing them up.

Not nearly enough to warrant the faith demanded and it always seems to turn out as a house of cards of sorts, but still.

[Unchecked Expansion]

Why break a trend? We've never had an "evolution denier" who did that before...

I hold on to hope that one day, someone will pick up a book. I don't mind if it changes their opinion, although it probably would if they had any brains. Just to actually debate, instead of be forced to explain A-level and below biology

[Dyakovo]

Come to think about it, Science does have faith as there are people who believe in it. So science has faith and evidence to support it's theories, whereas religion has faith with NO backing evidence. So science wins either way.

Don't be stupid. Many religions have various piles of evidence backing them up.

Examples?

[Big Jim P]

And even then I would like to ask how you can get organisms having just all the needed traits and genes and capabilities in a suitable place? And it so happens that everything managed to fall perfectly into place, and organisms mostly appeared where they were best adapted to(I don't think you'll find a lot of dead birds in a lake who happened to be in the wrong place with the wrong traits.

I believe you are now being wilfully ignorant to the process.
Mutation and selection does not suddenly throw up a complete new trait, like wings or lungs. It starts with something small, which may or may not be useful. If it helps the organism survive, it's passed on and may develop further. There are a lot of failures along the way too - things do not fall into place, competitive and hostile environments force adaptation at the cost of the weak

How do they adapt?

The members of a speices that have traits that aren't suited to the environment die out, and the ones that have traits that help them in their environment live on and breed. It can be that simple.

How do they add new genes?

Breed with other populations, like a Northern european breeding with a Chinese woman, two different people adapted to different environments.
But you can get mutations of already existing genes that can input new genetic material into the gene-pool.

Thanks. But how did the organisms mutate into just what is right for a certain environment? And I believe that the first different genes not from the first ancestor were acquired through mutations, according to evolutionary theory?

Those that didn't, didn't survive. How hard IS this?

Then show me proof of birds evolving in pools and dying. Or something like that, if you get my gist.

As has been pointed out (probably many time in this thread alone) evolution and mutation DO NOT work that way.

If it does not, natural selection is probably just an unneeded process, is it not? And that would be a disaster. We need natural selection, kick-started and guided by God, in order to maintain the balance of life.

There is no need for, (or evidence of) "god" to maintain the balance of life. Natural selection does that.

[Cabra West]

Then show me proof of birds evolving in pools and dying. Or something like that, if you get my gist.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

And even then I would like to ask how you can get organisms having just all the needed traits and genes and capabilities in a suitable place? And it so happens that everything managed to fall perfectly into place, and organisms mostly appeared where they were best adapted to(I don't think you'll find a lot of dead birds in a lake who happened to be in the wrong place with the wrong traits.

I believe you are now being wilfully ignorant to the process.
Mutation and selection does not suddenly throw up a complete new trait, like wings or lungs. It starts with something small, which may or may not be useful. If it helps the organism survive, it's passed on and may develop further. There are a lot of failures along the way too - things do not fall into place, competitive and hostile environments force adaptation at the cost of the weak

How do they adapt?

The members of a speices that have traits that aren't suited to the environment die out, and the ones that have traits that help them in their environment live on and breed. It can be that simple.

How do they add new genes?

Breed with other populations, like a Northern european breeding with a Chinese woman, two different people adapted to different environments.
But you can get mutations of already existing genes that can input new genetic material into the gene-pool.

Thanks. But how did the organisms mutate into just what is right for a certain environment? And I believe that the first different genes not from the first ancestor were acquired through mutations, according to evolutionary theory?

Those that didn't, didn't survive. How hard IS this?

Then show me proof of birds evolving in pools and dying. Or something like that, if you get my gist.

As has been pointed out (probably many time in this thread alone) evolution and mutation DO NOT work that way.

If it does not, natural selection is probably just an unneeded process, is it not? And that would be a disaster. We need natural selection, kick-started and guided by God, in order to maintain the balance of life.

There is no need for, (or evidence of) "god" to maintain the balance of life. Natural selection does that.

There is nothing to prevent nature from killing more thanb necessary prey and starving the whole food chain. You either have lots of luck or....

[Karsol]

And even then I would like to ask how you can get organisms having just all the needed traits and genes and capabilities in a suitable place? And it so happens that everything managed to fall perfectly into place, and organisms mostly appeared where they were best adapted to(I don't think you'll find a lot of dead birds in a lake who happened to be in the wrong place with the wrong traits.

I believe you are now being wilfully ignorant to the process.
Mutation and selection does not suddenly throw up a complete new trait, like wings or lungs. It starts with something small, which may or may not be useful. If it helps the organism survive, it's passed on and may develop further. There are a lot of failures along the way too - things do not fall into place, competitive and hostile environments force adaptation at the cost of the weak

How do they adapt?

The members of a speices that have traits that aren't suited to the environment die out, and the ones that have traits that help them in their environment live on and breed. It can be that simple.

How do they add new genes?

Breed with other populations, like a Northern european breeding with a Chinese woman, two different people adapted to different environments.
But you can get mutations of already existing genes that can input new genetic material into the gene-pool.

Thanks. But how did the organisms mutate into just what is right for a certain environment? And I believe that the first different genes not from the first ancestor were acquired through mutations, according to evolutionary theory?

Those that didn't, didn't survive. How hard IS this?

Then show me proof of birds evolving in pools and dying. Or something like that, if you get my gist.

As has been pointed out (probably many time in this thread alone) evolution and mutation DO NOT work that way.

If it does not, natural selection is probably just an unneeded process, is it not? And that would be a disaster. We need natural selection, kick-started and guided by God, in order to maintain the balance of life.

There is no need for, (or evidence of) "god" to maintain the balance of life. Natural selection does that.

There is nothing to prevent nature from killing more thanb necessary prey and starving the whole food chain. You either have lots of luck or....

I think most animals have more than enough commonsense than to randomly slaughter things they need not eat. :/

[Cabra West]

There is nothing to prevent nature from killing more thanb necessary prey and starving the whole food chain. You either have lots of luck or....

What the... so now there's a personified, greedy nature that needs to be kept in check by god, and therefore we need god?

There is neither.
Predators are prevented from killing more than they need by the effort it takes them to catch their prey. They'd be energy, and therefore reduce their own chances of survival.
And prey make it as tricky as possible to be caught and eaten, for obvious reasons.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

There is nothing to prevent nature from killing more thanb necessary prey and starving the whole food chain. You either have lots of luck or....

What the... so now there's a personified, greedy nature that needs to be kept in check by god, and therefore we need god?

There is neither.
Predators are prevented from killing more than they need by the effort it takes them to catch their prey. They'd be energy, and therefore reduce their own chances of survival.
And prey make it as tricky as possible to be caught and eaten, for obvious reasons.

There is nothing to prevent any species from dying more than necessary because of gene problems and all that, I mean;)

[Unchecked Expansion]

There is nothing to prevent nature from killing more thanb necessary prey and starving the whole food chain. You either have lots of luck or....

What the... so now there's a personified, greedy nature that needs to be kept in check by god, and therefore we need god?

There is neither.
Predators are prevented from killing more than they need by the effort it takes them to catch their prey. They'd be energy, and therefore reduce their own chances of survival.
And prey make it as tricky as possible to be caught and eaten, for obvious reasons.

There is nothing to prevent any species from dying more than necessary because of gene problems and all that, I mean;)

No, there isn't
That's why the species which survive and thrive are the ones without those problems

[Cabra West]

There is nothing to prevent any species from dying more than necessary because of gene problems and all that, I mean;)

Gene problems? What exactly are you referring to? Widespread damage to their gene pool? Or excessive inbreeding? Or what?

[Ifreann]

And even then I would like to ask how you can get organisms having just all the needed traits and genes and capabilities in a suitable place? And it so happens that everything managed to fall perfectly into place, and organisms mostly appeared where they were best adapted to(I don't think you'll find a lot of dead birds in a lake who happened to be in the wrong place with the wrong traits.

I believe you are now being wilfully ignorant to the process.
Mutation and selection does not suddenly throw up a complete new trait, like wings or lungs. It starts with something small, which may or may not be useful. If it helps the organism survive, it's passed on and may develop further. There are a lot of failures along the way too - things do not fall into place, competitive and hostile environments force adaptation at the cost of the weak

How do they adapt?

The members of a speices that have traits that aren't suited to the environment die out, and the ones that have traits that help them in their environment live on and breed. It can be that simple.

How do they add new genes?

Breed with other populations, like a Northern european breeding with a Chinese woman, two different people adapted to different environments.
But you can get mutations of already existing genes that can input new genetic material into the gene-pool.

Thanks. But how did the organisms mutate into just what is right for a certain environment? And I believe that the first different genes not from the first ancestor were acquired through mutations, according to evolutionary theory?

Those that didn't, didn't survive. How hard IS this?

Then show me proof of birds evolving in pools and dying. Or something like that, if you get my gist.

As has been pointed out (probably many time in this thread alone) evolution and mutation DO NOT work that way.

If it does not, natural selection is probably just an unneeded process, is it not? And that would be a disaster. We need natural selection, kick-started and guided by God, in order to maintain the balance of life.

There is no need for, (or evidence of) "god" to maintain the balance of life. Natural selection does that.

There is nothing to prevent nature from killing more thanb necessary prey and starving the whole food chain. You either have lots of luck or....

I think most animals have more than enough commonsense than to randomly slaughter things they need not eat. :/

That's stupid. Obviously the Christian God appears personally to every predator and tells them when to stop eating. This doesn't happen with humans, because we just don't have enough faith.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

There is nothing to prevent nature from killing more thanb necessary prey and starving the whole food chain. You either have lots of luck or....

What the... so now there's a personified, greedy nature that needs to be kept in check by god, and therefore we need god?

There is neither.
Predators are prevented from killing more than they need by the effort it takes them to catch their prey. They'd be energy, and therefore reduce their own chances of survival.
And prey make it as tricky as possible to be caught and eaten, for obvious reasons.

There is nothing to prevent any species from dying more than necessary because of gene problems and all that, I mean;)

No, there isn't
That's why the species which survive and thrive are the ones without those problems

You don't realise there needs to be a balance in the food chain, and that natural selection without any guidance is a very good way to upset that balance by making far too many prey or predators die because they don't have the necessary traits, do you? But, amazingly, in spite of that, the balance had been maintained for a long time till man started playing God.

[Ifreann]

You don't realise there needs to be a balance in the food chain, and that natural selection without any guidance is a very good way to upset that balance...

No it isn't, and I dare you show that it is.

[Unchecked Expansion]

There is nothing to prevent nature from killing more thanb necessary prey and starving the whole food chain. You either have lots of luck or....

What the... so now there's a personified, greedy nature that needs to be kept in check by god, and therefore we need god?

There is neither.
Predators are prevented from killing more than they need by the effort it takes them to catch their prey. They'd be energy, and therefore reduce their own chances of survival.
And prey make it as tricky as possible to be caught and eaten, for obvious reasons.

There is nothing to prevent any species from dying more than necessary because of gene problems and all that, I mean;)

No, there isn't
That's why the species which survive and thrive are the ones without those problems

You don't realise there needs to be a balance in the food chain, and that natural selection without any guidance is a very good way to upset that balance by making far too many prey or predators die because they don't have the necessary traits, do you? But, amazingly, in spite of that, the balance had been maintained for a long time till man started playing God.

No there doesn't. Things change and a new equilibrium is reached. In the meantime, species go extinct or adapt.
I'm going to go try and find a list of animal species that went extinct without human events.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

You don't realise there needs to be a balance in the food chain, and that natural selection without any guidance is a very good way to upset that balance...

No it isn't.

Proof? Or at least some reasoning>

[Unchecked Expansion]

You don't realise there needs to be a balance in the food chain, and that natural selection without any guidance is a very good way to upset that balance...

No it isn't.

Proof? Or at least some reasoning>

You're the one claiming there's a pattern and a balance to nature. You prove it

[Dododecapod]

There is nothing to prevent nature from killing more thanb necessary prey and starving the whole food chain. You either have lots of luck or....

What the... so now there's a personified, greedy nature that needs to be kept in check by god, and therefore we need god?

There is neither.
Predators are prevented from killing more than they need by the effort it takes them to catch their prey. They'd be energy, and therefore reduce their own chances of survival.
And prey make it as tricky as possible to be caught and eaten, for obvious reasons.

There is nothing to prevent any species from dying more than necessary because of gene problems and all that, I mean;)

No, there isn't
That's why the species which survive and thrive are the ones without those problems

You don't realise there needs to be a balance in the food chain, and that natural selection without any guidance is a very good way to upset that balance by making far too many prey or predators die because they don't have the necessary traits, do you? But, amazingly, in spite of that, the balance had been maintained for a long time till man started playing God.

No, there is no such balance. Millions of species have gone extinct, most long before humans were on the scene; some were over-predated, some out-competed for the same resources, others just lost out through some failing, or because of climatological or other disasters. The perceived "balance" only occurs because we live too short lives to see the trends of success or failure.

[Ifreann]

You don't realise there needs to be a balance in the food chain, and that natural selection without any guidance is a very good way to upset that balance...

No it isn't.

Proof? Or at least some reasoning>

As per my edit, you prove that it is. After all, you made the claim.

[Cabra West]

You don't realise there needs to be a balance in the food chain, and that natural selection without any guidance is a very good way to upset that balance by making far too many prey or predators die because they don't have the necessary traits, do you? But, amazingly, in spite of that, the balance had been maintained for a long time till man started playing God.

You DO realise that populations numbers swing wildly, reacting to the changes in weather, climate, soil, and other environmental factors, right?
There IS no such thing as a stable, balanced population over any given period of time.
If there is more prey, there will be more predators, because more of their offspring survive. If the numbers of prey go down, so do the predators, as they and their offspring are weaker or starve outright.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

There is nothing to prevent nature from killing more thanb necessary prey and starving the whole food chain. You either have lots of luck or....

What the... so now there's a personified, greedy nature that needs to be kept in check by god, and therefore we need god?

There is neither.
Predators are prevented from killing more than they need by the effort it takes them to catch their prey. They'd be energy, and therefore reduce their own chances of survival.
And prey make it as tricky as possible to be caught and eaten, for obvious reasons.

There is nothing to prevent any species from dying more than necessary because of gene problems and all that, I mean;)

No, there isn't
That's why the species which survive and thrive are the ones without those problems

You don't realise there needs to be a balance in the food chain, and that natural selection without any guidance is a very good way to upset that balance by making far too many prey or predators die because they don't have the necessary traits, do you? But, amazingly, in spite of that, the balance had been maintained for a long time till man started playing God.

No there doesn't. Things change and a new equilibrium is reached. In the meantime, species go extinct or adapt.
I'm going to go try and find a list of animal species that went extinct without human events.

Whether they go extinct or not has nothing to do with the balance. It's how much of what goes extinct.

[Cabra West]

Proof? Or at least some reasoning>

You were the one making the claim, so it's up to you to provide proof of your statement first.

[Dododecapod]

There is nothing to prevent nature from killing more thanb necessary prey and starving the whole food chain. You either have lots of luck or....

What the... so now there's a personified, greedy nature that needs to be kept in check by god, and therefore we need god?

There is neither.
Predators are prevented from killing more than they need by the effort it takes them to catch their prey. They'd be energy, and therefore reduce their own chances of survival.
And prey make it as tricky as possible to be caught and eaten, for obvious reasons.

There is nothing to prevent any species from dying more than necessary because of gene problems and all that, I mean;)

No, there isn't
That's why the species which survive and thrive are the ones without those problems

You don't realise there needs to be a balance in the food chain, and that natural selection without any guidance is a very good way to upset that balance by making far too many prey or predators die because they don't have the necessary traits, do you? But, amazingly, in spite of that, the balance had been maintained for a long time till man started playing God.

No there doesn't. Things change and a new equilibrium is reached. In the meantime, species go extinct or adapt.
I'm going to go try and find a list of animal species that went extinct without human events.

Whether they go extinct or not has nothing to do with the balance. It's how much of what goes extinct.

That...doesn't make sense.

[Cabra West]

Whether they go extinct or not has nothing to do with the balance. It's how much of what goes extinct.

Such as those? :

1. Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event (K-T extinction) - 65 Ma ago at the Cretaceous-Paleogene transition. About 17% of all families, 50% of all genera[4] and 75% of species went extinct.[citation needed] It ended the reign of dinosaurs and opened the way for mammals and birds to become the dominant land vertebrates. In the seas it reduced the percentage of sessile animals to about 33%. The K-T extinction was rather uneven — some groups of organisms became extinct, some suffered heavy losses and some appear to have been only minimally affected.
2. Triassic–Jurassic extinction event - 205 Ma at the Triassic-Jurassic transition. About 23% of all families and 48% of all genera (20% of marine families and 55% of marine genera) went extinct.[4] Most non-dinosaurian archosaurs, most therapsids, and most of the large amphibians were eliminated, leaving dinosaurs with little terrestrial competition. Non-dinosaurian archosaurs continued to dominate aquatic environments, while non-archosaurian diapsids continued to dominate marine environments. The Temnospondyl lineage of large amphibians also survived until the Cretaceous in Australia (e.g., Koolasuchus).
3. Permian–Triassic extinction event - 251 Ma at the Permian-Triassic transition. Earth's largest extinction killed 57% of all families and 83% of all genera[4] (53% of marine families, 84% of marine genera, about 96% of all marine species and an estimated 70% of land species) including vertebrates, insects and plants.[citation needed] The "Great Dying" had enormous evolutionary significance: on land, it ended the primacy of mammal-like reptiles. The recovery of vertebrates took 30 million years,[5] but the vacant niches created the opportunity for archosaurs to become ascendant. In the seas, the percentage of animals that were sessile dropped from 67% to 50%. The whole late Permian was a difficult time for at least marine life, even before the "Great Dying".
4. Late Devonian extinction 360-375 Ma near the Devonian-Carboniferous transition. At the end of the Frasnian Age in the later part(s) of the Devonian Period, a prolonged series of extinctions eliminated about 19% of all families, 50% of all genera[4] and 70% of all species.[citation needed] This extinction event lasted perhaps as long as 20 MY, and there is evidence for a series of extinction pulses within this period.
5. Ordovician–Silurian extinction event 440-450 Ma at the Ordovician-Silurian transition. Two events occurred that killed off 27% of all families and 57% of all genera.[4] Together they are ranked by many scientists as the second largest of the five major extinctions in Earth's history in terms of percentage of genera that went extinct.

Source