Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Dan From Smithville]

Ok what if I say...
I disagree the 1969 Dodge Charger is not the best car.

Wouldn't you ask me, in your opinion which is the best car, and why is it better than the 1969 Dodge?

Wouldn't you atleast consider that you are asking a reasonable question?

I might ask it, but it would not relieve me of my burden of proof for the original assertion.

In the case of your assertion about design and fine tuning, I never made a counter claim to your assertion, and have simply asked, repeatedly, that you support your claim. This is really all that anyone has requested from you. One poster, @TagliatelliMonster specifically stated that he did not know what might be behind this alleged fine tuning. Despite this, you have dodged your obligation for support of your assertion for weeks.

I am simply not interested in arguing someone who doesn't know.... My interest is to share opinions with someone who thinks that there is a naturalistic hypothesis better than design

If this were true, you would have made your case immediately.

If you don't know, then go to any source that you would consider reliable , learn about Fine Tuning, learn about all the explanations that are being offered by scientists and philosophers and chose you favorite, then you can share your opinion on why is that explanation better than design.

Either mendacity is so deeply embedded in your nature that you operate under it without a thought of recognition for it, or you are completely ignorant of the rules of logically debate. I hope for the latter, but wonder about the former.

There has never been an argument about what I know or do not know about design or fine tuning here. I have not made a claim. This is about your claim and your complete inability to support it to the point that you are doing everything you can to make the responsibility of those that do not share YOUR responsibility.

This is just a forum, I will not elaborate an argument from zero,

So, you now admit that you have 0 (zero) for an argument. Was honesty so hard? You could have admitted you had no argument weeks ago.

 

[Skwim]

Which Bible are you talking about? The many different translations? Bats fly, but are not birds. And the Hebrew at that scripture simply does not mean birds only.

Well, as translated in the 48 translations I mentioned they sure do. Just what do you think the words "birds" and "fowl" mean?

But it doesn't make sense to me that you take issue with it except to justify your misconception. The same Hebrew word is used in context for other terms, rightly so.

Ain't my misconception at all, but the conclusion of almost every one of the Bibles I mentioned. You've simply chosen not to lend them any credibility, but rather stick to what you found in a single translation: The International Standard Version. If that's the game you want to place all your bets on, fine. There's nothing more to discuss about your "creatures."

The Hebrew word (oph) means flying insects at Leviticus 11:20, but don't let that phase you. Because it says, “All winged insects [oph] that go on all fours are detestable to you.

Which implies they walk on only four legs. So what insects only "go on all fours"?



.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The heart pumping, the veins being flexible, the lungs working, bones forming, none of this can really be explained by evolution as if these things just happened. And then, of course, the idea that humans have a sense of right and wrong, hold court and trials, reinforces the idea that God made humans different from the animals when he said, "Let us make man in our image." The Bible didn't say, "let us make chimpanzees in our image." Something is very different about humans, although people will argue with that.

You really haven't a clue about biology or the theory of evolution. The theory does not say these things just happened. If they just happened, the theory wouldn't explain them.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The heart pumping, the veins being flexible, the lungs working, bones forming, none of this can really be explained by evolution as if these things just happened. And then, of course, the idea that humans have a sense of right and wrong, hold court and trials, reinforces the idea that God made humans different from the animals when he said, "Let us make man in our image." The Bible didn't say, "let us make chimpanzees in our image." Something is very different about humans, although people will argue with that.

No one is arguing that humans or any other species does not have unique features for which they can identified and delineated. In fact, taxonomy is based, in part, on the existence of unique features.I

The Bible is man's written work attempting to understand God and the world around us.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The Holocaust shows what misery both secular and religious thinking has done to the state of mankind. But God is true, and He will release His people, just as He did when Moses led them out of Egypt. By God's people, I don't mean only Jews. More than Jews died in the Holocaust. And WWI and WWII. The Bible is an absolutely amazing story, and the more I think about it, the more wonderful it becomes in the sense of the time it took to write the Bible, to compile the scriptures, and the history recorded. The Scriptures offer a hope for mankind, as well as a resurrection from the dead, and the end of evil, wicked actions. Revelation 21 speaks of new heavens and a new earth which righteousness will be forever. It will happen just as God promised.

So no amount of logic, reason, and evidence will convince you that deified allegory is not a literal interpretation of the origin and eventual evolution of life.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, indeed, and chances are near to the impossible factor that a complex organism just comes about by -- chance.

What is your evidence for this claim? Will you reveal to us, after weeks avoiding supporting this claim, that you have 0 (zero) reason for it and it is only your belief?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Behe is wrong because certain ones want him to be wrong.

Behe is wrong based on the evidence and not due to some fictional conspiracy theory you conjure up, because you also lack evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am not sure what you mean by Young Earth Creationist. Please explain. Thank you.

You don't recognize this or know what it means? Puzzling.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What do you mean "life form"?



If you didn't believe in god, why were you talking to a preacher? It seems to me that you were talking to a preacher, perhaps many such, in the hopes that someone would say something to confirm your belief that there is a god. Atheists do not search for a god. They know there isn't one, aren't any.

Despite my doubt over atheists knowing that God does not exist, or how that would be established, I tend to agree with the rest. He has probably never been atheistic, but may have had doubts. More than likely, he has exaggerated those doubts or some youthful angst into a more profitable version in support of creationism.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Whoosshh!!

Exactly. Though I suspect, based on the evidence, that it is premeditated.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Wait a minute. Are you calling Evolution 'nature'? Does evolution or nature (are you using change of terms, or do they mean the same thing) cause crummy things to happen? "NATURE IS NOT PERFECTLY SET UP???" What? It's imperfectly set up? Is it nature or evolution that is not perfectly set up? Which? Or are the terms interchangeable? Set up? By who or what? GENES???

Evolution is part of nature. Neither is perfect.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

@TagliatelliMonster I mentioned you in a previous post. If that was misplaced or my memory of your words is inaccurate, please correct it as necessary.

 

[leroy]

.
So, you now admit that you have 0 (zero) for an argument. Was honesty so hard? You could have admitted you had no argument weeks ago.

S

Sure I don't have an argument, the argument is not mine, the argument is widely available on various sources,

My interest is and has always been to share opinions with someone who claims to have a better explanation than design. I have no interest in "debating" someone who doesn't want to make any claim.

 

[leroy]

Actually all of them can be explained through evolution. Just because you do not know something it is never wise to assume that no one knows.

Oooo I will love to see how you support your assertions. As @YoursTrue said there are many attributes that seem to be unique to humans like morality

How do you explain morality through evolution?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The heart pumping, the veins being flexible, the lungs working, bones forming, none of this can really be explained by evolution as if these things just happened.

Yes, they can. Because evolution doesn't "just happen".

And then, of course, the idea that humans have a sense of right and wrong, hold court and trials, reinforces the idea that God made humans different from the animals when he said, "Let us make man in our image." The Bible didn't say, "let us make chimpanzees in our image." Something is very different about humans, although people will argue with that.

What reason do you have to believe that these things cannot come about as a natural result of a developed brain?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Oooo I will love to see how you support your assertions. As @YoursTrue said there are many attributes that seem to be unique to humans like morality

How do you explain morality through evolution?

The social human brain.

 

[leroy]

Both. First, you have to be *very* clear what you mean by the term 'independent'. Being independent in the sense of probability is going to be very rare. So, for example, if three mutations are required and need to be fixed in the population, the probability of a second mutation to be fixed may well be significantly increased when the first has already been fixed.

And second, I disagree that the mutations required for the development of eyes are independently *fixed* in the sense of probability So, for example, having an indentation in a photoreceptive area will make it far more likely to produce further indentation. Having photoreceptive cells will make it far more likely that those cells will connect to nearby neurons to send information.

The upshot is that independence in the sense of probability is going to be unlikely in any relevant evolutionary scenario.

Also, and this is often neglected in independence claims, having natural selection significantly changes the likelihood of having more than three beneficial mutations fix in a population.

Ok what would the correct probability be?

Pretend that you need 3 mutations in order to have a selective benefit, (1 or 2 mutations would be useless) if behe is wrong with his numbers, what would the correct probability be?

So mutation 1 would be useless meaning that the mutation would be neutral, so it will only get fixed by chance (genetic drift) the same is true with mutation 2,....... But the combination of 1+2+3 will result in a benefit that would be selected by natural selection

So please provide the correct calculations and show that it is possible to have 3 mutations that together would produce a benefit, but by themselves would be neutral. Acoording to Behe such an event can't happen.

For the record, observations support Behes affirmations.

When an organism (say a bacteria) requires 1 mutation to gain a selective benefit such mutation is likely to occure

When it requires 2 mutations it is unlikely but possible but only under optimal conditions and in microbes that reproduce fast.

When it requires 3 mutations or more, well that has never been observed

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oooo I will love to see how you support your assertions. As @YoursTrue said there are many attributes that seem to be unique to humans like morality

How do you explain morality through evolution?

That is a rather easy one. Proper morals, not religious ones, aid in the survival of a population. And since morals are also largely the product of the mind a more complex mind results in more complex morality. It is an error to assume that animals have no morals. Their morals are just simpler and more basic than ours. Your problem may lie in a lack of understanding of what is moral in the first place.

Is Human Morality a Product of Evolution?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok what would the correct probability be?

Pretend that you need 3 mutations in order to have a selective benefit, (1 or 2 mutations would be useless) if behe is wrong with his numbers, what would the correct probability be?

So mutation 1 would be useless meaning that the mutation would be neutral, so it will only get fixed by chance (genetic drift) the same is true with mutation 2,....... But the combination of 1+2+3 will result in a benefit that would be selected by natural selection

So please provide the correct calculations and show that it is possible to have 3 mutations that together would produce a benefit, but by themselves would be neutral. Acoording to Behe such an event can't happen.

For the record, observations support Behes affirmations.

When an organism (say a bacteria) requires 1 mutation to gain a selective benefit such mutation is likely to occure

When it requires 2 mutations it is unlikely but possible but only under optimal conditions and in microbes that reproduce fast.

When it requires 3 mutations or more, well that has never been observed

This is a bit of a strawman with an unwarranted assumption. You appear to be assuming a goal to evolution where there is none besides survival. You would need to prove that "1 or 2 mutations would be worthless" . Behe's biggest error was to assume that features such as the flagellum was a goal and not a result.

 

[leroy]

That is a rather easy one. Proper morals, not religious ones, aid in the survival of a population.

I?

1 Prove your asertion, how do you know that morals aid for the survival of the population?

2 how do morals evolved in the fist place? Did some gene(s) got a mutation and vualah we became moral agents? Or how did it happened

3 what about moral values that have nothing to do with survival and reproduction, like not raping, or caring about and helping infertile humans, or carrying about other animals, etc.

There are certainly some behaviors that we would consider wrong, that would not affect the survival of our specie. Raping woman like most animals do, would produce more babies, and the chances of passing your genes to the next generations will increase. So why did the moral value of not rapping evolved?