In response to this post I've set up this thread to answer questions on evolution from an atheist-layman perspective. I am not an evolutionary biologist, and the purpose of this thread is to give MY reasons for accepting evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life, rather than to present an in-depth expert opinion.

Where appropriate I will provide sources and further readings, but primarily I'll be answering 'in my own voice'. That said, for those who want to skip the layman's views and go right to the experts, I highly recommend TalkOrigins.org.

Did Jesus ride a Dinosaur?

How do you know that evolution is not "guided"?

Your avatar is offensive, change it now.

Splendid! Please explain your views on the problem of species.

It an incredibly sad state of affairs when this isn't a troll question in some parts of the U.S. Let's saddle up our triceratops and go for a ride into the sunset.

what a crappy place. Thing isn't even coin operated?

Did anyone listen to the recent AronRa/Comfort debate? I think it sums up the creationist position in a nutshell, which is willful, deliberate ignorance of what Evolution is.

I should probably watch a bunch of those videos from the other thread before I start asking questions here... alas I prefer to read forum replies from yall over the video route, as I do most of my perusal at work, and videos are a bit too conspicuous.

(I'm about 15 years behind on the evolution/natural design debate.)

I recall that scientists were not successful in causing a protein to form from a primordial soup, even in a superficially ideal situation. Has there been in any progress in the past couple decades? If not, is the common explanation that the combo of (extremely long time + extremely many planets) trumps the (superficially ideal situation + short time + not many places)?

Not proteins themselves but....

In 1952, in the Miller-Urey experiment, a mixture of water, hydrogen, methane, and ammonia was cycled through an apparatus that delivered electrical sparks to the mixture. After one week, it was found that about 10% to 15% of the carbon in the system was now in the form of a racemic mixture of organic compounds, including amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins.
The underlying hypothesis held by Oparin and Haldane was that conditions on the primeval Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors. A recent reanalysis of the saved vials containing the original extracts that resulted from the Miller and Urey experiments, using current and more advanced analytical equipment and technology, has uncovered more biochemicals than originally discovered in the 1950s. One of the more important findings was 23 amino acids, far more than the five originally discovered.[15]( http://www.pnas.org/content/early/20...019191108.long )

Just to make sure this is clear to everyone, abiogenesis and evolution are different things, and one being true does not require the other to be so as well.

Agreed. I'm sure this thread will evolve (har har) to contain material ranging from microevolution to the origination of matter. I see it more of a thread to introduce sheltered Christians to outside theories.

Evolution is guided by natural selection and other selective mechanisms, but I don't think that's what you're getting at.

How does an evolutionist know that God isn't behind it all? It comes down to Occams Razor really - there's a perfectly good explanation for the diversity of life (that goes against all descriptions found in the Bible). Why assume something is there if there's no evidence for it's existence, and we have a perfectly descriptive model without it?

Why is the fossil record bereft of transitional forms? New species leap into the record fully formed.

So what you are saying is that you cannot give me any evidence or rational other than random guessing about whether god is or is not involved in this process?

This isn't true, that's why. Plus, fossils are hard to make, so you shouldn't expect to see a fossil per generation to show you every detailed change that is made. The fact that we're getting any fossils that fit with evolution is amazing enough.

As Ganstaman mentioned, this question is about abiogenesis, not evolution but I'll give a brief answer. My understanding is that, so far, 13 of the 20 essential amino acids for building proteins have been formed experimentally.

One reason for the failure might be to do with more time being needed, though another is that the hypothesis for the amino acid requirements might be incorrect, at least for the very earliest lifeforms. Tbh, I don't find abiogenesis very interesting, but I understand why it is importance for the religious.

Sounds like a whole lot of 'hand-wavy speculation'...AMIRITE??

Great question! On an evolutionary view, taxonomy is really just a convention that makes it easier to talk about lifeforms. If one were to look at any creature, from any period of history, it would be the same 'species' as it's parents and children but, over geological time, that creatures great, great, great.... grandchildren would be considered a different species. It's useful to treat creatures as fixed morphological entities, but if we could see the entire tree of life we would see that is an illusion. Though I said I'd try and avoid excessive quoting, this is one of my favourite passages from Dawkins and - typical of his best writing - is both enlightening and humorous:

Well, yes of course, but he wasn't getting any nibbles from the evo skeptics.

But the relative dearth of "transitional" forms is a real challenge, though there are good reasons they are few and far between.

Which, in your opinion, is a greater threat to creationism? Abiogenesis or evolution? To me, abiogenesis seems a greater threat... since it would basically turn Genesis into: Day 1 god created rocks... Can't see how that one will fit in there by any stretch of the imagination.

I don't see that abiogenesis poses a threat to creationism. The theist can always reshape (almost said retreat) their conception of creationism to fit what the evidence calls for. In this case, being able to recreate abiogenesis wouldn't eliminate the assertion that it was God who guided the process, or who came up with the substance and rules that process required to occur.

It makes sense that attempts to create life from scratch have been fraught with difficulties. We should be quite shocked if it was not. If it was easy, it would be difficult to explain why we don't encounter it more often.

Anyway, I think it best to drop the abiogenesis discussion as it clouds the issue. Unless we're discussing why it clouds the issue. Abiogenesis and evolution are not at all the same thing. Pointing out our ignorance on abiogenesis says nothing about the fact and theory of evolution.

I don't, because the Creationist can always move the goal posts. An infinite recourse of 'why'.

I will be following this thread but I might not say much as I don't want to unveil my ignorance.

I plan to check out the links to evolution talks and then maybe I will have more questions later.

thanks evolutionists.

No. Jesus was born around 4BC. That's approximately 65 million years after the last dinosaur died.