Creation and Evolution Compatible...Questions

[Guy Threepwood]

Science advances by improving the knowledge by the new evidence that comes to light. It's still not a big deal though. We are constantly adding bits to our human ancestry too. Cor! Who would have expected this!

We agree entirely on this, finding flaws in a Victorian age theory? who'd a guessed?

 

[Mock Turtle]

We agree entirely on this, finding flaws in a Victorian age theory? who'd a guessed?

I think it's called refining the theory. It is basically sound - presuming you are referring to the ToE.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

That is a piece of a theory. That is not "how they theory goes".

You know the difference?

Natural selection goes entirely without saying, superior designs will tend to outperform and outlast inferior ones. That's why we still have Ford Mustangs but not Ford Pintos!

So the question is not the survival, but the arrival of the fittest

Darwinian evolution is utterly dependent on completely random mutation as the primary driver of variation, that is problematic

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I think it's called refining the theory. It is basically sound - presuming you are referring to the ToE.

Phrenology, steady state, classical physics went through refinements also, that's how we discovered they were fundamentally inadequate in accounting for observed reality.

At some point too many fudges required are a red flag

So we disagree on the 'basically sound' part, it is fundamentally flawed (I would submit to you!)

 

[Mock Turtle]

Phrenology, steady state, classical physics went through refinements also, that's how we discovered they were fundamentally inadequate in accounting for observed reality.

At some point too many patches, exceptions, retreats are a red flag

So we disagree on the 'basically sound' part, it is fundamentally flawed (I would submit to you!)

Nah. What has religion had to say - nothing apart from speculation. Stick with science, matey. It's the one that brings results, even if we have to amend constantly!

 

[Audie]

Natural selection goes entirely without saying, superior designs will tend to outperform and outlast inferior ones. That's why we still have Ford Mustangs but not Ford Pintos!

So the question is not the survival, but the arrival of the fittest

Darwinian evolution is utterly dependent on completely random mutation as the primary driver of variation, that is problematic

Oh? Why is it "problematic"?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Nah. What has religion had to say - nothing apart from speculation. Stick with science, matey. It's the one that brings results, even if we have to amend constantly!

Yes, it's science that proved phrenology, canals on Mars and steady state wrong, and replaced it with what steady state's proponents called religious pseudoscience or 'big bang'

and likewise science that has revealed the flaws in ToE

'Nature is the executor of God's laws' :Galileo

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Oh? Why is it "problematic"?

it can work fine within a supported capacity for variation but it lacks the creative power to achieve significant enough morphological innovation.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

it can work fine within a supported capacity for variation but it lacks the creative power to achieve significant enough morphological innovation.

Please demonstrate this claim.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Yes, it's science that proved phrenology, canals on Mars and steady state wrong, and replaced it with what steady state's proponents called religious pseudoscience or 'big bang'

and likewise science that has revealed the flaws in ToE

'Nature is the executor of God's laws' :Galileo

So you would propose throwing it all away? Good luck!

 

[Mock Turtle]

Yes, it's science that proved phrenology, canals on Mars and steady state wrong, and replaced it with what steady state's proponents called religious pseudoscience or 'big bang'

Where did you get the idea that science did any of these things? Some idiots proposed this nonsense. Science came to the rescue. With better data, coming from better science that could explain these things. The Big Bang and Steady State I can't comment on - not having the necessary qualifications. Have you?

 

[Audie]

it can work fine within a supported capacity for variation but it lacks the creative power to achieve significant enough morphological innovation.

Those are words that kind of sound impressive,
but is withal rather vague and I dont know your basis for it.

But then, I dont know your idea of what did happen
to bring about life as we know it, if not evolution.

Or if you think your statement amounts to disproof of ToE, or if you just think the theory needs unspecified improvements.

 

[Audie]

Yes, it's science that proved phrenology, canals on Mars and steady state wrong, and replaced it with what steady state's proponents called religious pseudoscience or 'big bang'

and likewise science that has revealed the flaws in ToE

'Nature is the executor of God's laws' :Galileo

Oh dear. "Proved"? Seriously? Science cannot and does not prove anything.

One guy with a simple telescope thought he saw canals on Mars, and tried to draw them. That is hardly "science proved", any more than that Joseph Smith proved Jesus came to
America.

Science has been used to show that some people's ideas about ToE were incorrect. (like yours )

By "flaws in ToE" are you talking details, or something
supposedly fatal?

You are being vague and discursive.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So you would propose throwing it all away? Good luck!

No don't worry, we'll keep all the scientific parts; the staccato fossil record, DNA information systems inexplicable by Darwinian processes
, all the lab experiments showing strict limitation on variation

just throw out all the Darwinian conjecture, artistic impressions of missing links that were never found..

 

[sayak83]

Where did you get the idea that science did any of these things? Some idiots proposed this nonsense. Science came to the rescue. With better data, coming from better science that could explain these things. The Big Bang and Steady State I can't comment on - not having the necessary qualifications. Have you?

The person you are speaking to mostly resorts to sophistry. Science is in staunch and near uninamous support that evolution is true. That consensus is 99% among scientists.
An Elaboration of AAAS Scientists’ Views

Clearly Mr. Threepwood's claim that evolution is getting refuted in science is completely and entirely false. 50 years of incessant drumming by creationists have all been in vain. The evidence for evolution continues to grow with every passing year, it's central importance accepted in all biological sciences.

 

[Mock Turtle]

No don't worry, we'll keep all the scientific parts; the staccato fossil record, DNA information systems inexplicable by Darwinian processes
, all the lab experiments showing strict limitation on variation

just throw out all the Darwinian conjecture, artistic impressions of missing links that were never found..

Yes, very naughty of all those past creatures not to have their remains readily available for us, isn't it? But being dead we can't blame them.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No don't worry, we'll keep all the scientific parts; the staccato fossil record,

By its very nature, fossil records are incomplete. Are you expecting every single generation of every population of organism that has ever lived to leave behind a fossil?

DNA information systems inexplicable by Darwinian processes

False. Evolution explains DNA perfectly well.

all the lab experiments showing strict limitation on variation

Name one such experiment.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Those are words that kind of sound impressive,

well thank you I made them up myself

but is withal rather vague and I dont know your basis for it.

But then, I dont know your idea of what did happen
to bring about life as we know it, if not evolution.

Or if you think your statement amounts to disproof of ToE, or if you just think the theory needs unspecified improvements.

okay here is an example of what I mean

right now I am using random variation to select different fonts, colors sizes, some of these combos work better than others, but I have a reasonable chance at creating viable combinations right?

Because the software specifically supports that capacity. And similarly control genes allow animals to vary the color, length and shape of hair for example


But if you understand why I could never author new forum software this way (far less the very same software I am using to do this) then you understand- in principle at least- the problem with extrapolating variation into macro evolution.

in short - the capacity for variation is a design feature, not a design mechanism, so yes that would be fundamentally contradictory to Darwin's ToE

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Oh dear. "Proved"? Seriously? Science cannot and does not prove anything.

Yes I agree entirely there, I assume you apply this to ToE also? not everyone does!

One guy with a simple telescope thought he saw canals on Mars, and tried to draw them. That is hardly "science proved", any more than that Joseph Smith proved Jesus came to
America.

it was pretty popular among several astronomers, and as you say, we cannot definitively prove that there were NOT canals on Mars- but I think we can agree here? it was a failed theory

Science has been used to show that some people's ideas about ToE were incorrect. (like yours )

By "flaws in ToE" are you talking details, or something
supposedly fatal?

You are being vague and discursive.

when I said 'proved' I was too emphatic, now I'm too vague.. I'm trying my best to find that perfect level of clarity here!

I think Darwinism is 'most probably' complete cobblers... hows that?

 

[ArtieE]

'Nature is the executor of God's laws' :Galileo

Would that be the same Galileo that you theists

"found "vehemently suspect of heresy", namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the centre of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture."? Galileo Galilei - Wikipedia