Evolution is not observable admits Jerry Coyne

[ArtieE]

When orbits decay, organic matter decomposes, DNA degrades, chemical bonds break down, these are all forms of entropy that are absolutely applicable to rigorous technical analysis.

And In stark contrast, the philosophical speculation that a single celled molecule morphed into a man through countless lucky flukes, is anything but open to rigorous analysis of any kind.

So, describe the process and how long it took for organisms that started out perfect to mutate and decay into the organisms we have today and all the extinct organisms. Remember, there's an estimated 8.7 million species today and 99.9% of all species are extinct.

 

[ArtieE]

'lucky fluke' is the engine, the core, the foundation of evolution, without it natural selection has no superior designs to choose from.

One can technically posit that we are just witness to an extraordinary sequence of staggeringly improbable luck- and S**t happens, but to ignore the element of fluke is to avoid the whole picture.

Nope, we are witness to different processes including mutations producing 100% of the species on earth where only 0.1% are here today and the rest have gone extinct. Is your alternative that some god designed and created 100% of the species that's ever existed on the earth and then sat back and waited until 0.1% are left including us?

 

[ArtieE]

@ SkepticThinker:

Say there are 8.7 million species on the earth today. http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110823/full/news.2011.498.html
Say 99.9% of all species have gone extinct.
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblo...em-perished-in-five-cataclysmic-events-t.html

Would the total number of species that the designer/creator must have produced be 8,700,000,000.00 or have I calculated wrong?

 

[viole]

en·tro·py

2.

synonyms: deterioration, degeneration, crumbling, decline, degradation, decomposition, breaking down, collapse;More
Entropy is why classical physics failed, simple laws = simple results, the universe required far more specific instructions in the universal constants to construct great fusion reactors to manufacture elements specific to life.

Yu seem to ignore how the second principle really works.

The problem is that whenever we have "creation" of something interesting we always have a bigger "uncreation" of something equally interesting somewhere else, at least from a thermodynamical point of view. So, your designer cannot make something interesting without destroying something more interesting.

Therefore, globally, there is never an added value to the Universe as a whole by means of local "creation" of something interesting. There is actually always a net loss of value.

Not everything is possible just because there is lots of it and billion of years for it to get bored and decide to create something interesting!

Are you talking about God here?

And classical physics was far more directly testable, observable, far less speculative than evolution is today

Shame that most of it is provably wrong.

Ciao

- viole

 

[SkepticThinker]

@ SkepticThinker:

Say there are 8.7 million species on the earth today. http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110823/full/news.2011.498.html
Say 99.9% of all species have gone extinct.
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblo...em-perished-in-five-cataclysmic-events-t.html

Would the total number of species that the designer/creator must have produced be 8,700,000,000.00 or have I calculated wrong?

Hmmm, I'm not exactly sure. Let me think on it. Or maybe someone could help us?

 

[David M]

They do not evolve into new species.

Except they do, its an observed fact.

 

[David M]

To my knowledge, every offspring is the same species as its parent.

You are wrong there, while it is rare (especially in animals) polyploidy events result in offspring which are a different species to their parent.

 

[HeatherAnn]

Evolution is obvious - and we can see it in our own bodies and others - as we age - we evolve.
Life is always evolving - it's one of the characteristics of the living.

That's not to suggest that science is so omniscient to explain everything - not even close!
Nature may be considered habits - and a mysterious (divine?) intelligence inspires breaking out of those habits to try something new.
Stephen Hawking (Atheist prophet ) defined intelligence as "ability to adapt to change."
Considering how everything from microscopic microbes, to planetary systems adapt to change, it is clear that the this world and universe was designed and continues by intelligent design.

 

[David M]

I'm just saying that evolution takes place, and there really is no distinction between different species, because it is the species that evolves. .

Except that a species does not necessarily evolve in only one way, often one population of a species can end up evolving in a different way to another population. Look up "ring species" and you can see snapshots of that process. That fact does cause issues for your premise.

 

[David M]

So it is important to distinguish the differences between blacks and whites?

You do realise that "blacks" and "whites" are the same species. Skin colour is a truly superficial difference when it comes to humans.

 

[Valjean]

Sonofason said: ↑
They do not evolve into new species.

How do the small changes with each generation know when to stop, so as not to go too far and produce a new species?

 

[Revoltingest]

How do the small changes with each generation know when to stop, so as not to go too far and produce a new species?

That must be the part where God comes in to stop evolution.

 

[Clarification]

The individual who started this discussion thread is impersonating someone else online. It is likely they have a mental illness. Please be advised this person is NOT who they say they are. If you do a search of this individual you will even see their photos do not match. I am requesting this account be immediately removed. Impersonating people online is against the law. As it is likely this person has a mental illness, I am unlikely to take legal action. Hoping someone here can help. Thank you.

 

[viole]

Stephen Hawking (Atheist prophet ) defined intelligence as "ability to adapt to change."
Considering how everything from microscopic microbes, to planetary systems adapt to change, it is clear that the this world and universe was designed and continues by intelligent design.

I am not sure your conclusions follow from (Hawkins) premise. Neglectng for a moment what he really meant, let's take his definition at face value.

If intelligence = ability to adapt to change and microbes and planetary systems adapt to change then the microbes and the planetary systems are intelligent.

This is all we can deduce, with the available premises, independently from how meaningful the results are.. The existence of a designer of microbes and planetary systems is nowhere to be found in such premises, unless we beg the question.

Ciao

- viole

 

[HeatherAnn]

Viole,
There is a "law" that says that energy is never created or destroyed, only changes form.
Part of the definition of energy includes consciousness - consciousness is energy.
Consciousness evolves - as we intuitively know, but also as the Flynn effect indicates.
So there is no "begging the question" when consciousness is never "created" - but is always evolving by some degree of intelligence. Consciousness is a foundational fact - maybe the only constant of the universe, by which all others may vary.

Your problem is you are neglecting to consider multiple possibilities of how things are designed and created.
You seem to be blinded by traditional ideas of Intelligent Design, so you dismiss it automatically, even when it is obvious that there is some degree of intelligence (ability to adapt to change) in all life.

 

[outhouse]

and a mysterious (divine?)

No evidence at all for such.

Stephen Hawking (Atheist prophet )

No he is not. he is a scientist, and a good one.

it is clear that the this world and universe was designed and continues by intelligent design.

No it is not, that is faith only, due to desperation of creation mythology being pushed back into mythological corners.

Its a desperate attempt to redefine the mythology to keep it alive.

Part of the definition of energy includes consciousness - consciousness is energy.

Consciousness is energy within the brain, and that energy is fed to the brain by the body which is a fuel converter.

Like a computer, if the brain is unplugged so is consciousness. The mind is a motor, and it requires fuel.

Consciousness evolves

True

So there is no "begging the question" when consciousness is never "created" - but is always evolving by some degree of intelligence.

False.

That's is wish and want, that is 100% factually faith based.

 

[Parsimony]

Evolution is obvious - and we can see it in our own bodies and others - as we age - we evolve.

If you want to use the word "evolve" in a loose sense, sure, but the actual theory of evolution is a very different beast.

 

[Valjean]

How is consciousness "energy?"

 

[outhouse]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/video/tune...man-faces-is-mesmerizing/vp-BBnqUBV?ocid=iehp

Must see video!!!!

Observe this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Rick O'Shez]

How is consciousness "energy?"

Good question!