Do you ever say or write something that are true?
Like every creationists here, you all have the tendencies of making things up, spreading misinformation.
If anything, today’s molecular biology and biochemistry - “today” as in the last 50 years, including present day - have all tested the various evolutionary mechanisms (eg Natural Selection, Mutations, Genetic Drift, etc) as “probable” and “verified”.
These mechanisms, have each explained the different processes of how populations of life adapt over time, genetically; Evolution is about biodiversity, and this would mean changes and speciation to different degrees, and at different rates.
Again, the argument is specifically about the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis as follows:
- First, genetic change is random.
- Second, genetic change is gradual.
- Third, following genetic change, natural selection leads to particular gene variants (alleles) increasing in frequency within the population.
- Fourth, the inheritance of acquired characteristics is impossible.
Read attached material in # 753 & #781. It clarifies why these assumptions are disproved. Denis Noble said, “ALL THESE ASSUMPTIONS HAVE BEEN DISPROVED IN VARIOUS WAYS AND TO VARYING DEGREES”
In addition to the scientific articles, the lectures below on YouTube would help.
2012 Suzhou, China, in the international conference of physiological sciences.
British Biologist Denis Noble Debunks Neo Darwinism - YouTube
2013 Birmingham, UK, Professor Denis Noble delivers the IUPS President's Lecture.
Physiology moves back onto centre stage: a new synthesis with evolutionary biology - YouTube
Different rates, because changes to bacteria occurred in shorter period of times than most multicellular organisms (MCO, like animals, plants and fungi).
See below (copied from #781). The results below show extremely fast, directed mutations. The same results are repeatedly seen and cannot be random. It’s neither gradual nor random but rather quick directed mutations.
Studies by Harvard University showed that the mutation process happens at a frightening speed, not in years or thousands of generations but within 11 days, bacteria developed defense mechanisms against antibiotics that increased its resistance levels by over 1000-fold. The mutations actually started much earlier with varying levels of resistance till the 1000 fold resistance was achieved in only 11 days.
See the link and YouTube video below (same video is included in the article).
Scientists reveal the frightening speed at which bacteria can develop antibiotic resistance
The Evolution of Bacteria on a “Mega-Plate” Petri Dish (Kishony Lab)`` - YouTube
So far, there have been no alternative models to replace the theory of Evolution.
What alternative theory do you think is better at explaining the natural processes of biodiversity (speciation)?
Adaptation as a result of directed mutations. It’s not an evolutionary process. Actual process is quite different. In the claimed evolution process, natural selection allows a better survival chance for advantageous random mutation. In the actual adaptation process, organisms utilize mechanisms for choosing which mutations will occur to allow an organism a better survival chance within a specific environment.
The mutations produce varieties such as the example of Galapagos finches but these varieties of finches will never be anything other than finches. Organisms may adept but they don’t transform to totally different species. Even if we try to use artificial selection to make new species (that are able to reproduce), it will never produce a new species. It will always be just varieties. Even if a mule or a liger may be argued to be different species but they are unable to reproduce.
If humans evolved from a common ancestor through speciation, then some of this hominin species should coexist today at least in isolated geographical areas. They cannot all disappear. See #718 and #776
I would hope you are not talking about Intelligent Design creationism?
ID is unfalsifiable and untestable concept, so it doesn't even qualify as “hypothesis”,
Why unfalsifiable?
Any change can be attributed to either one of the following two hypotheses:
A) Intelligently Guided Change.
B) Non-Intelligently Guided Change (Random Change).
Only observations would confirm whether a change is random or intelligently guided. Observations may prove it or disprove it. It is definitely falsifiable.
Intelligent Design still relied on superstitious belief in supernatural entity of a god, but now creationists called god
Why superstitious? Can you logically claim that whatever is beyond our capacity of direct observation cannot exist?
The universe is a contingent entity dependent on a cause; a cause is necessary. Yet everything physical came to existence after the beginning. The existence beyond the beginning is necessarily supernatural. The cause of the universe has to be supernatural/unphysical. Even so the supernatural influence is beyond any possible observation and beyond the laws of nature itself, but its manifestations in the physical realm can be observed. In fact, the instantiation of the entire physical realm in reality is only possible as a manifestation of a non-contingent supernatural influence.
An apple falls off a tree because of gravity. Gravity (as well as electromagnetic force, cosmological constant, nuclear efficiency, etc.) is not a brute fact, it’s a contingent entity that started with the Big Bang. It demands a cause, yet the cause beyond the Big Bang is not natural. The cause is supernatural but it must exist. The levels of causality have to end at a causeless brute (supernatural) fact that explains every thing that followed. The origin/root cause for everything is necessarily non-physical and causeless. Without the non-contingent origin, nothing contingent may exist. No relative is possible without the absolute.
We have to agree first on the basic principal that God/causal influence on the instantiation of the physical realm in reality (creation), necessarily means that God is neither a physical entity nor subject to the influence of the physical laws of nature but rather God is the higher influence that causes the laws of nature itself to exist. Once this principle is settled, then God existence beyond the physical realm is necessarily beyond direct observation and can be understood only through the observation of his influence or manifestations within the physical realm.
The physical realm as a contingent/caused being didn’t appear out of nothing. It was caused by an influence that is non-physical.
See #490 and #132 on page 7 of the thread “Necessary Being: Exists?”
Necessary Being: Exists? - Mainly addressing atheists | Page 7 | Religious Forums
but now creationists called god - “Designer” instead of “Creator”.
Changing god from Creator to Designer, doesn’t help the ID argument. It is still a “God did it” belief, but now they disguised creationism as the “Designer did it”.
Designer did it, isn’t an explanation.
Design is a plan towards a goal. Design is a manifestation of intelligence (which is in turn a manifestation of consciousness). Intelligence/perfection is one of God’s attributes with manifestations in the physical realm that can be clearly seen everywhere, from the entire universe, to a single living cell or even at the atomic and molecular level of the nonliving matter.
Rationality, order, design, causal relationships in nature and our ability to perceive this rationality is what makes science possible and allow it to flourish. Founders of modern science were very favorable to this idea of God’s causal influence on the world and they built it into their scientific work, it wasn't something they kept separate as a theological proposition, they thought science itself was pointing to the design of an intelligent and powerful being.
Isaac Newton had the notion that the laws of nature are manifestation of constant spirit action that imposed upon matter the order that can be perceived by the scientists, which we can be described mathematically as laws of nature.
Isaac Newton said in his general scholium to the principia, "Though these bodies (the planets) may indeed continue in their orbits by the mere laws of gravity, yet they could by no means have at first derived the regular position of the orbits themselves from those laws. Thus, this most beautiful system of sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the council and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”
Albert Einstein believed in the pantheistic God of Baruch Spinoza. The point here is not promoting Newton’s or Einstein’s understanding of God but rather making the assertion that the understanding of God’s causal influence on the world is not a contradiction to science and was actually embraced by the founders of modern science.
Just as there no physical evidence of God, there are no evidence for the Intelligent Designer.
Every intelligent design is evidence for the Intelligent Designer. The entire universe is an intelligent design (cosmological constant). Every single cell is intelligent design (#252). Every atom (strong nuclear force/ atomic internal intelligence) is intelligent design. See #226.
Logic necessitates that God’s Being has to be of an absolutely unique nature unlike anything else in existence.
Your approach to the assessment of the understanding of God is fallacious. You apply an illogical/inapplicable way of thinking towards that understanding which necessarily drives your false assumptions.
First, you have to know that God is understood as the origin, absolute, non-contingent, non-caused existence. Meaning that, God is not a relative contingent entity but rather the cause for everything in existence including the universe/physical realm and all natural laws itself that do not exist on its own as a brute fact but rather as caused contingent entities that emerged as a manifestation of a higher causal influence.
That said, you cannot apply same approach that you apply to understand physical entities within the physical realm in your attempt to understand God. This approach is illogical/inapplicable.
God is not a physical entity/being. Cannot be observed directly. Not subject to the influence of physical laws, and beyond spacetime itself. God is the cause of spacetime, not contained in spacetime.
The point is, you can’t invite God to your scientific lab to conduct some experiments to gain an understanding of his Being. Its not possible for us to understand the nature of God’s being simply because its not contingent/physical. You can only understand his attributes (not his being) through the manifestations of his being in the physical realm.
