Creation and Evolution Compatible...Questions

[Audie]

Evolutionary biologists generally agree that humans and other living species are descended from bacterialike ancestors. But before about two billion years ago, human ancestors branched off. This new group, called eukaryotes, also gave rise to other animals, plants, fungi and protozoans.

extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We can test, observe, measure adaptation, we can't say the same for such macro evolution speculation- no way around that.

It is not just the sudden appearances that are remarkable and problematic for Darwinian predictions, but the vast periods of stasis, 100s of millions of years with no evolution taking place. These observations could hardly diverge any more from the slow steady changes originally predicted



It would be helpful if the theory could be modeled mathematically, there are many extraordinary systems in nature we can do this for, Darwinian evolution is not one of them, we run into fundamental problems and limitations with the algorithm




Dar·win·ism
ˈdärwəˌnizəm/
noun

1. the theory of the evolution of species by natural selection advanced by Charles Darwin.

it's pretty commonly understood, some Darwinists refer to themselves as Neo-Darwinists- Darwinist, Darwinian.. is just quicker.
You can call it ToE if you like and I will assume you are referring generally to a Darwinian model of evolution.. would I be wrong?



The Cambrian explosion was known in Victorian times, but the explicit prediction was that it was an artifact of an incomplete record, that should be filled in and smoothed out over time as more fossils were found. 21st C science reveals the exact opposite, the cambrian (and other explosive appearances) have become ever more distinct, abrupt, explosive- to the extent that even many evolutionists have increasingly splintered off into punctuated equilibrium, acknowledging what skeptics predicted all along- the gaps are real

None of these are slam dunk refutations in themselves, but the reality v prediction could hard be less harmonious




well if I had a nickel for every ignored question...

No I don't think science is wrong, I think Darwinism is wrong, atheism is wrong-




^ not only that, but one that can also account for the complete LACK of change over 100's of millions of years observed in some species-

As I said, maybe to somebody else. Darwinism was formulated within a Victorian age model of reality. It was a perfectly logical extrapolation of classical physics at the time, whereby a handful of simple 'immutable' laws + lots of time and space to randomly bump around in.. were all you needed for jolly interesting results to organize themselves eventually!

I agree with Darwin's original premise, life DOES develop in the same general manner as the physics and chemistry which came before it.
Only today that means something else entirely; by a vast archive of finely detailed, guiding instructions, predetermining how where and when development occurs. I see no reason to believe that the mechanism reverts back to a Victorian model at the first replicator.

Physical apples still fall from trees, and genetic apples still fall not far from theirs.. we can observe both scientifically yes? The problem, I submit to you, is extrapolating either of these into comprehensive explanatory mechanisms, they are features of a deeper design, determined by a deeper layer in a hierarchical information system.

i.e. you cannot explain evolution with adaptation, any more than you can explain gravity with classical physics, it is doomed to paradoxical failure

sorry for the length here..

Well, I did ask for one data set and I got a gish.
Sorry for not attempting to deal with it.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Well, I did ask for one data set and I got a gish.
Sorry for not attempting to deal with it.

You asked several questions and I answered them for you

Again, the dataset for scientifically verified cases of macro evolution, is the same as verified sightings of the Loch Ness monster, UFOs or multiverses- not too impressive


cmon don't give up so easily. If you have any substantive counter arguments supporting Darwinian evolution, I would be genuinely interested to hear them

 

[Audie]

You asked several questions and I answered them for you

Again, the dataset for scientifically verified cases of macro evolution, is the same as verified sightings of the Loch Ness monster, UFOs or multiverses- not too impressive


cmon don't give up so easily. If you have any substantive counter arguments supporting Darwinian evolution, I would be genuinely interested to hear them

I have nothing to say about "Darwinian evolution"
other than that your insistence on using that obsolete term is a bit tiresome and deliberately misleading.

the dataset for scientifically verified cases of macro evolution

A "case of macroevolution" would be, what?
What is 'scientifically verified"

You are dissatisfied with a series of fossils that
show sequential change over time?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have nothing to say about "Darwinian evolution"
other than that your insistence on using that obsolete term is a bit tiresome and deliberately misleading.

the dataset for scientifically verified cases of macro evolution

A "case of macroevolution" would be, what?
What is 'scientifically verified"

You are dissatisfied with a series of fossils that
show sequential change over time?

Not to mention the endless genetic evidence.

ERV's anyone?

 

[cladking]

The basic ToE neither cites nor denies there's a creator-god(s), so it is neutral on that issue.

Of course you're right. But the ToE is used as an explanation for how all life came to be and how it exists. I believe this explanation is false but more importantly it provides an horrendous perspective from which to see the reality. It's easy from this perspective to say that a "god" isn't necessary and might even be redundant.

I believe a far better perspective is that it is consciousness which confers survivability and the capriciousness of reality's effect on behavior that causes change in species. This perspective hardly excludes the concept of a Creator.

 

[cladking]

Your contention that "all known change in life is sudden"
does not of course say what you mean by change, or how fast is sudden, and, as such, could mean virtually anything. ie, nothing.

Perhaps an example would help,rather than such
generalities.

ALL change in all life at all levels is always sudden. Life could evolve on a planet and has done so in the past but it doesn't get the chance because it is seeded from outside before it can. A species could evolve into a new species but it never gets the chance because it meets a population bottleneck first and a new species arises suddenly. An animal could die over many years but it will (normally) develop a fatal symptom before it happens. Perhaps even an egg could be gradually fertilized but in the real world it stops suddenly. A culture could grow in a petrie dish over months but it will consume all the food in a few days.

Everything we observe happens fast. Even populations tend to bounce around a lot but I'm talking not about taxonomies or groups of individuals but rather the individuals themselves.

They aren't conscious and then they are. Individuals survive only through consciousness and whatever behavior nature deems is "correct" at that moment. It's far more luck that confers survivability than it is "fitness".

 

[cladking]

There could be a 'God", tho there is no evidence of such. You talk about filling in blanks! You come up with something greater than the universe, to fill in blanks!

I never said "God" exists. I said from your perspective the chance is virtually eliminated.

I said that human beings will probably never be able to say that a Creator does or does not exist. ANYTHING that appears to support or deny the existence of a creator is probably false.

 

[gnostic]

The Cambrian explosion has become progressively more explosive, shorter, in stark contrast to predictions inherent to Darwinian theory. down to a few tens of millions of years at most.

The duration of Cambrian explosion lasted 20 million years, so I would hardly called it “short” or “abrupt”.

I would call “short” the evolution of the Homo, which is less than 2 million years, and humans or the Homo sapiens have only been around 200,000 years.

The Homo sapiens were most likely offshoot of older Homo species, Homo heidelbergensis. The Neanderthals were also offshoot of the Homo heidelbergensis.

 

[gnostic]

Galileo was a theist..

If you want to talk about the problems inherent to institutionalizing academic consensus.... then we have much to agree on, but what fun is that!?

Being theists, atheists or agnostics, have nothing to do with being a “scientist”.

A scientist is a profession, not a religion.

A plumber or electrician or salesperson or lawyer can be either atheist or theist. Atheism or theism don’t teach people how to fix plumbing, install electrical wiring in building, sell products or manage legal affairs.

Atheism or theism don’t teach science.

Are that daft that you don’t know the difference between religion and trades or professions?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I have nothing to say about "Darwinian evolution"
other than that your insistence on using that obsolete term is a bit tiresome and deliberately misleading.

Let me know what term you prefer to Darwinian evolution, I will try to remember to accommodate you!

You are dissatisfied with a series of fossils that
show sequential change over time?

well, if we dig up the past, we see a record which is inherently incomplete- but gives us some idea of how things have changed- right?

So we do see changes over time, we also see some shared traits, some gaps, jumps, sudden appearances, stasis- a few vestigial features and even some dead ends, but a general progression towards increased sophistication yes?

what does this all say to you?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Of course you're right. But the ToE is used as an explanation for how all life came to be and how it exists. I believe this explanation is false but more importantly it provides an horrendous perspective from which to see the reality. It's easy from this perspective to say that a "god" isn't necessary and might even be redundant.

I believe a far better perspective is that it is consciousness which confers survivability and the capriciousness of reality's effect on behavior that causes change in species. This perspective hardly excludes the concept of a Creator.

There are many scientists, theists and atheists, looking for a better explanation than the traditional Darwinian one, and that could be part of it, epigenetics/ the ability to dynamically alter the way genes are expressed..

The simplest explanation is always the most tempting, but nature does not seem to respect Occam's razor too much so far!

 

[cladking]

There are many scientists, theists and atheists, looking for a better explanation than the traditional Darwinian one, and that could be part of it, epigenetics/ the ability to dynamically alter the way genes are expressed..

The simplest explanation is always the most tempting, but nature does not seem to respect Occam's razor too much so far!

Indeed. Nature does what it does with no regard to any theory.

I spend enough time arguing the nature of "consciousness" on philosophy sites to believe that there exists anything "simple" in nature.

 

[Deeje]

Put in a dictionary containing 64 words in a cell.

Can the dictionary pop up out of nowhere? Can the 64 words get into the dictionary all by themselves? How does the dictionary get into the cell? Please explain.....

Have the cell duplicate.

Do you tell them to do that or are they pre-programmed to duplicate? Can the mechanism for cell division appear out of nowhere......how can mechanisms have no mechanic? How can things that exhibit design and purpose, have no designer or intelligence directing them?

You take so much for granted without any explanation as to why you assume the things you do.

 

[gnostic]

I have nothing to say about "Darwinian evolution"
other than that your insistence on using that obsolete term is a bit tiresome and deliberately misleading.

Yes, he does that all the times, no matter how many times others have explain to him that there isn’t anyone can be labelled as Darwinism, any more than people been called Gravitatians, Ohmnists, Relativitists, Quantumians, and so on.

Charles Darwin’s theory on Evolution is called Natural Selection, not Darwinism, but even then, his model has since been corrected and updated, with newer knowledge on genetics and DNA, to expand our knowledge on Natural Selection.

Also Natural Selection is just one of 5 mechanisms, the others being, Mutation, Genetic Drift, Gene Flow and Genetic Hitchhiking.

And none of these later mechanisms make Natural Selection obsolete. What it does show that Evolution have more than one possible avenue for changes to occur over time.

And Guy don’t understand this, since his next reply to you his monumental ignorance in modern biology:

Let me know what term you prefer to Darwinian evolution, I will try to remember to accommodate you!

You know the saying, Audie, “You can’t teach old dogs new trick”. Well this saying holds true with Guy and some of other RF “creationist” members.

He still tiresomely use the Piltdown man fraud as an excuse to refute Evolution, but no biologists today use the Piltdown remain as evidence for evolution.

It is simply strawman, and like I said “old dog”. He needs bloody new script.

To @Guy Threepwood:

Hello Guy.

There is more than Evolution than just Darwin’s Natural Selection, so Darwinism isn’t accurate description of evolutionary biology. As I mentioned to Audie, there are other evolutionary mechanisms.

If you haven’t learn by now, in the 4 years you have been here, then you will never learn.

 

[gnostic]

Do you tell them to do that or are they pre-programmed to duplicate? Can the mechanism for cell division appear out of nowhere......how can mechanisms have no mechanic? How can things that exhibit design and purpose, have no designer or intelligence directing them?

Cell replication and cell division don’t require a bloody fricking Designer.

Natural process direction don’t come from intelligent entity.

 

[Deeje]

Cell replication and cell division don’t require a bloody fricking Designer.

Natural process direction from intelligent entity.

Seriously mate was that necessary? If you don't want to believe in a Creator......then don't.

Losing your cool over it makes you look a bit childish.

 

[Mock Turtle]

So still a bird, in fact still a finch, with a slightly wider beak, an unusual voice, and nobody else wants to mate with them, by which definition my sister in law is a new species also

Not to be facetious, but is that really the best example of evolution you could find? if so who's side of the argument are you on?

Hardly, but I'm not going to trawl through the vast amount of evidence when you should be doing this - but obviously won't.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Of course you're right. But the ToE is used as an explanation for how all life came to be and how it exists. .

But the ToE, as presented by Darwin, was mainly to do with how species evolved over time (why there were so many different but closely related ones, etc,), and an explanation of why this might be so. There was a huge lack of knowledge then, as others have pointed out, but essentially he got it right. It didn't really address the origins of life. How could it?

 

[Sapiens]

Of course you're right. But the ToE is used as an explanation for how all life came to be and how it exists. I believe this explanation is false but more importantly it provides an horrendous perspective from which to see the reality. It's easy from this perspective to say that a "god" isn't necessary and might even be redundant.

I believe a far better perspective is that it is consciousness which confers survivability and the capriciousness of reality's effect on behavior that causes change in species. This perspective hardly excludes the concept of a Creator.

What was the title of Darwin's book in which the TOE was introduced? Come on now, you know or can look it up.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Indeed. Nature does what it does with no regard to any theory.

I spend enough time arguing the nature of "consciousness" on philosophy sites to believe that there exists anything "simple" in nature.

we grow up surrounded by miracles we intuitively accept as 'simply natural'- but any apparent simplicity is something of an illusion- materialism exacerbates the problem by actively shunning complexity for fear of the implications