How can you justify the sheer complexity that evolution would have to evolve?

[Brian2]

Evidence of need comes from unevidenced belief??? How does that work?
Can you give an example of a need for divine manipulation?

I did not say there was evidence of need. It is you who is making the claim, that being that there is no need for divine manipulation. So burden of proof goes to you.

But nobody need say that. I'd say evolution happened because we have mountains of objective evidence and real-time observations supporting it.
Remember, science is not like religion. It's not faith based.

Since you have left out the "without a designer" but, your answer means nothing. Nobody is questioning whether evolution happened.
The "with a designer" or "without a designer" parts are faith based. BOTH of them are faith based.

Huh? How what is possible? Evolution? -- the mechanisms are well known. Magic poofing? -- No evidence, no mechanism, no need.
"If I can do it, then it is possible?" -- do what? Poof a man out of clay? You can do that?

Keep up. If I can see scientific discoveries in Genesis then it can't be that hard. You should be able to do it also.

Also, no possible naturalistic mechanisms eliminate the need for a designer to, for a start, design the whole system and secondly to get each step up and running in situations where nature itself probably could not do it alone.

 

[McBell]

It depends upon how one looks at it and the fruitage (works) of those who profess faith in the Bible as God's word. If I thought that humans evolved from some Unknown Common Ancestor of apes, new or old, naturally I'd go along with that theory. But because there is such a vast difference as far as I am concerned (I say that because I know people will argue with that point), between bonobos and humans, I will stick with the Bible as the truth regarding the creation of the world and life within rather than the theory of evolution. That's one reason why I choose to observe and obey what the Bible says, also how I look at it. I know that's a point perhaps of consternation for some, but not for me.

Luke 15 -- "Or what woman who has ten silver coins and loses one of them does not light a lamp, sweep her house, and search carefully until she finds it? And when she finds it, she calls together her friends and neighbors to say, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found my lost coin.’
in the same way, I tell you, there is joy in the presence of God’s angels over one sinner who repents.”

And you are still dancing around the fact you put a much higher standard for evolution than you do your beliefs.

 

[McBell]

When Jesus preached, he was spoken about. And after his death and appearance to his disciples after his resurrection from the dead, they went ahead with the preaching.

See post #502

 

[YoursTrue]

And you are still dancing around the fact you put a much higher standard for evolution than you do your beliefs.

Since I believe the Bible is the word of God, and I do not believe the theory of evolution as espoused and taught by the majority of those claiming to be scientists, I do not believe the two points (Bible and the theory of evolution) are equal. So let me be clear that this is not misundrestood. I believe the Bible is true and authentic. I do not believe the theory of evolution is true and authentic. Take it as you will. I believe populations with short arms and legs can pass on those genes producing more that are similar. I do not believe that fish evolved in the long run to become humans. Or gorillas.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm not sure if I follow what you said, and how the timing can be random, but the process of mutation is not random.
However it does show a problem religious people have in wanting to follow what science says and science altering it's view point over time.
Anyway, if even mutations are not random AND natural selection is not random, that makes it even easier to see that evolution is one of those things that could not only be predictied by a designer of the system, but also that the system could be designed to produce certain life forms, depending on the environments encountered.

You failed to read in plain English my previous posts. I have addressed this in a number of threads. The randomness of the timing of an event is simply that. science cannot determine exactly when an event takes place. The frequency of a chain of events may be described over time asin radioactive decay, Actually the nature of the event is defined by natural Laws and processes as well as the outcomes of range of possible outcomes of the chain of cause and effect events is fractal, and can only occur within the constraints of natural laws and processes, The processes themselves are NOT random, because they can described and predicted over time.,

I provided a reference that included over 100 scientific papers that describe the fractal nature of mutation processes.

 

[McBell]

Since I believe the Bible is the word of God, and I do not believe the theory of evolution as espoused and taught by the majority of those claiming to be scientists, I do not believe the two points (Bible and the theory of evolution) are equal. So let me be clear that this is not misundrestood. I believe the Bible is true and authentic. I do not believe the theory of evolution is true and authentic. Take it as you will. I believe populations with short arms and legs can pass on those genes producing more that are similar. I do not believe that fish evolved in the long run to become humans. Or gorillas.

Since it is obvious your hypocrisy does not bother you...

So basically, just so we are clear and it is not misunderstood, there is absolutely nothing that can be presented that will change your mind?
If this is true, why troll the evolution threads?

 

[YoursTrue]

Now nighty night for a while. Hope to be back. But one never knows, does one? James 4:14 - "Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes." Although some of us hope for a better time and better life.

 

[YoursTrue]

Since it is obvious your hypocrisy does not bother you...

So basically, just so we are clear and it is not misunderstood, there is absolutely nothing that can be presented that will change your mind?
If this is true, why troll the evolution threads?

I'm not trolling, I'm simply giving my viewpoint. If you'd like, just stop answering me. And maybe I won't keep expressing my viewpoint on this. OK?

 

[Brian2]

Agreed. What science has shown is that the world was able to unfold from a primal seed into filaments of galaxies of solar systems comprising the periodic table of elements that functions daily without apparent intelligent supervision and that on one such planet life and mind exist and evolve also without apparent intelligent oversight. Science has generated a host of theories, laws, and facts none of which require a god and none of which are improved by adding a god.

As you say, that doesn't rules gods out, but it does make the question of their existence or nonexistence moot, since having the answer to that question would change nothing. Suppose a god created and designed that initial seed rather than unconscious nature (that describes the deist god). If so, OK and thanks.

But your argument is from your position of empiricism, which seems to be an argument from incredulity. Then from there you reason that a God would change nothing because the only God your incredulity argument allows is a god that changes nothing in your list of possible things that a god could be relevant to.
You ignore evidence for a god and pretend you are looking at all the evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But your argument is from your position of empiricism, which seems to be an argument from incredulity. Then from there you reason that a God would change nothing because the only God your incredulity argument allows is a god that changes nothing in your list of possible things that a god could be relevant to.
You ignore evidence for a god and pretend you are looking at all the evidence.

Whenever I have heard people speak of "evidence for god" they almost never understand the concept of evidence.

To even have evidence you need first need an argument. The argument itself needs to be a rational argument even before you provide evidence. So what is your argument and what is your supposed evidence for God?

 

[Brian2]

You failed to read in plain English my previous posts. I have addressed this in a number of threads. The randomness of the timing of an event is simply that. science cannot determine exactly when an event takes place. The frequency of a chain of events may be described over time asin radioactive decay, Actually the nature of the event is defined by natural Laws and processes as well as the outcomes of range of possible outcomes of the chain of cause and effect events is fractal, and can only occur within the constraints of natural laws and processes, The processes themselves are NOT random, because they can described and predicted over time.,

I provided a reference that included over 100 scientific papers that describe the fractal nature of mutation processes.

OK so the whole process is orderly in a chaotic way and God can step in at any time or place a do whatever He wants (eg) make land animals from sea creatures, and nobody would be able to say that it was or was not God who did it, except that God has told us what He did and it seems to agree with what science has discovered that has happened.

 

[shunyadragon]

OK so the whole process is orderly in a chaotic way

Careful Chaos Theory does not describe a "Chaotic" world it describe a fractal world.

and God can step in at any time or place a do whatever He wants (eg) make land animals from sea creatures, and nobody would be able to say that it was or was not God who did it, except that God has told us what He did and it seems to agree with what science has discovered that has happened.

OK, ,this is what you believe.

 

[Sargonski]

Unfortunately you and some others think they know what I believe. I never said that scientists do not believe that fish morphed from fish water dwellers to land dwellers. Let me be clearer if possible for your sake. Scientists insofar as I know, believe that fish evolved to land dwellers, such as apes. I never said it was said to happen in one generation. Just to clarify. Also to @Sargonski

Yes you did .. whether you realize it or not .. but what ever .. get over it .. and tell us what you did mean .. what exactly were you trying to say .. about this crucified position you are trying to resurrect ? just like Sunny and the "Gamma ray mutation is not random" ridiculousness.

There is no such thing as a math proof for randomness

Stupendously false but even if true ... does not change the the fact that gamma ray mutations are random .. mutations.

 

[Sargonski]

This still reflects a religious agenda with assumptions that are totally false. First, the ID advocates assume random in nature in their false argument, but in reality nature is NOT fundamentally random. ALL outcomes of cause and effect events have a limited range of possible outcomes limited by Natural Laws and processes. This can be explained in math as fractal and NOT random.

Yes ID advocates create word games and worse misrepresenting and misusing science and math.

The ID advocates dishonestly misuse probability assume nature is a series of random, which is unbelievably false.

You are the ID advocate here .. .. what are you talking about ... "religious agenda" don't tar me with that stank brush you and your "ridiculous assumptions and "totally false" claims .. Good grief this is some kind of dystopian doublespeak coupled with projection howling at the wind.

fractals in nature and randomness have nothing to do with each other in terms of some kind of dependent relationship you are inferring. The idea that fractals rule out randomness is simply false.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes you did .. whether you realize it or not .. but what ever .. get over it .. and tell us what you did mean .. what exactly were you trying to say .. about this crucified position you are trying to resurrect ? just like Sunny and the "Gamma ray mutation is not random" ridiculousness.


Stupendously false but even if true ... does not change the the fact that gamma ray mutations are random .. mutations.

I realize my statement could have been misunderstood. So here is what I mean to say: I never denied that scientists (for the most part) believe in the theory of evolution, to be precise about this subject, i.e., that fish evolved EVENTUALLY to become humans, gorillas, bonobos, etc.

 

[McBell]

I'm not trolling, I'm simply giving my viewpoint. If you'd like, just stop answering me. And maybe I won't keep expressing my viewpoint on this. OK?

Rather telling you did not address the point of the post you replied to.

 

[Sargonski]

I realize my statement could have been misunderstood. So here is what I mean to say: I never denied that scientists (for the most part) believe in the theory of evolution, to be precise about this subject, i.e., that fish evolved EVENTUALLY to become humans, gorillas, bonobos, etc.

That wasn't what was being discussed .. your realization that scientists believe fish evolved into humans .. but what ever .. Mutations happen .. and over time .. through these mutations .. one species is transformed into another .. small changes over time add up .. nothing complicated to see here

Humans on the other hand .. advanced to a certain point - an early Primate .. but then had a big leap .. as the Bible tells us about the offspring .. of the Gods who came down from the sky .. and took wives from the hybrid Adamu .. (Earthlings)

 

[Willamena]

There are 3 billion base pairs in the human genom(a cell) and around 30-40 trillion cells in a human each specialized for a specific function.

There are approximately 86 billions of neurons in the brain.

The eye has a cornea, iris, pupil, lens, retina, optical nerve, macula, fovea, Aqueous Humor, Vitreous Humor, Ciliary Muscles, sclera, Choroid and Conjunctiva to name a few. The eye can distinguish between 10 million colours.

The human gut is home to trillions of microorganisms, collectively known as the gut microbiome.

These are just a few incredible facts about the human body there are hundreds more.

This doesn't even touch on the origins of the first cell, first DNA, first multi cell etc etc

How can you expect anybody to believe that it was random mutations that ultimately created all of this, the complexity is ridiculous and there's no way all these complex organisms could have evolved to work together in harmony as they do?

You've not demonstrated otherwise.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Which makes it predictable and even planned and designed to work that way.

That makes zero sense.

Natural selection requires zero planning or designing.
It's what inevitably occurs when you have systems that reproduce with variation and compete over limited resources in an ever-changing environment.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have always heard that mutations are random.

Random with respect to fitness.