Can Randomness and Chance cause the Evolution of life?

[Guy Threepwood]

Creationism has contributed nothing to scientific advancement.

The bit about people living in victorian times applies better to creationists, tho
they actually are more like 17th century or earlier

Neither said nor implies that wealth makes for intelligence. Deliberate misreading?

As for 'share my beliefs 100%"? Not a chance.

Sorry to hear you are such a backslider as to even imagine such a thing, tho.

I've never lived in a mobile home, but I know many good, intelligent, hard working people who have at one time or another, they are largely a product of government regulation, which charges extra taxes on houses that are actually secured against dangerous weather. If you think this is bad policy then we have much to agree on.

But I would never disparage someone for their accommodation, (there but for the grace of God go I)
.. unless it's socialist leaders living in palaces at tax payer's expense

Eugenics was a direct spin off from Darwinism, is there anything on the positive side, that you feel makes up for this horror?

I was born and raised a staunch atheist, I was every bit as dismissive towards skeptics of Darwinism as anyone here for many decades.-
okay I'm sure we could have found something to disagree on, but pretty much all your comments re. evolution and God could have been mine a decade or so ago

Actually much of my family still assumes I am an atheist, much safer to discuss such things here!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

That wasn't my argument and in dont really care. Because of those numbers America is failing, a great shame for a once great nation.

yet it became that great nation and world leader in science, with even lower levels of belief in Darwinism.. but it's failing now?.. with higher numbers?.. which side of this argument are you on here?

 

[ChristineM]

yet it became that great nation and world leader in science, with even lower levels of belief in Darwinism.. but it's failing now?.. with higher numbers?.. which side of this argument are you on here?

It became a great nation without the political meddling of religion and funding for science and technology was good. You just had to beat those reds. It reached its peak in the cold war, because of the cold war. When religion got its claws into america, it started to slide. And now its too late.

 

[shunyadragon]

And 150 years later, this is still where the empirical science leaves off and speculation takes over. Only what worked in the Victorian age thought experiment, fares less well in 21st C testing and modelling.

Face it 'Guy' your living 13th century monastery based on your personal religious agenda,

We use random variation in information system design all the time, to produce just that- random variation- and we better understand now that it requires a system with specific set of pre-determined parameters, limitations, to produce a specified range of viable results. Just as we observe in life: determining long or short hair, wide or narrow beaks, light or dark pigment.

You may used it in system design and your high school lab experiments, but randomness is not observed in the processes that involve evolution. The science of evolution is based on the pre-determined parameters of Natural Law, which is sufficient to be based sound science.

randomly tweaking the parameters that control text color in this software, can never author new software- far less the very software which supports that capacity. That's a paradox inherent to any hierarchical information system.

Does not remotely apply to the science of evolution.

So it's no longer just the fossil record that lacks the intermediate stages, nor is it just the lab experiments that empirically demonstrate these limitations, but the most objective measure of all- the math.

Darwin only had a hypothetical fossil record, which even then had to be assumed to turn out to be much smoother than it appeared at the time, not become increasingly disparate

Your pre-14th century personal religious agenda has nothing to do with modern science.

Give up the ghost, and admit your a Christian evangelical Creationist.

 

[Audie]

I've never lived in a mobile home, but I know many good, intelligent, hard working people who have at one time or another, they are largely a product of government regulation, which charges extra taxes on houses that are actually secured against dangerous weather. If you think this is bad policy then we have much to agree on.

But I would never disparage someone for their accommodation, (there but for the grace of God go I)
.. unless it's socialist leaders living in palaces at tax payer's expense

Eugenics was a direct spin off from Darwinism, is there anything on the positive side, that you feel makes up for this horror?

I was born and raised a staunch atheist, I was every bit as dismissive towards skeptics of Darwinism as anyone here for many decades.-
okay I'm sure we could have found something to disagree on, but pretty much all your comments re. evolution and God could have been mine a decade or so ago

Actually much of my family still assumes I am an atheist, much safer to discuss such things here!

Fundamentalism is inversely correlated with income and education.
Consequentemente, many are dwellers of low-rent zone.
Thats all. Dont try to make it something else.

The ToE (not Darwinism) is what it is, a sound scientific theory.
You could also say that the gas chambers of Auschwitz are a direct
spin off of chemistry. Either way itis perversion and exploitation.
Complain about the abuses of internet. It has zero to do with the
validity of a scientific theory.

Whatever mistakes you've made in your personal life have, likewise,
nothing to do with the validity of science, nor does religion or atheism.
Conflating!
You have conflateitis or something?

If you were airily dismissive of creo-ideas, thst was your
deal, your reasons. You are nothing like me.

See, I actually know what I am talking about. I have no need fot bs,
insinuation, phony phacts, or any of the rest of the creo-panoply of
pratts. Palucy man tracks? Polystrate fossils?

I see the same moldy, ignorant nonsense from creos over and over.
Of course I dismiss it, tho if the person's mind is not hermetically sealed
I will take time to explain where they went wrong.

For most tho-
It is like if someone is into astrology. You cannot talk sense to them.

Here is a big one for you, re creos going wrong.

They cannot produce one (1) fact of a nature to disprove
ToE.

You tell me why that is, or if it sorta suggests something?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

America led the field, not any more.

Having a spiritual interest in God, has no bearing on this issue.

Because, when "America led the field", as you put it, more people went to church back then and believed in God, not less.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

When religion got its claws into america, it started to slide.

What....with the Puritans? Ahem, that was, uhh...at the very beginning.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Having a spiritual interest in God, has no bearing on this issue.

Because, when "America led the field", as you put it, more people went to church back then and believed in God, not less.

Yes, but at that time the churches stayed out of the fields of science. The destructive creationism that we see today began in the 1970's. I am not sure if that was after the peak or had a cause in our decline. It surely has not had a beneficial effect on the U.S..

 

[ChristineM]

Having a spiritual interest in God, has no bearing on this issue.

Because, when "America led the field", as you put it, more people went to church back then and believed in God, not less.

There is/was a considerable difference between the American dream christians of the latter half of last century working to better themselves, their family and crucially, their country and the deliberate ignorance of biblical literalism aspired to today.

And because of that deliberate ignorance, America is failing and as you intimate, Christianity os declinong despite the increasing population

 

[ChristineM]

What....with the Puritans? Ahem, that was, uhh...at the very beginning.

I did say claws, perhaps you missed is.

Also i suggest you read up on the reason puritans fled the uk the land of the free where they were free to intimidate and indoctrinate without having to face the law.

 

[shunyadragon]

Having a spiritual interest in God, has no bearing on this issue.

Because, when "America led the field", as you put it, more people went to church back then and believed in God, not less.

The majority of Americans still believe in God, and the spiritual beliefs in God are not an issue.. It is the self--imposed ignorance of science by Christian fundamentalists

The USA led ted the science and technology fields through history for many different reasons. Attitudes toward science, the financial support for science and the number of American studying graduate science programs are issues that led the USA in the 19th and early to mid 20th century.. It was the late 20th century that attitudes deteriorated, and the rise of religious fundamentalist opposition to the science of evolution is a major problem not present in other major industrial countries of the world.

Actually, in the late 19th Century most Evangelist Christians accepted evolution. It was in the 20th century that the opposition to the science of evolution grew and the support for basic sciences began to deteriorate. Now the majority of graduate students in the basic sciences in the USA are foreign students, and other countries are far ahead of the USA in the research and advancements in the basic science of biology like genetics,.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

It is the self--imposed ignorance of science by Christian fundamentalists

This is a straw man. You forgot to add, science "of evolution". You said it everywhere else in your post.

And even then, it's only descent with modification that is rejected.

It's the feeling of individual entitlement that is the cause of the USA losing its premier standing. Too many people relying on others for support. They're not being trained to be self-sufficient, which should start at home....but then, family values are deteriorating here.

On top of that, US Americans have built a wasteful and selfish-enabling society, being less than 1/20th of the world's population but consuming 1/6th of its resources.

You're attributing a wrong source to the situation.

 

[shunyadragon]

This is a straw man. You forgot to add, science "of evolution". You said it everywhere else in your post.

And even then, it's only descent with medication that is rejected.

It's the feeling of individual entitlement that is the cause of the USA losing its premier standing. Too many people relying on others for support. They're not being trained to be self-sufficient, which should start at home....but then, family values are deteriorating here.

You're attributing a wrong source to the situation.

As I said before, there are multiple sources for the problem, but the rejection of science by the significant percentage of the population is an issue. You cannot artificially separate the science of evolution form the rest of the sciences, by selectively accepting which part of science you want to accept based on a religious agenda, and not based on science.

There is more than just descent and (medication???) that is rejected. You may need to get back on your medication. Christian fundamentalists have many variable objections concerning the science of evolution from the time, ages involved, Flood beliefs, Intelligent Design, and the descent issues, based on religious beliefs, and not science. Easily 98%+ of ALL scientists in the fields related to evolution support evolution unconditionally. There is no science supporting the Creationist agenda.[/QUOTE]

On top of that, US Americans have built a wasteful and selfish-enabling society, being less than 1/20th of the world's population but consuming 1/6th of its resources.

Not really relevant to the science of evolution is over indulgent dominantly Christian culture.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Thanks for mentioning the typo, it's corrected ("medication", grief!).

"Over indulgent" culture. (The only thing we agree on in this post.) Me-ism.
It's at the root of many of this country's problems. But that's another thread.

 

[shunyadragon]

"Over indulgent" culture. (The only thing we agree on in this post.) Me-ism.
It's at the root of many of this country's problems. But that's another thread.

Than why bring this up?!?!?!!? The issue is science, and you have side stepped and avoiding responding to the problems of the claims of Fundamentalist Christians,

You cannot artificially separate the science of evolution form the rest of the sciences, by selectively accepting which part of science you want to accept based on a religious agenda, and not based on science.

Christian fundamentalists have many variable objections concerning the science of evolution from the time, ages involved, Flood beliefs, Intelligent Design, and the descent issues, based on religious beliefs, and not science. Easily 98%+ of ALL scientists in the fields related to evolution support evolution unconditionally. There is no science supporting the Creationist agenda.

 

[shunyadragon]

But I would never disparage someone for their accommodation, (there but for the grace of God go I)
.. unless it's socialist leaders living in palaces at tax payer's expense.

Ah! Good! You thank God!

Eugenics was a direct spin off from Darwinism, is there anything on the positive side, that you feel makes up for this horror?

This is an other Fundamentalist Theist claim. It is like blaming the the hundreds of thousands of deaths due to nuclear weapons on Albert Einstein.

Scientists that have develop and falsify the basic sciences, including the science of evolution are not responsible for the misuse of the sciences for selfish immoral purposes.

I was born and raised a staunch atheist, I was every bit as dismissive towards skeptics of Darwinism as anyone here for many decades.-
okay I'm sure we could have found something to disagree on, but pretty much all your comments re. evolution and God could have been mine a decade or so ago.

It is good to hear you are exalting your conversion and see the light to Fundamentalist Christianity.

Actually much of my family still assumes I am an atheist, much safer to discuss such things here!

You must be hiding your fundamentalist beliefs very well in your secret closet.

 

[Jose Fly]

The issue is science, and you have side stepped and avoiding responding to the problems of the claims of Fundamentalist Christians

Fundamentalists have been on the wrong side of science since there's been science. Back in the colonial days, they opposed lightning rods because they believed they thwarted the will of God.

You cannot artificially separate the science of evolution form the rest of the sciences, by selectively accepting which part of science you want to accept based on a religious agenda, and not based on science.

That's what creationists do. They say they just loooooove science, but the subtext is "except whatever science conflicts with my religion", which pretty much negates the first part.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Easily 98%+ of ALL scientists in the fields related to evolution support evolution unconditionally.

Not unconditionally... micro evolution maybe, not macro.
Numbers really don’t matter, anyway. The majority of scientists at one time accepted Mendelian genetics, too.

There is no science supporting the Creationist agenda.

No, just a lot of evidence, like the Cambrian Explosion.

The lack of agreement among scientists regarding the specifics of CD evolution (its mechanisms and other details) is astounding, some discussions almost lead to physical confrontations! I’ve observed it!

Saying “Macro evolution happens....we just don't know how it occurs or what starts it", doesn’t encourage trust.

You may call it an "argument from incredulity," but really, stating that functional complexity has an intelligent source, is an argument based on experience and observation. Other fields of science -- archaeology, etc. -- accept that (it's the scientific method) ....except biology and it's supporting theories.

I’m like Newton....my faith isn’t in religion, persay (I think most are wrong, as indicated below); my faith is in the Bible. The accuracy of 1 John 5:19 and Revelation 12:9 has never been more evident than it is today!

 

[Jose Fly]

You may call it an "argument from incredulity," but really, stating that functional complexity has an intelligent source, is an argument based on experience and observation.

Ok, time to put up. Point to something in nature that you've determined to be "designed by an intelligent source" and outline the methodology you employed to make that determination.

Should be trivially easy for a Newton equivalent such as yourself.

 

[shunyadragon]

Not unconditionally... micro evolution maybe, not macro.
Numbers really don’t matter, anyway. The majority of scientists at one time accepted Mendelian genetics, too.

Science evolves as the knowledge grows. Actually the observations of Mendelian genetics are still valid, but of course we have the knowledge to explain Mendelian genetics and the science of evolution on the molecular scale.

No, just a lot of evidence, like the Cambrian Explosion.

The fossils and formations of the Cambrian explosion are just evidence of evolution from the fossils of simpler animals before the Cambrian explosion to the more complex animals after the Cambrian explosion.

The lack of agreement among scientists regarding the specifics of CD evolution (its mechanisms and other details) is astounding, some discussions almost lead to physical confrontations! I’ve observed it!

Saying “Macro evolution happens....we just don't know how it occurs or what starts it", doesn’t encourage trust.

There is not any significant disagreement at all between scientists concerning the CD evolution. Your playing the argument from ignorance game again.

You may call it an "argument from incredulity," but really, stating that functional complexity has an intelligent source, is an argument based on experience and observation. Other fields of science -- archaeology, etc. -- accept that (it's the scientific method) ....except biology and it's supporting theories.

It is a severe argument from incredulity, a misapplied argument from ignorance, and without any qualifications in scientific fields related to the science of evolution.

I have fifty years of experience as professional geology and soil science, and published papers. What is your background in science to be able to make these judgments?

I’m like Newton....my faith isn’t in religion, persay (I think most are wrong, as indicated below); my faith is in the Bible. The accuracy of 1 John 5:19 and Revelation 12:9 has never been more evident than it is today!

Appealing to ancient religion to justify science went out of fashion hundreds of years ago with alchemists and magicians.

Newton was an advanced inventive scientist for his time. For you to be like Newton today would be an archaic primitive scientific world view.