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

[Valjean]

You are the one who likes to invent undetectable third parties that have no other point of contact with reality except your imagination.

What undetectable third parties have biologists or "evolutionists" invented? Science can't investigate what it can't detect and examine, so undetectable anythings don't even fall within its purview.

There is supporting evidence for God, so a claim for God is not meaningless, but it is evidence that you reject, and that is probably part of your incredulity fallacy that you are involved in and part of your empiricism only beliefs.

Incredulity, intuition, or emotion are subjective and can't be tested or examined. They are not evidence.

I understand the difference and that science can only say that for their purposes there is no need for.....
It is from there that atheists step out and say "Science, only science and empiricism is real and so there are no gods."

Some do, most don't. Most say "you haven't met your burden, I'm not convinced."

Are you saying that you do not say that no third party was involve in evolution etc?
No, you say that all the time.
It is a statement of faith just as my "I believe a third party was involved", is a statment of faith.

Most just say "I'm not convinced," not a clear declaration that no third party exists.
Yes, faith is unwarranted belief; belief without sufficient evidence. Your belief in a third party is, indeed, unfounded.

 

[gnostic]

I don't expect science to start talking about gods. I do however draw a line between science and my life. Science, by necessity, uses empiricism only (well in theory at least), and ignores evidence that cannot be tested or falsified.

brian.

Evidence has to be “observable”, to even be considered “evidence”.

The word “observation”, as use in science, required to be the evidence to be “detected”, “quantified”, “tested”, ”compared”, “analyzed”, etc. All that fulfill the Falsifiability criteria.

Can you do any of that with God or miracles?????!!!!!!

These observations have to come from evidence or experiments, or both…plus any information or DATA that were ac from experiments or evidence.

People’s testimonies, especially from experts, anecdotal evidence, may be accepted in courtroom trials or in philosophies, they are not reliable.

Of course, there are limitations to just using scientific evidence, but you are ignoring the fact this thread topic is about evolution, and evolution is biology…evolution is not a philosophy topic or religion topic, it is biology, and therefore science.

And as Evolution is science, then it has to focus on evidence - the natural fact, not non-factual storytelling as those in religions, or the sophistry of most philosophies.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did some research and came across the following, which is very interesting..

It's quite lengthy and I only heard about 1/3 of it, nevertheless it is very interesting so far because of the questions raised. I intend to listen to the rest of it.

It is possible, but it does not seem to be well supported by evidence and Denis is retired now or practically retired and I do not know of anyone that takes his work seriously enough to continue it.

 

[John53]

Cladistics came into the picture now because of a discussion I had with someone else here who insisted that humans are monkeys because of cladistics.
And some here have said that humans are fish basically because they believe humans evolved from fish.

I think you misunderstood or are misrepresenting what these "some" said.

 

[Valjean]

Cladistics came into the picture now because of a discussion I had with someone else here who insisted that humans are monkeys because of cladistics.
And some here have said that humans are fish basically because they believe humans evolved from fish.

A clade is a common ancestor and all its descendants. You can't evolve out of it, even if the descendants evolve into something completely different. It does not, however, include all its ancestors. Clades are nested hierarchies.

 

[Pogo]

I did some research and came across the following, which is very interesting..

It's quite lengthy and I only heard about 1/3 of it, nevertheless it is very interesting so far because of the questions raised. I intend to listen to the rest of it.

Well I got through three minutes and it appears to just be another old man noticing that the theory of evolution has changed since his youth and many things like horizontal gene transfer and epigenetics have been added to it and so maybe it should be given a new name as opposed to the one it has had since his old friend Weissman made his comments about Germplasm and somatic cells.

For you you can add it to all the interesting things you don't understand but claim too as another controversy to keep up your tiny little doubt.

 

[gnostic]

Evolution and morphology are very closely connected in terms of actuality and slow transformation.

of course, they are, but you need to be able to distinguish what is relevant and when to use morphology, and when they are not.

Take for instance, earlier examples I have given, that you have responded to (post 612), about birds.

The word falcon or Falco, is actually a name of genus, not name of the species, and there are many species of falcons, eg Falco peregrinus for peregrine falcons, Falco rusticolus for gyrfalcons, and so on, each have similar morphology and some that differed from each other. I don’t know many more species in the genus Falco, but there are lot more than I know.

But morphology are not just use to distinguish one species from another. It can be applied to medicine and in sports, etc, to describe each individual person’s personal physique.

 

[shunyadragon]

So then one would have to deduce from that -- that science would categorically refute the concept that there is an intelligence behind life (without saying it out loud or in print).

No, you cannot deduce that, because there are scientists form many beliefs including Jews, Christians, and Baha'is, including myself that are what you would call Theistic Evolutionists, categorically accept that science can only acquire knowledge of the nature of our physical existence,

 

[shunyadragon]

So -- let me try to recap this -- briefly--very briefly--one or two fish developed body parts that allowed after a real long time for their descendants to live on land, no water dwelling -- and then a couple of these land dwellers by mutation with no intelligent force behind these mutations--evolve to gorillas, and humans. Would you agree with that very brief summary?

No, this is a ridiculous cynical sarcastic effort at recap or what ever. There are presently many species of amphibians that adapted in various ways to transition from water and land and have attributes of fish and land animals that are equivalent to the many species of amphibians in making the transition from water to land animals when water animals first emerged to land. In fact it has happened a number of times even lsnd animals going back to the sea.

 

[Valjean]

I don't expect science to start talking about gods. I do however draw a line between science and my life. Science, by necessity, uses empiricism only (well in theory at least), and ignores evidence that cannot be tested or falsified. As a human however I see other evidence and can use that in the development of my worldview.
If you have closed off possibilities of what a god might be needed for except creation and giving life then you have pretty important possibilities but neglect any other possibilities of a god being important during and after the lives of people and the history of the universe and of humanity.

Ontology is not personal. What you find meaningful or valuable in your own life is subjectively meaningful for you. This is all fine and good, but it's not any objective reality that anyone can work with.

I'm discussing all types of possible gods and all potentialities, even those arrived at outside of the empiricist box.

You're advocating treating all possibilities as worth consideration. But there are trillions of them. We'd have to consider Cthulu, Spaghetti monsters, Huitzilopotchli, Oyéresu, Brahma, Pan-dimesional mice, Aslan, Re, &al, &al, &al. This is impracticable. Only objectively evidenced causes and phenomena can be seriously considered.

 

[blü 2]

Oh--every living creature doesn't fossilise you say so one cannot name one particular species that morphed-evolved to something graduating-changing in the process of leaving fishdom going to land dwellers. Therefore -- you may make your own determinations as to what exactly happened. Or what you think happened in agreement with scientific postulations.

The fact of evolution gave rise, naturally enough, to the theory of evolution. All the claims of evolution are worked out by real discoveries (and often enough consequent debates) from examinable evidence.

What do you say happened instead? For instance, how is it that humans share a contested but still very high number of genes with the chimps? How do you say that came about? Where do you say chimpanzees came from?

What examinable evidence supports your view?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Oh--every living creature doesn't fossilise you say so one cannot name one particular species that morphed-evolved to something graduating-changing in the process of leaving fishdom going to land dwellers. Therefore -- you may make your own determinations as to what exactly happened. Or what you think happened in agreement with scientific postulations.

What is a species?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ontology is not personal. What you find meaningful or valuable in your own life is subjectively meaningful for you. This is all fine and good, but it's not any objective reality that anyone can work with.

You're advocating treating all possibilities as worth consideration. But there are trillions of them. We'd have to consider Cthulu, Spaghetti monsters, Huitzilopotchli, Oyéresu, Brahma, Pan-dimesional mice, Aslan, Re, &al, &al, &al. This is impracticable. Only objectively evidenced causes and phenomena can be seriously considered.

What is your objective evidence for that?

The problem is that the bold one is a norm, not a fact.

 

[John53]

I did some research and came across the following, which is very interesting..

It's quite lengthy and I only heard about 1/3 of it, nevertheless it is very interesting so far because of the questions raised. I intend to listen to the rest of it.

Your idea of very interesting is different to mine.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

what is straigt forward ..

The concept of violation of natural law...

is the obvious fact that to a cave-man a rocket taking off is magic .. a God-like Power. Just as to you .. a person levitating and flying away is a God-Like Power . what part of violating the law of gravity .. are you not sure about ... in relation to God like powers .. such that your brain can just not understand what on earth a God like power would be needed .. in order to violate gravity.

The use of a technology to achieve something is quite different then actual violation / suspension of natural law

"So - So" So what friend so so- suck your toe - all the way to mexico" ?? sup with that mate - having difficulty understanding what a "God like Power" might be .. one that violates gravity .. "Not Sure ? - it's pretty straight forward"

"so" as in, calling magic "god powers" doesn't change the nature of the magic.

Whether it's god doing the action or Harry Potter. It's still "magic".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Fish still remain fish, don't they,

Again????

Shall I once more bring to your attention that this has been addressed back in june 2021 and countless times since then?

More News on the Changing Evolution Scene :-) !!! :-)

I like bananas, too. One thing in favor of gorillas -- as I understand it, they are not big meat eaters. So they don't raise cattle which is apparently adding to ruin the earth. (Oh, well. The Bible says God will ruin those who ruin the earth -- that's in Revelation, but of course, you probably...

www.religiousforums.com

Why do you insist on repeating falsehoods that have been corrected millions of times?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Now of course, humans do not revert by natural means to whatever they evolved from, do they?

Why would you think they would?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

lol, I'll try again. So!
Do you or scientists that study this stuff know which type of fish began morphing aka as evolving to be the next step in the lineup from fish to eventually be an "old ape" maybe? And then of course, new ape. So just taking fish as an example -- what fish was supposedly the first to start the process of evolving to the next step? Hopefully that is a clear enough question.

A vertebrate.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Oh--every living creature doesn't fossilise you say so one cannot name one particular species that morphed-evolved to something graduating-

Individuals don't evolve. Populations do.

changing in the process of leaving fishdom going to land dwellers.

Tiktaalik.

Therefore -- you may make your own determinations as to what exactly happened. Or what you think happened in agreement with scientific postulations.

Over the course of millions of years, sea life turned semi aquatic and eventually turned into land dwellers.
Tiktaalik is a nice example of that transition.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

OK, so it had those things.

So IOW, here we have a species which literally has a mixture of features of classic fish and classic land dwellers.

You know what we call this in the field of paleontology? A transitional.