Evolution and Creationism. Are they really different?

[Sapiens]

I don't agree when you say "evolution has been proven". What aspect of the theory was proven? I don't believe the missing link for the ape like creature was ever found, let alone the long route (with no evidence) from the common ancestor (about 4 billion years ago) to the ape-man. The evolution stays a theory not a fact, with significant challenges and doubts by hundreds of scientists.

What is it going to take to get you guys to understand what a theory is? We're getting into the realm of willful ignorance.

--(OurCreed, Creationism is defined however a person defines it. In my eyes, evolution is simply a part of creationism.)--

Nice try, attempting to hide out in the semantic slip stream ... it doesn't wash. You have a right to your own opinion but not to your own facts or to private and selfserving definitions.

Creationism is simply a claim of intelligent design for every thing in existence including the entire universe. It's totally illogical when people claim that there no evidence for intelligent design. Let me ask you, what would be an evidence for intelligent design??? Simply ""intelligent design"" or in another word examples of intelligent design. Can we find examples of intelligent design in our universe? Absolutely yes. In fact every thing around us even the entire universe itself is an example of extremely perfect intelligent design.

Then explain the coccyx and the recurrent laryngeal nerve.

Scientific observations proved that our universe is an extremely accurate design to an extent that can't be imagined. What would be a logical interpretation of these observations??? Very simple, our entire world is an intelligent design by an extremely intelligent designer.
{/quote]At a minimum that collides violently with parsimony.
Science is claimed to dependent on observations and data but when it comes to intelligent design, all compelling examples and data are simply ignored for one reason or another.

Not ignored for one reason or another, examined and dismissed for cause.

I don' t see a contradiction with respect to the fact that an intelligent design is capable to adopt and evolve within specific limits. But if a creature is not equipped initially with what it needs to survive, it wouldn't have any chance of survival.

Then please specify the limits, and stop thinking solely in terms of survival. Survival is a binary if you are not equipped to survive you die. Evolution is based on fitness, two organisms with differnt fitness can both survive.

For example, I don't believe at all that a need to fly will ever give a flying capability or mechanism to a creature. Unless every aspect of this creature is initially designed intelligently to fly, it will never have a chance to fly. No matter how many times you jump off the cliff, you will never grow wings. You don't have a million year to grow it. only few seconds till you hit the ground and die every single time. Similarly, if creature is not designed to breath under water, will have no chance of survival under water. It wouldn't have a million year to evolve. Only few minutes and will definitely die.

Let's talk for a moment about the evolution of flight. Let me show you how it may have happened and why your scenario of no flight on Monday, flying on Tuesday is horse pucky.

Flight has evolved, independently, at least five times: fish, insects, reptiles, birds and mammals. In each case the capability, mechanism, and selective pressure was different. There are several main hypotheses:

1. To help escape from predators
2. To help catch flying or speedy prey
3. To help move from place to place (leaping or gliding)
4. To free the hindlegs for use as weapons
5. To gain access to new food sources or an unoccupied niche

Fish are perhaps the simplest to analyze. It's all Item 1. Fish leap out of the water when chased by predators. Fish with even slightly enlarged pectoral fins can glide a small distance and thus are less likely to become prey. This favors fish with increasingly lengthened pectorals up to the point that the enlarged pectoral interferes with swimming.

Let's more to the more complex, the birds. Start out with a small cursorial feathered reptile that ran about eating insects that it grasped its's mouth and with its forelegs. Lengthened feather on its forearms would have generated increased fitness by expanding it's niche as a result of using those feather to better catch insects, especially smaller ones that otherwise would have escaped. So there is selective pressure for longer and longer feathers on its arms. Like the fish example, these small cursorial feathered reptiles could get more of a hop and even a little glide which would have further raised their fitness. Now you have all the preadaptation needed to progress to full flight: a light body, and airfoil, a warm-blooded power-plant, and a propensity for getting up off the ground that is reward by an increased food supply. Now all five of the items above come into play.

Now, this is speculative, it is not intended as a "proof" but rather as a falsification of your statement, "I don't believe at all that a need to fly will ever give a flying capability or mechanism to a creature. Unless every aspect of this creature is initially designed intelligently to fly, it will never have a chance to fly. No matter how many times you jump off the cliff, you will never grow wings." through the provision of a possible route to flight through natural selection. There are numerous and highly technical papers that discuss that actual anatomical and physiological changes with examples from the fossil record if you are inclined to look them up. John Ostrom, a prominent vertebrate paleontologist from Yale (major professor of a friend of mine Robert Bakker, who started the hot-blooded dinosaur revolution) notes of his cursorial theory, "My cursorial predator theory is in fact speculative. But the arboreal theory is also similarly speculative."

An intelligent life design depends on an extremely complex/intelligent blueprint written in its genes in every single cell. The blue prints don't change during the life span of a creature and only passed to the offsprings. If mutation happen, you would expect a sudden change at time of birth not a gradual change over a long period.

No, I would not "expect a sudden change at time of birth not a gradual change over a long period" as you do. I would expect small incremental changes, each of which confers a net selective advantage in terms of fitness of the organism. Subsequent modification of a single structure may not yield additional fitness in the same fashion, a feather that lets a bird fly will have been evolved first for warmth and dermal protection, enhanced by selective advantage in food capture and in the end permitted the soaring flight of and the helicopter acrobatics of a hummingbird.

Think about the example of whales and dolphins. Its entire life is under water but never evolved to breath under water and will never do. I wonder why? Simply because it's blueprint are not written this way.

No, no, no! Cetaceans will never evolve to breathe under water because there is no series of preadaptation that will increase the oxygen level in water to support active large mammal respiration. A spinner dolphin weighing a hundred kilos, or so, needs about 1.5 liters of oxygen per minute while swimming or .64 liters per minute while resting. About 800 liters of sea water per minute (assuming 25% efficiency, which is high) would have pass through its gills. Since this is physically impossible, it would either have to evolve a slug like depressed metabolism that would make it unable to actively hunt and would leave it as an easy prey item, or it would have to evolve a gill structure of impossible magnitude.

 

[Sapiens]

Cell biologist, Kenneth R. Miller, can be deemed the poster boy for the defense of conventional evolutionary theory against creationists and proponents of Intelligent Design. He has co-authored a standard biology high school text book for teaching evolution in public schools and has served as a key witness in landmark court cases that rejected the claim the Intelligent Design should be taught in public schools. He is probably the most in demand pro-evolution speaker on the public lecture circuit.

Yet to me great amusement, many evolutionists apparently do not realize that Miller is a devout Catholic who believes in God, miracles, an answers to prayer. See e, g,

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/08/1/l_081_01.html

I think everyone in the field knows that, especially since Miller so terrified the IDers that all of their expert witnesses, save Behe (who was badly beaten up and discredited) failed to show up at the Dover, PA trial. I highly recommend his book: Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution. But I have to warn you that I suspect he is really a deist at heart and it is his puckish existential sense of humor that makes him a practicing Catholic ... he'd never have survived the Inquisition.

A creationist (devout catholic) teaches evolution and co-author a book teaching evolution in public school. A student learn evolution from a book by a creationist, then becomes an evolutionist who is very confident that science contradicts creationism??? What a mess!

Sorry ... Miller is not a creationist. Just one more thing to add to the list of the things you have gotten wrong.

A distance or a value can't be identified unless compared to a (trusted) reference. Similarly, Observations and data wouldn't have any meaning or value unless evaluated by a logical human intellect (similar to raw material waiting to be fabricated by an intelligent process). Science and logic are inseparable but Logic is a higher reference that gives science itself a meaning.

Logic is a product of human intellect but what identifies logic itself as a trusted reference? I imagine a higher external reference would be required.

You seem to be pretty big on imagining things.

You always need a trusted reference to identify any value. The hierarchy of references keeps escalating as you find every reference dependent on another higher reference. As the process continues, a logical end would be a final single trusted reference higher than all other references.

Going back to your comment, if a creationist (Ken Miller) can't be trusted/ accepted as a viable scientific mind (from evolutionist perspective), then trusting him or his work as a credible science reference would be illogical. But that would only depend on your definition of logic.

[/quote]Yes, but why do you keep doing the equivalent of trying to measure distances with a graduated cylinder? The right tool for the right job is important.

Miller's theory points to a deity that created a self-sufficient world, which functions virtually independently from God's influences. In this view, God used science and physics to create a complex world and then allowed it to evolve on its own

Yup, Deist.

Through logic, given the attribute of God being eternal. If we accept any entity to be eternal, as well as being outside of time, then this universe literally existed within a blink of an eye (even less), in God's perspective.

Evidence that supports this extraordinary claim?

Not necessarily. Creationism can be reached from /logical inference, no teaching or religious ideas involved.

Please demonstrate.

If Ken Miller believes that God is responsible for the existence of our world, then he is essentially a creationist. The details of his specific perspective, don't change the fact that he believes in God.

Miller would not agree, once again you are making up your own definitions.

I don't see the two being contradictory at all. God has created this universe from scratch, and set up laws in the universe that can never be broken. These laws determine how everything happens in the universe from beginning to end, and God knows exactly how everything will turn out. He doesn't tinker with anything once the universe is already created. It will run its term til the end.

That's fine but illogical. It flies in the face of parsimony.

First issue I see here is that you equated the beginning of my statement towards the last part of my statement. Being eternal doesn't mean God has achieved His objectives. God achieving His objectives is derived through the fact that He is eternal. But the two facts are not the same! I clearly differentiated between the two when I said, "God doesn't tinker with anything, He decrees everything from the beginning. And regarding objectives. God has already technically achieved His objective." Hence, me saying, "And regarding objectives..."

I made my answers clear. We are given the attribute of God from our beliefs that He is eternal. So if God is eternal (also being outside of time), then the universe, as best as we can describe it, has popped in and out for Him in His perspective, like a snap of fingers. Why? Since He is eternal and outside of time, time doesn't exist for Him. He doesn't sit and wait for the events in the universe to unfold one by one like we do, creatures who are living within time.

So regarding objectives, it wouldn't be contradictory to what I just stated at all. The person by the name of Viole stated, "If we believe that God tinkers with proteins, weather changes, continental drifts and huge asteroids in order to achieve His objectives, that is true." And I explained that God doesn't do that. He has set the laws in motion from the very beginning which He had decreed.

The only way to understand this fact is to first understand that God is eternal, and beyond time itself. When you pick and choose from people's statements, you will get confused.

Ditto.

Yes, It's not possible for any one to be expert on everything (and may not need to). I don't think it's about how much data you memorize but essentially, the overall holistic vision that allows you to process data to extract conclusions.

The claim that being an evolutionist is necessarily following the footsteps of the scientific community is not true.

according to a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center in 2009, the majority of scientists (51%) said they believe in God, while 41% said they do not.

The interesting part is that 100 years ago (1914), 1000 scientist were questioned by psychologist James Leuba about their beliefs and they were evenly divided, with 42% saying that they believed in a personal God and the same number saying they did not.

It appears that the percentage of scientists who believe in God would be higher now than what it was 100 years ago.

I suspect that in the Leuba study the people were actually scientists and that in the Pew study they were nothing more than subscribers to Science Magazine. Try looking that real scientist that are at the top of their field, member of the National Academy of Sciences. Leuba had taken a subsample of more prominent or "greater" scientists in his sample and reported that they exhibited a higher rate of disbelief (70%) compared to less prominent scientists. Recently, Larson and Witham asked Leuba's questions of members of the National Academy of Sciences. NAS scientists had higher levels of disbelief and agnosticism, reporting "near universal rejection of the transcendent by NAS natural scientists".

 

[Skwim]

First issue I see here is that you equated the beginning of my statement towards the last part of my statement. Being eternal doesn't mean God has achieved His objectives. God achieving His objectives is derived through the fact that He is eternal. But the two facts are not the same! I clearly differentiated between the two when I said, "God doesn't tinker with anything, He decrees everything from the beginning. And regarding objectives. God has already technically achieved His objective." Hence, me saying, "And regarding objectives..."

I made my answers clear. We are given the attribute of God from our beliefs that He is eternal. So if God is eternal (also being outside of time), then the universe, as best as we can describe it, has popped in and out for Him in His perspective, like a snap of fingers. Why? Since He is eternal and outside of time, time doesn't exist for Him. He doesn't sit and wait for the events in the universe to unfold one by one like we do, creatures who are living within time.

So regarding objectives, it wouldn't be contradictory to what I just stated at all. The person by the name of Viole stated, "If we believe that God tinkers with proteins, weather changes, continental drifts and huge asteroids in order to achieve His objectives, that is true." And I explained that God doesn't do that. He has set the laws in motion from the very beginning which He had decreed.

The only way to understand this fact is to first understand that God is eternal, and beyond time itself. When you pick and choose from people's statements, you will get confused.

*sigh* No better than your first shot.


.

 

[Etritonakin]

It may not seem that an original creator was necessary, but a creator is necessary at a certain point. It is possible for a series of events after the Big Bang to have caused life to form, but that would not negate the necessity of a creative intelligence.
It is also possible for an intelligence to cause the same series of events after the Big Bang.

The more I consider what is possible for humans to do given their intelligence -and what is not possible where humans are absent, the more I believe that what exists or is produced from that which exists is indicative of the process or intelligence which ordered it -and that the complex orders of some things indicate that they must first have been imagined -modeled in some sort of memory -before being caused.

When anything happens, it happens by a process. When something simple happens, it happens by a simple process. When something complex happens, it happens by a complex process -which is multiple simple processes in a complex order. The basis of intelligence is simple processes in complex orders -processing.
Specific orders lead to different specific capabilities.
Computer chips are essentially made of silicon doped with other materials -not many elements, but their arrangement allows for awesome capabilities.

Even if one does not believe in God, one can consider the Big Bang to be a sort of creator. It must have had the ability to process that which was into that which it became.
Evolution itself is a creator -a processor -even a sort of intelligence.

If, as we are told by scripture, we are made in the image and likeness of God -and the things of God are apparent in what was made -we should have no issues considering evolution and direct intelligent self-aware creation together.
They both exist. We just have to figure out when which was responsible for what.

 

[OurCreed]

Evidence that supports this extraordinary claim?

Logic. Given the view that God, (or anything), is eternal and timeless, then this universe which is finite and restricted by time, existed within a blink of an eye, yet, even quicker than that. It's logic. And it's not an extraordinary claim. Just because this is the first time you heard it or fail to understand it doesn't mean it's extraordinary.

That's fine but illogical. It flies in the face of parsimony.

I already explained it to the other person. You need to show how it's illogical. When you misconstrue a person's words, you will think it's illogical, which is what the other person did.

 

[OurCreed]

*sigh* No better than your first shot.


.

Got nothing better to say? Pity.

 

[Sapiens]

Evidence that supports this extraordinary claim?

Logic.

More like illogic

Given the view that God, (or anything), is eternal and timeless, then this universe which is finite and restricted by time, existed within a blink of an eye, yet, even quicker than that. It's logic.

Oh come on ... at least put up an argument. Your syllogism is a failure, your "given" is not given, it is just a steaming pile of horse pucky. That reduces your consequent to a waste of time and bandwidth. Now, if you only had some actual (preferably extraordinary) evidence of a God, (or anything), that is eternal and timeless that might help your case. But .... alas, you do not.

And it's not an extraordinary claim. Just because this is the first time you heard it or fail to understand it doesn't mean it's extraordinary.

Oh, I heard it many, many time, I understand it completely, but I think any rational person would describe anything that is eternal and timeless as at least a wee bit out of the ordinary ... don't you?

That's fine but illogical. It flies in the face of parsimony.

I already explained it to the other person. You need to show how it's illogical. When you misconstrue a person's words, you will think it's illogical, which is what the other person did.

Really?

You posted:

1. Through logic, given the attribute of God being eternal. If we accept any entity to be eternal, as well as being outside of time, then this universe literally existed within a blink of an eye (even less), in God's perspective.
2. I don't see the two being contradictory at all. God has created this universe from scratch, and set up laws in the universe that can never be broken. These laws determine how everything happens in the universe from beginning to end, and God knows exactly how everything will turn out. He doesn't tinker with anything once the universe is already created. It will run its term til the end.
3. First issue I see here is that you equated the beginning of my statement towards the last part of my statement. Being eternal doesn't mean God has achieved His objectives. God achieving His objectives is derived through the fact that He is eternal. But the two facts are not the same! I clearly differentiated between the two when I said, "God doesn't tinker with anything, He decrees everything from the beginning. And regarding objectives. God has already technically achieved His objective." Hence, me saying, "And regarding objectives..."
4. I made my answers clear. We are given the attribute of God from our beliefs that He is eternal. So if God is eternal (also being outside of time), then the universe, as best as we can describe it, has popped in and out for Him in His perspective, like a snap of fingers. Why? Since He is eternal and outside of time, time doesn't exist for Him. He doesn't sit and wait for the events in the universe to unfold one by one like we do, creatures who are living within time.

So regarding objectives, it wouldn't be contradictory to what I just stated at all. The person by the name of Viole stated, "If we believe that God tinkers with proteins, weather changes, continental drifts and huge asteroids in order to achieve His objectives, that is true." And I explained that God doesn't do that. He has set the laws in motion from the very beginning which He had decreed.

The only way to understand this fact is to first understand that God is eternal, and beyond time itself. When you pick and choose from people's statements, you will get confused.​

Which statement shifts your burden to me?

None that I can see.

 

[Parsimony]

Yes, It's not possible for any one to be expert on everything (and may not need to). I don't think it's about how much data you memorize but essentially, the overall holistic vision that allows you to process data to extract conclusions.

The claim that being an evolutionist is necessarily following the footsteps of the scientific community is not true.

according to a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center in 2009, the majority of scientists (51%) said they believe in God, while 41% said they do not.

The interesting part is that 100 years ago (1914), 1000 scientist were questioned by psychologist James Leuba about their beliefs and they were evenly divided, with 42% saying that they believed in a personal God and the same number saying they did not.

It appears that the percentage of scientists who believe in God would be higher now than what it was 100 years ago.

Why are you saying this? Believing in God is not the opposite of believing in evolution...

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

It may not seem that an original creator was necessary, but a creator is necessary at a certain point. It is possible for a series of events after the Big Bang to have caused life to form, but that would not negate the necessity of a creative intelligence.
It is also possible for an intelligence to cause the same series of events after the Big Bang.

The more I consider what is possible for humans to do given their intelligence -and what is not possible where humans are absent, the more I believe that what exists or is produced from that which exists is indicative of the process or intelligence which ordered it -and that the complex orders of some things indicate that they must first have been imagined -modeled in some sort of memory -before being caused.

It's a self-defeating notion regardless. Arguing that complex life requires a creator, begs the question of whether the creator is more complex than the created. If yes, then this creator himself requires an even more complex creator, in which case you run into an infinite regression problem. If the answer is no, then our creator is more simplistic than us, then you automatically accept that complex phenomenon indeed arise from simplistic phenomenon.

At the end of the day, the argument boils down to whether complexity arises from higher complexity, complexity arises from simplicity, or complexity simply exists on its own.

 

[Subhankar Zac]

Buddhism and Taoism have no dogma on creation. They are expected to accept new information that has Been founded by research and technology.
These two religions deal mainly with ethics and personal morality.
Hinduism though has a number of creation myths... From the agnostic Stance of Nasadiya sukta to the Golden Embryo theory of infinitely small size to the Purusha sukta.
Due to its acceptance of various theories and ideas, no official single dogma is accepted and also people are encouraged to theorize or even prove their version of ideas about creation too.

 

[Etritonakin]

It's a self-defeating notion regardless. Arguing that complex life requires a creator, begs the question of whether the creator is more complex than the created. If yes, then this creator himself requires an even more complex creator, in which case you run into an infinite regression problem. If the answer is no, then our creator is more simplistic than us, then you automatically accept that complex phenomenon indeed arise from simplistic phenomenon.

At the end of the day, the argument boils down to whether complexity arises from higher complexity, complexity arises from simplicity, or complexity simply exists on its own.

It is not self-defeating.

Note that humans -who do not truly understand themselves -can imagine things greater than themselves -and even create things greater than themselves.
Humans can create things which can do what humans cannot do -from elements which humans do not understand completely.

Creation requires that something greater be caused by something temporarily lesser -but which is capable of creating something greater.

Complexity initially arises from simplicity becoming ordered.

Our creator was the most simple thing -and becomes the most complex thing.

 

[Sapiens]

It is not self-defeating.

Note that humans -who do not truly understand themselves -can imagine things greater than themselves -and even create things greater than themselves.
Humans can create things which can do what humans cannot do -from elements which humans do not understand completely.

Creation requires that something greater be caused by something temporarily lesser -but which is capable of creating something greater.

Complexity initially arises from simplicity becoming ordered.

Our creator was the most simple thing -and becomes the most complex thing.

So in your book it all breaks down to an argument from ignorance followed by "god of the gaps." It would be so nice if y'all could come with something new.

 

[McBell]

It is not self-defeating.

Note that humans -who do not truly understand themselves -can imagine things greater than themselves -and even create things greater than themselves.
Humans can create things which can do what humans cannot do -from elements which humans do not understand completely.

Creation requires that something greater be caused by something temporarily lesser -but which is capable of creating something greater.

Complexity initially arises from simplicity becoming ordered.

Our creator was the most simple thing -and becomes the most complex thing.

You are chasing your own tail

 

[NoorNoor]

But wouldn't the small changes eventually accumulate to produce a big change; a genetically incompatible change, as our Digital Artist put it?
A grain of sand washed downstream does not a Grand Canyon make, but a grain today, another tomorrow....

Do you know what a ring species is, NoorNoor? Ring species are observable examples of one species slowly going through a series of small changes in adjacent populations till a form is reached that can't breed with the original anymore, though any subspecies along the continuum can interbreed with its neighbors -- Google.

There are many other observed examples of speciation, as well, though not with the nice continuum of extant intermediates we see in ring species.

digital artist said "Small changes within inheritable genetic traits build on each other until a threshold of genetic incompatibility is reached. Viola, speciation."

Would the DNA repair stop these small changes process from accumulating to that extent at the threshold? If it passes through DNA repair, Does this mean that the small changes would have no effect and suddenly, (at a threshold) a completely new species appears as an offspring of an original species?? So it's not a gradual change over a long period of time but actually a sudden mutation or jumps ? If This new species appear at random point in time, would it need others of the same new kind at the same time to breed? Would it be possible that a random process creating a random change at a random threshold to create multiple copies of the same random change at the same time? If changes to ring species wouldn't allow it to breed, can this new mutated species breed? What are the evidence of all of that? How is that consistent with fossil record? Why don't we see examples of these drastic threshold changes now? Assuming its in process and may happen at any random point in time?

Its not my intent to just argue or challenge you. you may shed some light on some questions but as a whole, I don't think the theory is coherent. I honestly find it very hard to believe. if you keep throwing building blocks randomly on top of each other for a long time, you would only have a big random pile but you will never end up with the empire state. In absence of an intelligent process, no intelligent design is possible. The structure of the building blocks of life or chromosomes are way more complex/sophisticated than any random or intelligent process can produce. It's like a signature of the creator on every single cell of a living creature. It can't be matched. Maybe humans can tinker with DNA but it would be impossible to write a complete and extremely complex code of live in a tiny chromosome. I know we are at a dead end. We may not agree. regardless, I appreciate your time and your response

As DA pointed out, mutations are common and most have no discernible effect, but beneficial and harmful mutations do occur, and the harm and benefit aren't often clear cut. The same mutation might be beneficial in one situation and harmful in another.
Example (simplified): Most people have two "A" genes coding for haemoglobin, one from each parent, but in regions where malaria is endemic some individuals carry a mutant, "S" form, which confers a resistance to the disease. This is a beneficial mutation. But it can also cause negative symptoms like exercise and altitude intolerance. In malaria free regions there are no benefits; it's a purely harmful mutation. Moreover, if two A-S parents have a child, there's a 25% chance of the child inheriting two S genes, which causes a severe, often lethal disability.
In malarial regions this risk is outweighed, on the population level, by the percentage of malaria-resistant, A-S individuals in the population. Some are sacrificed to enable human habitation of malarial regions.
So haemoglobin S can be either a harmful or beneficial mutation, depending on the situation.

I understand, What you described is a process that takes place within same species. It would make changes within the species but wouldn't completely transform a species to another

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

It is not self-defeating.

Note that humans -who do not truly understand themselves -can imagine things greater than themselves -and even create things greater than themselves.
Humans can create things which can do what humans cannot do -from elements which humans do not understand completely.

Creation requires that something greater be caused by something temporarily lesser -but which is capable of creating something greater.

Complexity initially arises from simplicity becoming ordered.

Our creator was the most simple thing -and becomes the most complex thing.

So we're more intelligent than our creator? And that creator is more intelligent than its creator? And so on and so forth? Either way, it means intelligence arose from non-intelligence.

 

[OurCreed]

Oh come on ... at least put up an argument. Your syllogism is a failure, your "given" is not given, it is just a steaming pile of horse pucky. That reduces your consequent to a waste of time and bandwidth. Now, if you only had some actual (preferably extraordinary) evidence of a God, (or anything), that is eternal and timeless that might help your case. But .... alas, you do not.

There really is nothing more to say to you when you don't even know what logical deduction is. And now you change the topic completely asking for evidence of God when that wasn't even the topic to begin with. Typical attitude.

Oh, I heard it many, many time, I understand it completely, but I think any rational person would describe anything that is eternal and timeless as at least a wee bit out of the ordinary ... don't you?

If you are referring to an actual entity being eternal and timeless, I don't disagree. It is extraordinary. But simply talking about that in a discussion is not at all ecstatic or unbelievable. In mathematics, we talk about infinity and similar concepts all the time, it's normal, not extraordinary at all.

Which statement shifts your burden to me? None that I can see.

I made all of my arguments starting from a simple hypothetical premise. From there, I made my points. If you think it's illogical, then you need to show how. Arguing the validity of a hypothesis is like pointing fingers at a story book and saying the obvious, "It's fake!" not to mention it's avoiding the topic at hand.

 

[Sapiens]

OurCreed: Please learn to use the standard quotation system, it makes everyone's life much easier.

Oh come on ... at least put up an argument. Your syllogism is a failure, your "given" is not given, it is just a steaming pile of horse pucky. That reduces your consequent to a waste of time and bandwidth. Now, if you only had some actual (preferably extraordinary) evidence of a God, (or anything), that is eternal and timeless that might help your case. But .... alas, you do not.

There really is nothing more to say to you when you don't even know what logical deduction is.

Deductive reasoning links premises with conclusions. If all premises are true, the terms are clear, and the rules of deductive logic are followed, then the conclusion reached is necessarily true. Now do have anything more to say? Or was that just a ruse to get yourself out of the line of fire?

And now you change the topic completely asking for evidence of God when that wasn't even the topic to begin with.

Now, don't you go fibbin' ... credit where credit is due, you introduced the question of god when you proposed the premise, "Given the view that God, (or anything), is eternal and timeless ..." so let's not blame me for your failure, you did it all yourself, I just showed you where the cliff was. Thanks for jumping.

Your problem is simple, your premise is a mess, your terms are muddled and is it any wonder that, as a result, your conclusion is nonsense? Following the rules in the absence of true premises (etc.) is, as has already been mentioned, a waste of time and bandwidth.

Typical attitude.

If you find my attitude typical, it might be that you induce that response in people.

Oh, I heard it many, many time, I understand it completely, but I think any rational person would describe anything that is eternal and timeless as at least a wee bit out of the ordinary ... don't you?

If you are referring to an actual entity being eternal and timeless, I don't disagree. It is extraordinary. But simply talking about that in a discussion is not at all ecstatic or unbelievable. In mathematics, we talk about infinity and similar concepts all the time, it's normal, not extraordinary at all.

Then come up with some extraordinary evidence or even some ordinary evidence. As is stands, you have nothing on the table but talk and talk's cheap.

Which statement shifts your burden to me? None that I can see.

I made all of my arguments starting from a simple hypothetical premise.

That was defective.

From there, I made my points.

That suffered from the defectiveness of your premise.

If you think it's illogical, then you need to show how.

I just did.

Arguing the validity of a hypothesis is like pointing fingers at a story book and saying the obvious, "It's fake!" not to mention it's avoiding the topic at hand.

No, the proposer has the burden, you proposed , I disposed.

 

[Sapiens]

digital artist said "Small changes within inheritable genetic traits build on each other until a threshold of genetic incompatibility is reached. Viola, speciation."

Rather a gross simplification.

Would the DNA repair stop these small changes process from accumulating to that extent at the threshold?

In some cases it could stop a change in others slow change, but actual speciation is, currently, thought to occur allopatrically from founder effect and genetic drift.

If it passes through DNA repair, Does this mean that the small changes would have no effect and suddenly, (at a threshold) a completely new species appears as an offspring of an original species??

No.

So it's not a gradual change over a long period of time but actually a sudden mutation or jumps ?

Both gradualism and punctuated are accepted models, I suspect that there is a punctuated gradualism whereby both models are possible depending upon specifics of the niche space.

If This new species appear at random point in time, would it need others of the same new kind at the same time to breed?

Instantaneous speciation is not considered realistic by any of the authorities I know of.

Would it be possible that a random process creating a random change at a random threshold to create multiple copies of the same random change at the same time?

Rather doubtful.

If changes to ring species wouldn't allow it to breed, can this new mutated species breed?

II think you are misunderstanding ring species, please read this: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/devitt_02 and ask again if you still feel the need.

What are the evidence of all of that? How is that consistent with fossil record? Why don't we see examples of these drastic threshold changes now? Assuming its in process and may happen at any random point in time?

Because that's not how it works, instant species are not proposed except as a creationist strawman.

Its not my intent to just argue or challenge you. you may shed some light on some questions but as a whole, I don't think the theory is coherent.

The TOE is quite coherent, your understanding of biology and evolution is short-sheeting your intellectual bed.

I honestly find it very hard to believe.

If you fail to learn it is quite impossible to understand.

if you keep throwing building blocks randomly on top of each other for a long time, you would only have a big random pile but you will never end up with the empire state.

The WEASEL simulation demonstrates the concept that you are missing.

In absence of an intelligent process, no intelligent design is possible.

It is not an "intelegent" process, it is a natural one.

The structure of the building blocks of life or chromosomes are way more complex/sophisticated than any random or intelligent process can produce.

That is the naive conclusion of one who has demonstrated a lack of mastery of even the basics of the field.

It's like a signature of the creator on every single cell of a living creature.

Once again, that is the naive conclusion of one who has demonstrated a lack of mastery of even the basics of the field.

It can't be matched. Maybe humans can tinker with DNA but it would be impossible to write a complete and extremely complex code of live in a tiny chromosome.
I know we are at a dead end. We may not agree. regardless, I appreciate your time and your response

Sorry, I guess you don't keep up on the literature of the field, it has already been done. Scientists in the US have succeeded in developing the first living cell to be controlled entirely by synthetic DNA. The team was led by Dr Craig Venter of the J Craig Venter Institute (JCVI) in Maryland and California. He and his colleagues had previously made a synthetic bacterial genome, and transplanted the genome of one bacterium into another. Now, the scientists have put both methods together, to create what they call a "synthetic cell", although only its genome is truly synthetic. Dr Venter likened the advance to making new software for the cell.

 

[Valjean]

NoorNoor: Does this mean that the small changes would have no effect and suddenly, (at a threshold) a completely new species appears as an offspring of an original species?? So it's not a gradual change over a long period of time but actually a sudden mutation or jumps ?

Small changes accumulate. How much change constitutes a 'species' is somewhat arbitrary. Rates of change vary as well, but an entirely new species isn't going to suddenly pop into being.

If This new species appear at random point in time, would it need others of the same new kind at the same time to breed?

How are you defining "new species?" It's not a breed/no-breed situation. Breeding success varies. It's a continuum. As changes accumulate breeding success decreases -- gradually.

Would it be possible that a random process creating a random change at a random threshold to create multiple copies of the same random change at the same time?If changes to ring species wouldn't allow it to breed, can this new mutated species breed?

No need to create the same changes at the same time to breed. Labradors and Poodles breed all the time, and they're visibly different.
Random changes occur, non-random selection weeds out the nonselective changes. It's a weasel process: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_program

The ring species are a continuum of changes. All individuals can breed with their neighbors, but breeding success decreases as physical distance/genetic difference increases. Individuals from opposite ends can't breed, and can be considered separate species.

What are the evidence of all of that? How is that consistent with fossil record? Why don't we see examples of these drastic threshold changes now? Assuming its in process and may happen at any random point in time?

No fossil records needed. Ring species exist in real time, with the whole continuum scampering or flying around.

I honestly find it very hard to believe. if you keep throwing building blocks randomly on top of each other for a long time, you would only have a big random pile but you will never end up with the empire state. In absence of an intelligent process, no intelligent design is possible.

Wouldn't that make the mechanisms of evolution -- natural selection, sexual selection, mutation, genetic drift, founder effect, &c -- intelligent processes, then?
If you take a random pile of rocks then eliminate all the rocks that aren't in positions analogous to those in the Empire State Building, then throw on more rocks, then eliminate the misplaced again, over and over, you'll eventually get the Empire State Building. See the weasel process link.
There's a random element to evolution, true, but the process isn't random, it's selective, automatically, -- no creator or guiding hand required.

I understand you find the process hard to believe. I think that's because you still lack enough puzzle pieces to see the big picture. Some googling or a basic biology textbook should fill in the gaps.
Consider: The process of evolution is a great deal more intuitive and easier to grasp than either relativity or quantum mechanics, but I don't see a great debate about these.

The structure of the building blocks of life or chromosomes are way more complex/sophisticated than any random or intelligent process can produce.

This is just....wrong.

It's like a signature of the creator on every single cell of a living creature. It can't be matched. Maybe humans can tinker with DNA but it would be impossible to write a complete and extremely complex code of live in a tiny chromosome.

There's no creator or intentionality needed. The process is automatic.
As Sapiens pointed out, we've already created new chromosomes in the lab. We can do it either artificially or by creating novel environments and watching the process unfold naturally -- no guiding hand needed.

I understand, What you described is a process that takes place within same species. It would make changes within the species but wouldn't completely transform a species to another

But other processes do create new species. This has been observed both in the lab and in Nature.

 

[Etritonakin]

So we're more intelligent than our creator? And that creator is more intelligent than its creator? And so on and so forth? Either way, it means intelligence arose from non-intelligence.

Intelligence did not arise from non-intelligence, simple intelligence became more complex and capable. There was never truly non-intelligence, but the most simple intelligence.
Everything is intelligence -and what you call non-intelligence is only more simple intelligence which is part of the one intelligence.

We are not more intelligent than OUR creator -but we may begin more intelligent than our creator may have begun. It is not a static thing -but a dynamic thing. Our creator is essentially everything -and we are only part of everything.
We are part of everything becoming more complex and increasing in intelligence.
We are part of one intelligence becoming many somewhat independent intelligences.

Our perspective must also be considered. We did not order or design ourselves.
We become aware within a body which already has certain capabilities.
However, we have the capability to improve ourselves -to make ourselves more capable -more intelligent -and even to make the design of our bodies more capable.

An original intelligence may have arisen from the most simple intelligence -but, as the original, would have power over all as it became more complex -and more aware of what it made to be aware of. So, while the original may have begun in a more simple state, it's present state is far greater than ours.

This is true even of "nature" -if an intelligent, self-aware creator is not considered.

If God created the universe, in designing it he would have made himself capable of creating it -and may have first made himself capable of designing -which would be built upon the most basic properties of his original state.
That which the original created, he created of himself.