Just Accidental?

[gnostic]

This is close to what Hoyle said about the priest Lemaitre's primeval atom, which he mocked as 'big bang' 'religious pseudoscience'- which could not be described in scientific terms. Atheists at the time overwhelmingly preferred static/ eternal/ steady state models for the opposite rationale - 'no creation = no creator'

While Lemaitre in contrast went out of his way to disassociate his theory from his personal beliefs. i.e. it wasn't his faith in God, but his skepticism of atheism which allowed science to progress.

And so I would say the same here, creationism/ ID offers an alternative to the distinct belief system that permeates evolution, it allows us to openly acknowledge problems and seek solutions for them, rather than putting up barriers, trying to close the door at the simplest 'God refuting' explanation at hand

You are still stubborn ignorant as ever, guy.

You keep ignoring that Lemaître wasn't the only person who advocated for the expanding universe model.

Alexander Friedmann, a Russian and atheist astrophysicist first brought up the expanding universe 5 years (1922) before Lemaître did (1927).

And Fred Hoyle didn't present his counter cosmology (Steady State model) to the public until 1948.

In that same year (1948), another Russian physicist, George Gamow, had added and expanded Lemaître's theory with (Big Bang) Nucleosynthesis, working with one of his former student, an American physicist, Ralph Alpher.

Alpher with another American physicist, Robert Herman, were the one who first predicted the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), in 1948, but this radiation wasn't discovered until 1964.

Alpher himself was an agnostic.

For you to think and keep repeating this dishonesty that no atheists accept Lemaître's theory because of Lemaître being a Christian, just show you have ignored the history about the contributions of Friedmann and Gamow, and Alpher, towards the Big Bang theory.

You are only providing a tiny fraction of the Big Bang history. There are more to the Big Bang than just Georges Lemaître, like Friedmann and Gamow. Why do you keep presenting with small picture?

I have informed you about Friedmann and Gamow about dozens of times, but you keep ignoring my replies.

Why do you keep ignoring Friedmann and Gamow, guy?

Can you repeatedly stop lying to us, guy?

Am I in your ignore list?

And what the Big Bang have to do with evolution? They are completely unrelated.

 

[Jose Fly]

Are you saying that the interpreters (those who interpret the scientific jargon for us at that introductory level) got it wrong somehow?

Sheesh, this isn't that difficult. I'm pointing out how you look at basic, introductory-level material on evolutionary biology, assume that it represents the full extent of the science, and then throw up your hands and declare "well, if that's all they have, that's not very good".

Like I said, you're basically reading the Cliff Notes version of Great Expectations and from that alone declaring "well if that's all there is to this book, Dickens was a very overrated author".

Is this a reasonable explanation in layman's terms?

No. Are you interested in learning about the concept of derived characteristics, or is it one more thing that you've already decided can't be an option because of the theological implications?

The "process of evolution" is a given...a foregone conclusion that sets scientists up to fit everything they find into that hypothesis.

Well duh....that's because we see populations evolve all the time. Every new trait, ability, genetic sequence, and species that we've seen arise has done so via evolution. Just because you are in denial of reality doesn't mean scientists have to be.

" As lineages evolve and split and modifications are inherited, their evolutionary paths diverge."....again stated as a fact, but completely unprovable.

Again, we see that happen.

If you cannot understand what I am saying, then I suggest you are also stuck in your own mindset and can completely ignore all evidence for Intelligent Design based on nothing more that your own 'belief' system.

Oh, it's quite apparent what you're doing....simple reflexive denialism. Your operational framework is very simple and you made it very clear when you declared that evolution can't ever be an option because of the theological implications you'd have to face.

I think you missed the point. (not surprising) I used that as an illustration for the basis of all evolutionary ideas

Oh my goodness....you're actually serious, aren't you? You actually posted a diagram of Lamarckism and are claiming it to represent "the basis of all evolutionary ideas".

I want to give you a sense of just how fundamentally ignorant that is. It's like if I told you that I don't believe the Bible because the story of Jesus building the ark to help Moses cross the Red Sea to escape the Pharisees just isn't plausible. If anyone said that, it would immediately identify them as being extremely ignorant of the Bible, right?

Well, that's exactly what you just did by saying Lamarckism is the basis of all evolutionary ideas. It's such an ignorant thing to say on such a fundamental level, it's difficult to overstate.

Evolution suggests otherwise.

Then back up your claim. Show where any scientific source claims that at a single point "the ape became a man".

If we have the concept of ID in mind, instead of painfully slow evolution, then what should we find in the fossil record? Creatures that lived at various points in times past. Same evidence, but we have a different interpretation. Patterns of anatomical characteristics can mean that the Creator used a base model for many different creatures in their skeletal structure. Since we all breathe oxygen and have blood in our veins, a similar anatomical structure can also mean that the basic design could be carried through to other lifeforms, because of how superior it was to previous living things. The exploration is fine if you really look at the evidence without bias.

All that, and you completely dodged the question.

Remember, we're going to look at the actual data. So again, if humans shared a common ancestry with other primates, what do you think we should expect to find in the fossil record? What sort of fossils should we find, and what patterns of anatomical characteristics should we find?

Try and actually answer the question this time.

The branch of science dedicated to mimicking the designs found in nature (biomimetics) has taken a great deal of the designs found in nature to give them application in our technological world, often with great commercial advantage.
If the designs in nature have to be copied by intelligent scientific minds, then how come the originals required no intelligent designer?

Who Designed It First? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

You dodged another question.

Again, describe how you differentiate between things that are "designed" and things that aren't.

Try and actually answer the question this time.

Evolution—Myths and Facts — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

That's it? That's the full extent of your case for ID creationism? Just a link to some religious organization's webpage about evolution?

What convinces you, does not convince me because I reject science's very first premise...that evolution ever took place.

Your denial of commonly observed reality is noted.

I have looked, and all I see is the same rhetoric....the language of supposition.

Ok, then cite a published scientific paper that you've read and point out where they merely assumed something without evidence.

Diagrams are all you have.

Let's see if that's true.

Protein Molecular Function Prediction by Bayesian Phylogenomics

In the above paper, the scientists developed a statistical model that is entirely based on evolutionary relationships between taxa as diverse as flies, worms, humans, etc. (humans are more closely related to mammals than they are to flies, for example). They then input genetic sequences from those organisms into the model to see if it could identify the functions of those sequences. As the authors note, the model correctly identified genetic function to a 96% degree of accuracy, even when the sequence data was somewhat lacking or noisy. The 96% level of accuracy is far superior to previous methods.

This leads to a couple of obvious questions for you. First, how can this be, if there are no evolutionary relationships between such diverse organisms? If the entire basis for the model is false, how do we explain the highly accurate results? Second, at the very least do you agree that this is more than just a diagram?

Statistical evidence for common ancestry: New tests of universal ancestry | bioRxiv

http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/01/10/036327.full.pdf (full paper, PDF)

In the above paper, the scientists mathematically tested the concept of common ancestry among all primates (humans included), against the concept of separate ancestry of humans and other primates. The results were "overwhelming evidence against separate ancestry and in favor of common ancestry for orders and families of primates", including humans.

Again, at the very least do you agree that this is more than just a diagram?

You can't do experiments for evolution in a lab.

Again, your denial of common reality is noted.

And you cannot call adaptation "evolution" because it isn't, (it never changes the species but only adds variety to it) and adaptation cannot be used as evidence for organic evolution

First, I asked you previously to explain the differences between what you call adaptation and what you call evolution, and you ran away. So now that you're back to this line of argument, again.....what is the difference between "adaptation" and "evolution" (hint: in order to contrast two things, you first have to say what those two thing are and then describe how they are different).

Second, I've posted examples of documented, observed evolution of new species. Your denial of this observed reality is once again noted.

 

[Jose Fly]

No, I cannot at the moment. But I'm searching for it.

Let us know if you find anything.

While I was doing that, I ran across this:

Haeckel's Fraudulent Embryo Drawings Are Still Present in Biology Textbooks -- Here's a List

Such an ignoble endeavor does no credit to evolution.

I agree that those old fudged drawings should not be used in textbooks. Fortunately, the most commonly used textbooks started using actual real images a while ago, e.g., Miller and Levine's books.

 

[Jose Fly]

They tend to be skeptics of communism in other words yes!

Most skeptics of Piltdown man were 'uneducated' in evolution also. I was taught evolution in high school and came out believing it- along with global cooling and peak oil happening before the year 2000.

It was considered a very good school, but I think the maintenance man probably had the best practical grasp of scientific principles!

I guess this is your way of avoiding facts that aren't what you want them to be.

creationism/ ID offers an alternative to the distinct belief system that permeates evolution, it allows us to openly acknowledge problems and seek solutions for them, rather than putting up barriers, trying to close the door at the simplest 'God refuting' explanation at hand

You dodged the issue. Again, ID creationism offers no mechanism, time frame, or means to differentiate "designed" from "undesigned". It is nothing more than a failed legal ploy to try and sneak creationist talking points into public schools.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I guess this is your way of avoiding facts that aren't what you want them to be.



You dodged the issue. Again, ID creationism offers no mechanism, time frame, or means to differentiate "designed" from "undesigned". It is nothing more than a failed legal ploy to try and sneak creationist talking points into public schools.

I don't think you are dishonest for having different beliefs than I do, and I assume everyone here is capable of critical thought and is interested in the truth. At the very least it makes for a more interesting substantive discussion than ad hominem attacks. That only exposes a person's emotional basis for their opinion.

 

[Jose Fly]

I don't think you are dishonest for having different beliefs than I do, and I assume everyone here is capable of critical thought and is interested in the truth. At the very least it makes for a more interesting substantive discussion than ad hominem attacks. That only exposes a person's emotional basis for their opinion.

Another dodge.

Your posts seem to be long on empty assertions, but quite lacking in actual substance.

 

[gnostic]

Am I in your ignore list, Guy Threepwood?

Whenever you bring up Lemaître and Hoyle, I would respond and bring up Friedmann and Gamow, but you would never reply.

Will you answer my questions from my other post/reply?

 

[Deeje]

Well duh....that's because we see populations evolve all the time. Every new trait, ability, genetic sequence, and species that we've seen arise has done so via evolution. Just because you are in denial of reality doesn't mean scientists have to be.

Ummm.....what you have seen are minor adaptations within a species, producing another variety of one species. You have NOT seen anything other than that. What goes beyond what was observed is pure speculation. Adaptation is not organic evolution.....it never was. Adaptation is NOT proof of macroevolution.

Again, we see that happen.

Show us what you "see" Jose because I don't see it at all.

Oh, it's quite apparent what you're doing....simple reflexive denialism. Your operational framework is very simple and you made it very clear when you declared that evolution can't ever be an option because of the theological implications you'd have to face.

Well that is also true of yourself. You cannot entertain ID because of the scientific implications that you may have to face.
Every accusation you make can be equally turned back on yourself.

Oh my goodness....you're actually serious, aren't you? You actually posted a diagram of Lamarckism and are claiming it to represent "the basis of all evolutionary ideas".

You missed the point again

......I used Lamarck as an example of what science has based their whole theory on....imagination, suggestion, prediction, conjecture....NOT reality. Darwin based his assumptions about evolution on his imagination after observing minor changes in the species he saw on the Galapagos Islands. Science is still doing that, only on a larger scale......it "suggests" something and then interprets its evidence to fit its own imaginings. Diagrams convey what words cannot to the uneducated.

The fossils do not speak....so science speaks for them....only it puts words in the mouths of dead creatures who cannot tell the story for themselves. You can make them say whatever you like.

Then back up your claim. Show where any scientific source claims that at a single point "the ape became a man".

Are you saying that humans once had no idea that they were humans? Tell us then, where apes stopped and humans began? We have all the illustrations......

Do you assume that the similarity of body structure automatically means that humans "must have" evolved from apes? Don't most four limbed creatures have the same basic structure? You assume relationship....I do not.

Couldn't an Intelligent Designer use a basic body frame and create creatures as separate species of various kinds?

Where does this guy fit into the picture?

Is he human or ape? Did he ever exist? Or is this just more imaginative stuff? He looks like Uncle Fester.

Look! We even have future predictions about man's continued evolution.....

Something to look forward to eh? But then humans would still have to be in existence in 1,000,000 C.E. The way we're going, extinction looks more a likely outcome if he continues on this path, with the aid of science. It appears to me that ecologically, the world was much better off without it. Only in the last 7 decades or so has man had the capacity to destroy the only home he has....all thanks to scientists using their skills in the wrong way.

Remember, we're going to look at the actual data.

You mean actual data that is recognized by your good self and others who are embedded in your theory? Are you serious? Would you expect to find data that is acceptable to evolutionists to come from those who believe in ID?

Our "science" is a little different to yours.....but who said yours must be right? If you all believe science's first premise, (that evolution must be a fact) and it ends up being a colossal error, then everything you built on that belief will collapse along with it.

So again, if humans shared a common ancestry with other primates, what do you think we should expect to find in the fossil record? What sort of fossils should we find, and what patterns of anatomical characteristics should we find?

Try and actually answer the question this time.

Perhaps I should state that I do not believe that humans share a common ancestor with apes....we have a common Creator.
I have answered the question, just not the way you wanted me to. So, because the fossil record is sparse to say the least, it doesn't tell us a great deal at all, hence the need to employ suggestion, prediction and imagined outcomes of imagined scenarios...and then back them up with diagrams.

Here's one for elephants.....

Beyond 8 million years ago is anybody's guess apparently.

Here is an excerpt from that same site....

"Who is sister to who?
It was originally thought that the African and Asian elephants were sister taxa to each other and mammoths were an earlier relative in their evolutionary history. However, studies using morphological characteristics conclude that mammoths and Asian elephants are closely related and African elephants branched off first (Shoshani et al. 1985). Phylogenetic studies using preserved DNA of woolly mammoths (Mammuthus primigenius) led to mixed results. In 1994, Hagelberg and others found the woolly mammoth to be more closely related to the African elephant while other studies (Yang et al. 1996, Ozawa et al. 1997) found that the woolly mammoth was more closely related to the Asian elephant. To confuse matters more, a recent study found that both relationships had equal probability (Orlando et al. 2007)."

The Elephantidae

Is there any advance since then? Or are they still confused?

Considering all the creatures who have come and gone over thousands of years.....what do they really tell us?......in truth, all they tell us is that many species of animals existed and many species still do, but it does not tell us that we have a shared ancestry with any of them. Our similarities in DNA can also be the product of a single Creator using the same raw materials to fashion everything. Not scientific enough for you......? No one is forcing you to believe it.

Again, describe how you differentiate between things that are "designed" and things that aren't.

Try and actually answer the question this time.

Unlike scientists, I cannot equate design with a series of billions of accidental or fortunate mutations to account for all the lifeforms that have ever existed. IMO, microbes evolving into dinosaurs is a little bit ridiculous, regardless of how many millions of years you want to throw in the pot.
Natural selection does not account for anything but variety within a species, ensuring that the best genes are passed on for the benefit of future generations. Anything outside of that is based on speculation, not fact. Science is good at speculation and prediction, but not so good at backing them up with any real evidence.

That's it? That's the full extent of your case for ID creationism? Just a link to some religious organization's webpage about evolution?

And didn't you link me to websites that tell me about your version of events?

I don't accept your version of events, any more than you accept mine.

Your denial of commonly observed reality is noted.

Yours is too.

 

[Deeje]

Ok, then cite a published scientific paper that you've read and point out where they merely assumed something without evidence.

Published by whom? And what "evidence" are we talking about? As far as I can see science's "evidence" is all a matter of interpretation.....I don't believe their interpretation. Just the same as you don't believe mine. People will decide for themselves what makes more sense....as long as the real truth is told. At the end of the day, I think science will find out that it isn't as smart as it thinks it is.

This leads to a couple of obvious questions for you. First, how can this be, if there are no evolutionary relationships between such diverse organisms? If the entire basis for the model is false, how do we explain the highly accurate results? Second, at the very least do you agree that this is more than just a diagram?

From your links......
1)
Abstract
"We present a statistical graphical model to infer specific molecular function for unannotated protein sequences using homology. Based on phylogenomic principles, SIFTER (Statistical Inference of Function Through Evolutionary Relationships) accurately predicts molecular function for members of a protein family given a reconciled phylogeny and available function annotations, even when the data are sparse or noisy. Our method produced specific and consistent molecular function predictions across 100 Pfam families in comparison to the Gene Ontology annotation database, BLAST, GOtcha, and Orthostrapper. We performed a more detailed exploration of functional predictions on the adenosine-5′-monophosphate/adenosine deaminase family and the lactate/malate dehydrogenase family, in the former case comparing the predictions against a gold standard set of published functional characterizations. Given function annotations for 3% of the proteins in the deaminase family, SIFTER achieves 96% accuracy in predicting molecular function for experimentally characterized proteins as reported in the literature. The accuracy of SIFTER on this dataset is a significant improvement over other currently available methods such as BLAST (75%), GeneQuiz (64%), GOtcha (89%), and Orthostrapper (11%). We also experimentally characterized the adenosine deaminase from Plasmodium falciparum, confirming SIFTER's prediction. The results illustrate the predictive power of exploiting a statistical model of function evolution in phylogenomic problems. A software implementation of SIFTER is available from the authors."

Yes I agree it is more than a diagram, but also based on predictions made and interpreted to fit a preconceived supposition.
Stats don't always paint the whole picture. Predictions can be fudged. It also looks like they have something to sell you...?

In the above paper, the scientists mathematically tested the concept of common ancestry among all primates (humans included), against the concept of separate ancestry of humans and other primates. The results were "overwhelming evidence against separate ancestry and in favor of common ancestry for orders and families of primates", including humans.

Again, at the very least do you agree that this is more than just a diagram?

Let's see......
2)
Abstract
"While there is no doubt among evolutionary biologists that all living species, or merely all living species within a particular group (e.g., animals), share descent from a common ancestor, formal statistical methods for evaluating common ancestry from aligned DNA sequence data have received criticism. One primary criticism is that prior methods take sequence similarity as evidence for common ancestry while ignoring other potential biological causes of similarity, such as functional constraints. We present a new statistical framework to test separate ancestry versus common ancestry that avoids this pitfall. We illustrate the efficacy of our approach using a recently published large molecular alignment to examine common ancestry of all primates (including humans). We find overwhelming evidence against separate ancestry and in favor of common ancestry for orders and families of primates. We also find overwhelming evidence that humans share a common ancestor with other primate species. The novel statistical methods presented here provide formal means to test separate ancestry versus common ancestry from aligned DNA sequence data while accounting for functional constraints that limit nucleotide base usage on a site-by-site basis."

The evidence is only "overwhelming" to evolutionists. I don't find it overwhelming at all. This is all based on assumption, not facts. I see nothing I haven't seen before.

Here is one on "Experimental evolution of aging, growth, and reproduction in fruitflies." (from a link you provided)

3)
Abstract
"We report in this paper an evolutionary experiment on Drosophila that tested life-history theory and the evolutionary theory of aging. As theory predicts, higher extrinsic mortality rates did lead to the evolution of higher intrinsic mortality rates, to shorter lifespans, and to decreased age and size at eclosion; peak fecundity also shifted earlier in life. These results confirm the key role of extrinsic mortality rates in the evolution of growth, maturation, reproduction, and aging, and they do so with a selection regime that maintained selection on fertility throughout life while holding population densities constant."

Can we be clear about these experiments for bacteria and parasites and fruitflies, that what was observed in no way changed the bacteria or parasites or fruitflies into some other lifeforms. Adaptive changes can occur within species....that has never been in dispute, but what has NEVER been proven is that one species "morphed" into another....ever.

Similarities in physical characteristics and even DNA is not conclusive evidence for evolution and can be explained equally by ID.

 

[Jose Fly]

Ummm.....what you have seen are minor adaptations within a species, producing another variety of one species. You have NOT seen anything other than that.

Wow. You're so arrogant that you are actually trying to tell me what I have and haven't seen. So tell me....exactly how do you know what I have or haven't seen?

Show us what you "see" Jose because I don't see it at all.

I've told you, and I've posted published papers that report the same and similar observations.....the evolution of new traits, abilities, genetic sequences, and species.

Your childish "no you haven't" does not overturn reality.

Well that is also true of yourself. You cannot entertain ID because of the scientific implications that you may have to face.
Every accusation you make can be equally turned back on yourself.

Don't project your own faults onto me. You directly stated that you cannot ever accept evolution as real because of the theological implications. But rather than own it, you try and project it onto others. That's pathetic and you should be ashamed.

You missed the point again ....I used Lamarck as an example of what science has based their whole theory on

Your fundamental ignorance of evolutionary biology is noted.

Are you saying that humans once had no idea that they were humans? Tell us then, where apes stopped and humans began? We have all the illustrations......

Do you assume that the similarity of body structure automatically means that humans "must have" evolved from apes? Don't most four limbed creatures have the same basic structure? You assume relationship....I do not.

Couldn't an Intelligent Designer use a basic body frame and create creatures as separate species of various kinds?

Where does this guy fit into the picture?

Is he human or ape? Did he ever exist? Or is this just more imaginative stuff? He looks like Uncle Fester.

Look! We even have future predictions about man's continued evolution.....

Something to look forward to eh? But then humans would still have to be in existence in 1,000,000 C.E. The way we're going, extinction looks more a likely outcome if he continues on this path, with the aid of science. It appears to me that ecologically, the world was much better off without it. Only in the last 7 decades or so has man had the capacity to destroy the only home he has....all thanks to scientists using their skills in the wrong way.

All that, and you couldn't back up your assertion that evolutionary biology includes the notion that at some point "the ape became a man".

But you can't admit your error, can you? It's sad what creationism does to people.

You mean actual data that is recognized by your good self and others who are embedded in your theory? Are you serious? Would you expect to find data that is acceptable to evolutionists to come from those who believe in ID?

I mean the data that is the fossil record of primates. There's only one such data set.

Our "science" is a little different to yours.

How so?

but who said yours must be right?

No one. That's what we're doing. We're describing what we would expect to see under different frameworks, and then looking at the data to see which framework is the best fit.

But it looks to me like you're a bit scared to go down that road.

Perhaps I should state that I do not believe that humans share a common ancestor with apes....we have a common Creator.
I have answered the question, just not the way you wanted me to. So, because the fossil record is sparse to say the least, it doesn't tell us a great deal at all, hence the need to employ suggestion, prediction and imagined outcomes of imagined scenarios...and then back them up with diagrams.

All that and you completely ignored the question yet again. The fact that you are doing everything you can to avoid the question tells me that you're scared to answer it. You know that as soon as you commit to saying what sort of fossils we would expect under human/primate common ancestry, I'll provide an example of exactly that. Then what will you do?

No, it's far safer to just doge, duck, weave, avoid, the question. It also speaks volumes to the inherent dishonesty behind creationism.

Of course you could prove me wrong and just answer the question.....if humans shared a common ancestry with other primates, what do you think we should expect to find in the fossil record? What sort of fossils should we find, and what patterns of anatomical characteristics should we find?

Unlike scientists, I cannot equate design with a series of billions of accidental or fortunate mutations to account for all the lifeforms that have ever existed. IMO, microbes evolving into dinosaurs is a little bit ridiculous, regardless of how many millions of years you want to throw in the pot.
Natural selection does not account for anything but variety within a species, ensuring that the best genes are passed on for the benefit of future generations. Anything outside of that is based on speculation, not fact. Science is good at speculation and prediction, but not so good at backing them up with any real evidence.

And didn't you link me to websites that tell me about your version of events? I don't accept your version of events, any more than you accept mine.

All that and you didn't answer the question. As with the other questions you've consistently dodged, it looks like the reason you won't answer this question is because you can't.....you have no idea how to formally differentiate "designed" things from "undesigned'. But you can't admit that either.

Again, this speaks directly to the inherent dishonesty behind creationism.

Yours is too

Really? What observed reality am I denying?

 

[Jose Fly]

Published by whom? And what "evidence" are we talking about? As far as I can see science's "evidence" is all a matter of interpretation.....I don't believe their interpretation. Just the same as you don't believe mine. People will decide for themselves what makes more sense....as long as the real truth is told. At the end of the day, I think science will find out that it isn't as smart as it thinks it is.

You claimed to have looked at the work of scientists and seen that they merely assume things without evidence. Can you back that claim up or not?

Yes I agree it is more than a diagram

So your claim that all scientists have are diagrams is wrong. Thanks for admitting your error.

but also based on predictions made and interpreted to fit a preconceived supposition.

Stats don't always paint the whole picture. Predictions can be fudged. It also looks like they have something to sell you...?

Are you actually accusing these scientists of fabricating their results?

The evidence is only "overwhelming" to evolutionists. I don't find it overwhelming at all.

Of course you don't....you can't. You directly stated that you cannot ever reach any other conclusion due to the theological implications.

This is all based on assumption, not facts. I see nothing I haven't seen before.

Can you point to the specific parts of the paper that are "based on assumption, not facts"?

Can we be clear about these experiments for bacteria and parasites and fruitflies, that what was observed in no way changed the bacteria or parasites or fruitflies into some other lifeforms.

No, because I have no idea what "some other lifeforms" means.

Adaptive changes can occur within species....that has never been in dispute, but what has NEVER been proven is that one species "morphed" into another....ever.

Incorrect. The evolution of new species has been repeatedly observed and documented in various taxa, and both in the wild and in the lab. I've posted numerous citations to support this, and even young-earth creationist organizations like AiG recognize this reality.

Similarities in physical characteristics and even DNA is not conclusive evidence for evolution and can be explained equally by ID.

Ok, what exactly is ID creationism's explanation for patterns of DNA similarities?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Again, we see that happen.

To the extent of organisms modifying themselves to evolve into higher taxa?

No, you don't. If that were so, we'd observe some populations displaying appendages that are transitional and underdeveloped, with stunted functions! Grief.

 

[Jose Fly]

To the extent of organisms modifying themselves to evolve into higher taxa?

This is the statement I responded to: "As lineages evolve and split and modifications are inherited, their evolutionary paths diverge". Nothing in there about "higher taxa". We do see lineages evolve and split. We do see heritable modifications. We do see lineages' evolutionary paths diverge.

If that were so, we'd observe some populations displaying appendages that are transitional and underdeveloped, with stunted functions! Grief.

You mean like kiwi wings?

 

[Deeje]

You directly stated that you cannot ever accept evolution as real because of the theological implications. But rather than own it, you try and project it onto others. That's pathetic and you should be ashamed.

Emotional blackmail now.....

Seriously.....?

The "theological implications" pale into insignificance when compared to the "interpretation" of evidence given by evolutionists for the story told by the fossil record. This is circumstantial evidence run amok. All science has is "inference" interpreted to match their own expectations. Way short on facts I have to say.

The "evidence" can fit the model of ID just as well....if not better, since our own common sense tells us that what is designed requires a designer. Who can argue that a city requires a planner and designer? A simple cell has all the working components of a walled city and yet you claim it required no designer at all. If everything is made out of the same basic molecular material, then assembly and correct sequencing of the cells is required....again according to science no one directed this complex operation...it all just happened by chance.

Is Any Form of Life Really Simple? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

Biomimetics copies the amazing designs in nature but denies that the originals required a designer. Its nonsense dressed up in scientific jargon so that no one will notice how flimsy the interpretation of the "evidence" really is. Brainwashing happens in science too you know.

Your fundamental ignorance of evolutionary biology is noted.

The biology that I have read about is so amazingly complex that none of it could have arisen by chance random mutations. How many "mutations" in nature do you know of that are beneficial to any organism? How many beneficial mutations were required to produce all the known lifeforms on this planet? How far will your imagination stretch? Further than mine I think.
Your fantasy actually requires more faith than mine....IMO.

All that, and you couldn't back up your assertion that evolutionary biology includes the notion that at some point "the ape became a man".

But you can't admit your error, can you? It's sad what creationism does to people.

Appeal to emotion again....a sure sign that you are running out of argument.

What is truly sad is that some men of science come across as unreasonable people who cannot argue their case without

It's OK to disagree. That is what debate is for.

I mean the data that is the fossil record of primates. There's only one such data set.

One set of data but not only one interpretation. We see that data in an entirely different way....the fossils are speaking our language, not yours.

How so?

Our science requires a Master Scientist who not only brought all life into existence on this planet, but made sure that it replicated itself without any direction further from him. Everything is perfectly programmed....again it is logical that if there are programs that drive organisms to replicate and to survive in many different environments, then they require someone to program those organisms to do what they do. How amazing are stem cells? Who tells these cells what to become? There is a Higher Power and science attempts to eliminate him from an equation that he himself formulated......isn't that a bit like leaving Darwin out of evolution?

Science and the Genesis Account — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

We're describing what we would expect to see under different frameworks, and then looking at the data to see which framework is the best fit.

Best guesses are not facts. If evolution was taught as a theory, instead of fact, no one would have grounds for complaint....but to eliminate creation from a school classroom as unscientific fantasy, and then replace it with something equally based on unscientific fantasy is ridiculous. Offer both and allow students to decide for themselves who has more solid evidence for the origin and proliferation of life on this planet. ID is not without scientific evidence to support it.

But it looks to me like you're a bit scared to go down that road.

Scared?

You think I have I presented myself as someone who is scared of a shadow? That is all evolution is...it has no substance. It is a belief system, pure and simple with evidence that it has manufactured to convince itself.

The fact that you are doing everything you can to avoid the question tells me that you're scared to answer it. You know that as soon as you commit to saying what sort of fossils we would expect under human/primate common ancestry, I'll provide an example of exactly that. Then what will you do?

Produce an example Jose.....one that does not contain inference or conjecture or suggestion. Let's see real evidence that does not require a scientific "interpretation" skewed by bias.

No, it's far safer to just doge, duck, weave, avoid, the question. It also speaks volumes to the inherent dishonesty behind creationism.

Dishonesty? Pot meet kettle.....

The trouble is, it isn't an intentional dishonesty on the part of scientists such as yourself, who are taught by men who are also embedded in the theory. Its more like what you accuse Bible believers of being......it's the power of suggestion to a willing crowd. It works both ways....and gradualism is always a good companion when trying to promote anything new. Suggest it often enough....make the argument convincing.... get credible people to endorse it and voila!...the masses accept it without question. Even intelligent people can be swept along by the speech and actions of other intelligent people. Its all about being convinced. You are convinced....but so am I.

Of course you could prove me wrong and just answer the question.....if humans shared a common ancestry with other primates, what do you think we should expect to find in the fossil record? What sort of fossils should we find, and what patterns of anatomical characteristics should we find?

I have answered the question....but my conclusions do not match yours. We see the same "evidence" but we do not interpret it in the same way as you do. If humans were created by an Intelligent Designer who was using the same DNA materials to construct all living things, then that would also explain what you interpret as evolution. Many four limbed creatures share a similar anatomical structure. It doesn't mean that they evolved. The evidence fits separate acts of creation, more than it fits the suggestions of evolution IMO. There are no transitional species in between those fossil specimens, separated by many millions of years. Evolution can't explain that, but creation can. There are no transitional species, because they never existed. Its really that simple.

All that and you didn't answer the question.

I have answered your questions. You just can't accept the answers because they don't fit science's interpretation of the evidence.
That's fine. You are entitled to believe whatever you like.

And so am I.

 

[Jose Fly]

Emotional blackmail now....Seriously.....?

No, it's just the facts. You directly stated that you could never acknowledge evolution as reality because of the theological consequences that would follow.

The "theological implications" pale into insignificance when compared to the "interpretation" of evidence given by evolutionists for the story told by the fossil record. This is circumstantial evidence run amok. All science has is "inference" interpreted to match their own expectations. Way short on facts I have to say.

So are you now backpedaling? Are you saying that if the evidence for evolution really was there, you would abandon your religious faith?

The "evidence" can fit the model of ID just as well....if not better

What exactly is the "ID model"?

The biology that I have read about is so amazingly complex that none of it could have arisen by chance random mutations.

Given what you've stated about never being able to acknowledge evolution as real, coupled with your fundamental ignorance of the subject, your conclusion is hardly surprising.

How many "mutations" in nature do you know of that are beneficial to any organism?

Several. We're actively fighting against it every day.

How many beneficial mutations were required to produce all the known lifeforms on this planet?

I don't know, in the same way I don't know how many grains are required to produce Mt. Everest. But that doesn't mean I therefore conclude Mt. Everest is made of jello.

Appeal to emotion again....a sure sign that you are running out of argument.

No, as before it's simple fact. You claimed that evolution includes the notion that at some point in time "the ape became a man". But when pressed to show where any source says that, you were unable to produce one.

Those are the facts.

Our science requires a Master Scientist who not only brought all life into existence on this planet, but made sure that it replicated itself without any direction further from him.

Can you provide a potential discovery or experimental result that would falsify this "Master Scientist" and its role?

Everything is perfectly programmed.

Does that include the malaria parasite? The ebola virus? The smallpox virus?

If evolution was taught as a theory, instead of fact, no one would have grounds for complaint

Again your fundamental ignorance of not just evolutionary biology, but of science in general is there for all to see.

Evolution is both a theory and a fact. It is a fact because we see populations evolve. The theory of evolution is the framework that describes how evolution occurs, as in the mechanisms that drive it and what pathways it has taken.

It's no different than gravity. It is a fact because we see its effects. The theory of gravity is the framework that describes how it occurs.

Just a hint.....if you want to avoid coming across as just another ignorant internet creationist, try and avoid the whole "it's just a theory" thing.

Offer both and allow students to decide for themselves who has more solid evidence for the origin and proliferation of life on this planet. ID is not without scientific evidence to support it.

That's what I'm trying to do with you in this thread. But you are too scared to participate.

Scared? You think I have I presented myself as someone who is scared of a shadow?

Yes, scared. That you absolutely refuse to describe what we would expect to see in the fossil record under human/primate common ancestry tells me you're afraid that once you commit to something, I'll provide an example.

I can tell you the sorts of things we would expect to find in the fossil record under creationism. I have no trouble doing that, even though I'm not a creationist. It's a fundamental aspect of science to be able to say "If X is true, then we should find A, B, and C", whether you believe in X or not. In fact, if you think X isn't true, then it's much easier.........unless you're too scared.

Produce an example Jose

An example of what?

I have answered the question....but my conclusions do not match yours.

Now you're simply not telling the truth. Nowhere have you described what you think we should expect to find in the fossil record if humans shared a common ancestry with other primates.

This is where it gets interesting. You've now claimed that you did describe what you think we should expect to find in the fossil record if humans shared a common ancestry with other primates. I say you didn't. One of us isn't telling the truth.

Since yours is the positive claim, it falls on you to show where you described what you think we should expect to find in the fossil record if humans shared a common ancestry with other primates.

I have answered your questions. You just can't accept the answers because they don't fit science's interpretation of the evidence.

Again you're not telling the truth. Nowhere did you describe how you differentiate "designed" things from "undesigned".

And again we find ourselves in the same situation. You've claimed you did describe how you differentiate "designed" things from "undesigned". I say you didn't. One of us isn't telling the truth.

Since yours is the positive claim, it falls on you to show where you described how you differentiate "designed" things from "undesigned".

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

@Jose Fly, if you are going to try to argue science with somebody who knows as much about it as I know about the events prior to the Big Bang -- and is willing to pretend to omniscience about what he is actually totally ignorant of -- what kind of positive result can you expect? None, sadly.

(Moderators, when I say "totally ignorant," that is a true statement, not a slur. Deeje has posted quite enough by now that anyone with a grade 10 education can tell he does not have even a cursory understanding of what the Theory of Evolution actually says. It cannot be a slur to tell the evident truth.)

 

[savagewind]

@Jose Fly, if you are going to try to argue science with somebody who knows as much about it as I know about the events prior to the Big Bang -- and is willing to pretend to omniscience about what he is actually totally ignorant of -- what kind of positive result can you expect? None, sadly.

(Moderators, when I say "totally ignorant," that is a true statement, not a slur. Deeje has posted quite enough by now that anyone with a grade 10 education can tell he does not have even a cursory understanding of what the Theory of Evolution actually says. It cannot be a slur to tell the evident truth.)

Are you sure about all that?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Are you sure about all that?

Am I sure about what? That Deeje doesn't understand what the Theory of Evolution actually says and means? Yes I am. I know what it says and means, I've read his words describing what he thinks it says and means, and there is no connection at all. He does not understand the theory, and he doesn't have much knowledge of the sciences that support the theory. I can demonstrate that from his own words directly.

Or am I sure that a person with actual science knowledge cannot have a reasoned argument with someone who lacks it, doesn't want it, will refuse to learn it -- and come to any kind of reasonable consensus? Yes, again, I'm quite sure.

The very first (and ultimately most important thing) that learning actually requires is enough interest to actually listen. Once again, if you read Deeje's posts, he is very clear that he is not prepared to do that. He already "knows the truth," and will not hear anything which contradicts it.

 

[savagewind]

Am I sure about what? That Deeje doesn't understand what the Theory of Evolution actually says and means? Yes I am. I know what it says and means, I've read his words describing what he thinks it says and means, and there is no connection at all. He does not understand the theory, and he doesn't have much knowledge of the sciences that support the theory. I can demonstrate that from his own words directly.

Or am I sure that a person with actual science knowledge cannot have a reasoned argument with someone who lacks it, doesn't want it, will refuse to learn it -- and come to any kind of reasonable consensus? Yes, again, I'm quite sure.

The very first (and ultimately most important thing) that learning actually requires is enough interest to actually listen. Once again, if you read Deeje's posts, he is very clear that he is not prepared to do that. He already "knows the truth," and will not hear anything which contradicts it.

Deeje is female. Either you call both sexes by the male pronoun or you have proved you aren't paying complete attention to some things.

It's not for debate. I just think it is funny and I need some posts.

 

[Deeje]

@Jose Fly This last post of yours is nothing more than the same conversation ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

You provide no backup for anything you say and whilst accusing me of refusing to answer questions when I already have, but there were some nice dodges in that one from you as well. The readers can see them.
If you have nothing more to add, like real evidence.....then this conversation is nothing more than

Nothing reproduces outside of its "kind". One "kind" never morphs into a different "kind". That is what nature teaches all of us and we can see it with our own eyes without the need for science degrees to "interpret" evidence for us. People devoid of spirituality don't get ID....we understand that.

If you can't tell something designed from something that isn't ....

And if you can say that lots of genetic accidents produced all the various forms of life that exist on this unique planet...then what is there left to say?

This is a car...

This is a car accident....

This is a plane.....

This is a plane accident....

This is a container ship......

This is a container ship accident...

This is a train.

This is a train accident.

How many of these accidents are beneficial?

How many of the accidents that occur in nature are beneficial?

Please provide examples of beneficial accidents of nature that produced changes from one "kind" to another.