How and why I left christianity (evangelicalism to be exact...)

[BikerDude]

I hate to be a pain here but...
I always have to point out that nothing in the theory of evolution suggest that anything in the large sense is a random accident. It does suggest that random mutations are the engine of change. But those are acted upon by environment and the outcome is NOT an accident. Life changes over the course of many many millions of generations to accomidate traits that offer an advantage. Not because someone or some thing saw the advantage and designed anything. Good and bad mutations happen without any preference. But the "good" mutations offer some advantage that results in more success and so those are more often passed on. More of those individuals with the trait breed and live longer so breed more often and the same is true of their offspring. So over time the species changes in ways that benefit it. This over a long long long time and millions of generations even results in whole new species branching from common ancestors. And certain traits that are very specific and have the look of being designed. But the process that produced the trait is very very gradual and is shaped by the environment.
As a whole the "theory" does not suggest anything random except in the individual tiny random mutations. But there is no suggestion that an entire species or even any aspect of a species is as a whole "random".

As far as DNA goes I find it to be a affirmation of the process. And remember DNA is 4 proteins that happend to bond in a specific way that allows near infinite combinations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k9Bwt_aHq4&feature=related

[Hominid]

I hate to be a pain here but...
I always have to point out that nothing in the theory of evolution suggest that anything in the large sense is a random accident. I does suggest that random mutations are the engine of change. But those are acted upon by environment and the outcome is NOT an accident. Life changes over the course of many many millions of generations to accomidate traits that offer an advantage. Not because someone or some thing saw the advantage and designed anything. Good and bad mutations happen without any preference. But the "good" mutations offer some advantage that results in more success and hence those are more often passed on. So over time the species changes in ways that benefit it. This over a long long long time and millions of generations even results in whole new species branching from common ancestors. And certain traits that are very specific and have the look of being designed.
As a whole the "theory" does not suggest anything random except in the individual tiny random mutations. But there is no suggestion that an entire species or even any aspect of a species is as a whole "random".

As far as DNA goes I find it to be a affirmation of the process. And remember DNA is 4 proteins that happend to bond in a specific way that allows near infinite combinations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oF1UzhPA5N8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k9Bwt_aHq4&feature=related

You're not a pain; I find this subject very interesting. Nothing wrong with differing opinions.  To re-state - again - I am not a theist, I don't believe in scientific creationism, and I think Darwin had it right for the most part.

My studies of biology and anthropology have (to me) disproven the concept that good and bad mutations happen at the same time, and that evolution is just a bunch of these mutations, with the good ones winning out due to the environmental restrictions.  There is modern proof that environmental pressures result in direct and positive adaptive mutations that are beneficial to survival; no randomness AT ALL. A couple of examples:

1) Darwin's famous finches: a species of bird in the Galapogos mutated their beaks in one generation to adapt to the hardness of the food they ate.
2) Races of people who live in cold climates, such as the Iniut,  have over generations evolved to have a more efficient ratio of body fat to skin surface area to maximize insulation.
3) In 1971, ten Italian wall lizards were introduced to an island from another neighboring island. The lizards were left for decades, and compared to the colony from which they were taken. Their heads and jaws became bigger to eat the kind of available local vegetation... the trait was passed on from generation to generation.

In these three examples, there are no random mutations. Local environmental pressures result in genetic mutations that directly favour the species' survival in only one generation (in most cases)... it's not a matter of the best random mutation winning out over millennia. The adaptations are a direct result of the environment.  No "hopeful monsters" to use the parlance of our times...  ;-)

H

[BikerDude]

I hate to be a pain here but...
I always have to point out that nothing in the theory of evolution suggest that anything in the large sense is a random accident. I does suggest that random mutations are the engine of change. But those are acted upon by environment and the outcome is NOT an accident. Life changes over the course of many many millions of generations to accomidate traits that offer an advantage. Not because someone or some thing saw the advantage and designed anything. Good and bad mutations happen without any preference. But the "good" mutations offer some advantage that results in more success and hence those are more often passed on. So over time the species changes in ways that benefit it. This over a long long long time and millions of generations even results in whole new species branching from common ancestors. And certain traits that are very specific and have the look of being designed.
As a whole the "theory" does not suggest anything random except in the individual tiny random mutations. But there is no suggestion that an entire species or even any aspect of a species is as a whole "random".

As far as DNA goes I find it to be a affirmation of the process. And remember DNA is 4 proteins that happend to bond in a specific way that allows near infinite combinations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oF1UzhPA5N8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k9Bwt_aHq4&feature=related

You're not a pain; I find this subject very interesting. Nothing wrong with differing opinions.  To re-state - again - I am not a theist, I don't believe in scientific creationism, and I think Darwin had it right for the most part.

My studies of biology and anthropology have (to me) disproven the concept that good and bad mutations happen at the same time, and that evolution is just a bunch of these mutations, with the good ones winning out due to the environmental restrictions.  There is modern proof that environmental pressures result in direct and positive adaptive mutations that are beneficial to survival; no randomness AT ALL. A couple of examples:

1) Darwin's famous finches: a species of bird in the Galapogos mutated their beaks in one generation to adapt to the hardness of the food they ate.
2) Races of people who live in cold climates, such as the Iniut,  have over generations evolved to have a more efficient ratio of body fat to skin surface area to maximize insulation.
3) In 1971, ten Italian wall lizards were introduced to an island from another neighboring island. The lizards were left for decades, and compared to the colony from which they were taken. Their heads and jaws became bigger to eat the kind of available local vegetation... the trait was passed on from generation to generation.

In these three examples, there are no random mutations. Local environmental pressures result in genetic mutations that directly favour the species' survival in only one generation (in most cases)... it's not a matter of the best random mutation winning out over millennia. The adaptations are a direct result of the environment.  No "hopeful monsters" to use the parlance of our times...  ;-)

H

I'm not sure about the "single generation" of Darwin's finches. But in the other cases I believe that there are non benificial mutations. I'm sure that Inuit people have variation in body fat percentages and have over the generations. Those with higher body fat have persisted and those with lower body fat have disappeared.
Lizards with small mouths didn't fair as well as those with larger mouths.
The "bad" mutations disappear because they don't get passed on as efficiently to subsequent generations. They are selected out and watered down by virtue of an increasingly larger and larger percentage of potential mates having the positive trait.
I don't see the environmental pressure having any effect on what mutations happen. I do see them as having an effect on which ones have more success and being passed on to subsequent generations.
With animals it happens even faster because often times the dominant males breed almost all of the females.

[milnie]

I think the next obvious changes for humans won't be until we leave this planet. Look what happened in Wall-e, 300 years in space and we turned into cartoon characters!

[Hominid]

I think the next obvious changes for humans won't be until we leave this planet. Look what happened in Wall-e, 300 years in space and we turned into cartoon characters!

Ya, real fat ones!

[Hominid]

I hate to be a pain here but...
I always have to point out that nothing in the theory of evolution suggest that anything in the large sense is a random accident. I does suggest that random mutations are the engine of change. But those are acted upon by environment and the outcome is NOT an accident. Life changes over the course of many many millions of generations to accomidate traits that offer an advantage. Not because someone or some thing saw the advantage and designed anything. Good and bad mutations happen without any preference. But the "good" mutations offer some advantage that results in more success and hence those are more often passed on. So over time the species changes in ways that benefit it. This over a long long long time and millions of generations even results in whole new species branching from common ancestors. And certain traits that are very specific and have the look of being designed.
As a whole the "theory" does not suggest anything random except in the individual tiny random mutations. But there is no suggestion that an entire species or even any aspect of a species is as a whole "random".

As far as DNA goes I find it to be a affirmation of the process. And remember DNA is 4 proteins that happend to bond in a specific way that allows near infinite combinations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oF1UzhPA5N8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k9Bwt_aHq4&feature=related

You're not a pain; I find this subject very interesting. Nothing wrong with differing opinions.  To re-state - again - I am not a theist, I don't believe in scientific creationism, and I think Darwin had it right for the most part.

My studies of biology and anthropology have (to me) disproven the concept that good and bad mutations happen at the same time, and that evolution is just a bunch of these mutations, with the good ones winning out due to the environmental restrictions.  There is modern proof that environmental pressures result in direct and positive adaptive mutations that are beneficial to survival; no randomness AT ALL. A couple of examples:

1) Darwin's famous finches: a species of bird in the Galapogos mutated their beaks in one generation to adapt to the hardness of the food they ate.
2) Races of people who live in cold climates, such as the Iniut,  have over generations evolved to have a more efficient ratio of body fat to skin surface area to maximize insulation.
3) In 1971, ten Italian wall lizards were introduced to an island from another neighboring island. The lizards were left for decades, and compared to the colony from which they were taken. Their heads and jaws became bigger to eat the kind of available local vegetation... the trait was passed on from generation to generation.

In these three examples, there are no random mutations. Local environmental pressures result in genetic mutations that directly favour the species' survival in only one generation (in most cases)... it's not a matter of the best random mutation winning out over millennia. The adaptations are a direct result of the environment.  No "hopeful monsters" to use the parlance of our times...  ;-)

H

I'm not sure about the "single generation" of Darwin's finches. But in the other cases I believe that there are non benificial mutations. I'm sure that Inuit people have variation in body fat percentages and have over the generations. Those with higher body fat have persisted and those with lower body fat have disappeared.
Lizards with small mouths didn't fair as well as those with larger mouths.
The "bad" mutations disappear because they don't get passed on as efficiently to subsequent generations. They are selected out and watered down by virtue of an increasingly larger and larger percentage of potential mates having the positive trait.
I don't see the environmental pressure having any effect on what mutations happen. I do see them as having an effect on which ones have more success and being passed on to subsequent generations.
With animals it happens even faster because often times the dominant males breed almost all of the females.

We're starting to split hairs here a bit, but I'll still defer to the clear evidence that immediate adaptive mutation rules out  selective breeding in may cases, which you suggest is the explanation for micro evolution (as well as the "harem effect"). That does indeed happen, but it comes short of explaining those cases where offspring are nothing BUT adapted.

It often comes down to interpretation of evidence, which is influenced by our world view. One man looks at an eyeball and goes "Just random adaptive evolution". Another looks at mammals and says "wonderfully amazing engineering", where the organism is so smart, that all the separate organs work in concert with each other in homeostatic balance, with each organ's structure determining its function. To me, the fact that biological organisms have been becoming more and more complex over millions of years says there's a creativity behind it. *WHAT* that creativity is, I haven't a clue. But the rules of  Newtonian physics (specifically the law of entropy) state that matter should only ever break down, not evolve into a more and more complex state.

There's somethin' about that thar DNA....

[milnie]

Not sure if you dudes can access uk channel 4 but Michael Johnson (the super athlete) just fronted a documentary on how the slave trade and it's selective practises may have lead to black athletes domination of many sports. Granted this considers a direct manipulation of the gene pool but does illustrate a form of natural selection through survival of the fittest.

[Hominid]

Not sure if you dudes can access uk channel 4 but Michael Johnson (the super athlete) just fronted a documentary on how the slave trade and it's selective practises may have lead to black athletes domination of many sports. Granted this considers a direct manipulation of the gene pool but does illustrate a form of natural selection through survival of the fittest.

Ya, there's lots of examples such as this.  My fear is that our gene pool is becoming so watered down with weak traits thanks to modern medicine, that we're racing against time waiting for the next "black plague" to hit our species. These days, survival of the fittest in the western world either means you own lots of guns, or are born privileged and have lots of money.  Funny how it works...

[BikerDude]

I hate to be a pain here but...
I always have to point out that nothing in the theory of evolution suggest that anything in the large sense is a random accident. I does suggest that random mutations are the engine of change. But those are acted upon by environment and the outcome is NOT an accident. Life changes over the course of many many millions of generations to accomidate traits that offer an advantage. Not because someone or some thing saw the advantage and designed anything. Good and bad mutations happen without any preference. But the "good" mutations offer some advantage that results in more success and hence those are more often passed on. So over time the species changes in ways that benefit it. This over a long long long time and millions of generations even results in whole new species branching from common ancestors. And certain traits that are very specific and have the look of being designed.
As a whole the "theory" does not suggest anything random except in the individual tiny random mutations. But there is no suggestion that an entire species or even any aspect of a species is as a whole "random".

As far as DNA goes I find it to be a affirmation of the process. And remember DNA is 4 proteins that happend to bond in a specific way that allows near infinite combinations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oF1UzhPA5N8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k9Bwt_aHq4&feature=related

You're not a pain; I find this subject very interesting. Nothing wrong with differing opinions.  To re-state - again - I am not a theist, I don't believe in scientific creationism, and I think Darwin had it right for the most part.

My studies of biology and anthropology have (to me) disproven the concept that good and bad mutations happen at the same time, and that evolution is just a bunch of these mutations, with the good ones winning out due to the environmental restrictions.  There is modern proof that environmental pressures result in direct and positive adaptive mutations that are beneficial to survival; no randomness AT ALL. A couple of examples:

1) Darwin's famous finches: a species of bird in the Galapogos mutated their beaks in one generation to adapt to the hardness of the food they ate.
2) Races of people who live in cold climates, such as the Iniut,  have over generations evolved to have a more efficient ratio of body fat to skin surface area to maximize insulation.
3) In 1971, ten Italian wall lizards were introduced to an island from another neighboring island. The lizards were left for decades, and compared to the colony from which they were taken. Their heads and jaws became bigger to eat the kind of available local vegetation... the trait was passed on from generation to generation.

In these three examples, there are no random mutations. Local environmental pressures result in genetic mutations that directly favour the species' survival in only one generation (in most cases)... it's not a matter of the best random mutation winning out over millennia. The adaptations are a direct result of the environment.  No "hopeful monsters" to use the parlance of our times...  ;-)

H

I'm not sure about the "single generation" of Darwin's finches. But in the other cases I believe that there are non benificial mutations. I'm sure that Inuit people have variation in body fat percentages and have over the generations. Those with higher body fat have persisted and those with lower body fat have disappeared.
Lizards with small mouths didn't fair as well as those with larger mouths.
The "bad" mutations disappear because they don't get passed on as efficiently to subsequent generations. They are selected out and watered down by virtue of an increasingly larger and larger percentage of potential mates having the positive trait.
I don't see the environmental pressure having any effect on what mutations happen. I do see them as having an effect on which ones have more success and being passed on to subsequent generations.
With animals it happens even faster because often times the dominant males breed almost all of the females.

We're starting to split hairs here a bit, but I'll still defer to the clear evidence that immediate adaptive mutation rules out  selective breeding in may cases, which you suggest is the explanation for micro evolution (as well as the "harem effect"). That does indeed happen, but it comes short of explaining those cases where offspring are nothing BUT adapted.

It often comes down to interpretation of evidence, which is influenced by our world view. One man looks at an eyeball and goes "Just random adaptive evolution". Another looks at mammals and says "wonderfully amazing engineering", where the organism is so smart, that all the separate organs work in concert with each other in homeostatic balance, with each organ's structure determining its function. To me, the fact that biological organisms have been becoming more and more complex over millions of years says there's a creativity behind it. *WHAT* that creativity is, I haven't a clue. But the rules of  Newtonian physics (specifically the law of entropy) state that matter should only ever break down, not evolve into a more and more complex state.

There's somethin' about that thar DNA....

I would say that complexity is not the issue.
Complexity alone has no advantage. It is complexity that yeilds positive results.
An eye from light sensitive cells. The fact that the eye is more complex is less important than the fact that it is more useful. Therefore it gets passed on and further improved.
I just never can make the leap to inuiting anything resembling some un named and ill deifined "intelligence". Expecially when the process is so evident. I don't find the need to infer an intelligence or creator even for things that are not provable through evidence.
I still believe that they are explainable without making that leap.
Once upon a time people found it absolutely evident though similar inferance that thunder and lightning where the work of a God that they called Thor.
I mean what else could it be?
This type of inference just never flushes for me.

[Hominid]

I'm not inferring intelligence because I need to. You make a good point that complexity in itself has no advantage, however the point is that the increase in complexity is to serve the biosystem's adaptation to external pressures. THAT runs counter to the rule of entropy. "Usefulness" of any adaptation is of value ONLY BECAUSE of these biological imperatives of survival that are built into all life forms. It's a machine, with non-stop survival as its only goal. Nothing else that we know of has that, lightning or no lightning.  ;-)

[BikerDude]

I'm not inferring intelligence because I need to. You make a good point that complexity in itself has no advantage, however the point is that the increase in complexity is to serve the biosystem's adaptation to external pressures. THAT runs counter to the rule of entropy. "Usefulness" of any adaptation is of value ONLY BECAUSE of these biological imperatives of survival that are built into all life forms. It's a machine, with non-stop survival as its only goal. Nothing else that we know of has that, lightning or no lightning.  ;-)

And still no matter how you cut it the entire leap is science of the gaps. It's an intuitive leap. I still contend that there is no EVIDENCE of intelligence. I see ample evidence of a system that produces ever increasing complexity as long as it continues.
I still don't see that the increase in complexity is to "serve" anything. It is an outcome.
Usefullness is not because of any imperative of survival. The life form does not will it's self to change. Nor does anything else that can be demonstrated. It either has what is required or it dies. 50 people stranded on an island don't have children with wings to fly home.

In the large my problem is with seperating biology and life forms from the system that made them what they are.
They are one and the same. We are not an onlooker. We are part of the natural order.
Human intelligence is not that unique or special. When viewed in the grand scheme of things is a gnat fart in the wind. It also is an outcome.
To view otherwise is like a dog barking at it's own reflection in a window.
We see a complex and natural order to all things and say "that is intelligence".
In reality there is no "that". Our intelligence is a continuation of the very same order.

[Hominid]

I'm not inferring intelligence because I need to. You make a good point that complexity in itself has no advantage, however the point is that the increase in complexity is to serve the biosystem's adaptation to external pressures. THAT runs counter to the rule of entropy. "Usefulness" of any adaptation is of value ONLY BECAUSE of these biological imperatives of survival that are built into all life forms. It's a machine, with non-stop survival as its only goal. Nothing else that we know of has that, lightning or no lightning.  ;-)

And still no matter how you cut it the entire leap is science of the gaps. It's an intuitive leap. I still contend that there is no EVIDENCE of intelligence. I see ample evidence of a system that produces ever increasing complexity as long as it continues.
I still don't see that the increase in complexity is to "serve" anything. It is an outcome.
Usefullness is not because of any imperative of survival. The life form does not will it's self to change. Nor does anything else that can be demonstrated. It either has what is required or it dies. 50 people stranded on an island don't have children with wings to fly home.

In the large my problem is with seperating biology and life forms from the system that made them what they are.
They are one and the same. We are not an onlooker. We are part of the natural order.
Human intelligence is not that unique or special. When viewed in the grand scheme of things is a gnat fart in the wind. It also is an outcome.
To view otherwise is like a dog barking at it's own reflection in a window.
We see a complex and natural order to all things and say "that is intelligence".
In reality there is no "that". Our intelligence is a continuation of the very same order.

Biological life forms do indeed have an imperative - to survive! And reproduce. And thrive. To me, that is obvious. 50 people may not grow wings in one generation, but Darwin's finches evolved different beaks in one generation to adapt to the hardness of the food they were eating.

So as usual, the longer it's discussed, the more philosophical it becomes... and because of that (in my opinion) we're expressing our own interpretation of what we observe (our world view so to speak).  On the other hand, when 2 people's opinions differ when looking at the same evidence, it does make for interesting analysis. I know I'm muddling up the conversation, but there is something called the philosophy of science and cognition, where volumes have been written on the subject. (Google Daniel Dennett.)

Sometimes though, when different conclusions come from different observers looking at the same evidence, there is missing evidence, and possibly some interplay of prejudices. A false dichotomy is created because of that.   Hey, maybe we're both wrong.

[The Guro]

Maybe

At any rate... Great posts and thanks for sharing your story.

Your experience is unfortunately more of the rule than the exception with "Christianity". Too many take things on "Faith" and when confronted with apparent contradiction pull out the "God is mysterious" card or worse yet create backwards science in the face of what appears to challenge their belief system (6-8000 year old earth anyone?).

I am also not a big fan of relative truth philosophies (that's a big one in Scientology). But we can respect others without attacking them or respecting their belief system in how we choose to interact with them. Understanding why someone does or does not believe something (even truth) is key in respecting their opinions... which is pretty hard to do when you find out that the core of their belief is based on nothing other than what they were brought up to believe or some other whimsy. At least when someone can say why they believe what they believe (and logically establish it based on what they have to work with... new shit can and will comes to light) you can respect their convictions. AND most importantly that they will have strong convictions if new shit does come to light that changes their minds.

And as you observed with the 1000's of variations of Christianity alone (the majority of them uptight)... the real problem comes when someone can't just say... "I don't know". The pieces you had to work with didn't fit and you moved on... and that's cool. No one ever really believes something they are told they have to or when they are merely told they are wrong (they just blow with every wind with no real conviction till the next thing comes by). Everyone needs to come to what they believe to be "Truth" base on their own knowledge, experience, and understanding... "Faith" without knowledge will never abide. Hosea 4:6  "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge..."

Abiding in Christ,

Christian Dude

2 Timothy 2:15  Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

[Shagbeard]

Maybe, sometime I'll point out how the bible does not support 6 days as we know them. There are parts that point to the earth is pretty darn old. Not now though, as to many people hate me in here. Keep abiding and take it easy.

[BikerDude]

I'd be happy if Christians would concede that any form of Christianity at least believes all of the things that Christ is credited with having taught.
The insistence on the part of Christians that any baseline set of beliefs to define themselves is difficult is simply another tactic that makes any discussion an exercise in