Just Accidental?

[Olinda]

The Science of Human Evolution



The language of suggestion is subtle, sometime you can read right over it without even knowing that a suggestion has been planted.The devil is a master of that technique.

Please provide these examples and the text used to describe them. Ancient species that are now extinct are very hard to study in fossil form and hard to trace back in a line of decent without the living proof and transitional stages being in evidence....it is doubly hard when those transitional forms do not exist.

The power of suggestion again. And the video graphic these days!....you can't tell them from actual footage.

Organic evolution is a bigger fantasy to me than intelligent design in direct creation. I am not sure whether this is because they don't want to have to answer to a Creator who might require something of them, or whether it is a backlash against some small minded creationists who actually argue what science can actually prove. There is a middle ground that sits very comfortably with me. I can give credit where credit is due and I have someone to thank for the way creation makes me feel. No accident I think. This earth was designed for us and we for it.



Well, the appendix was thought to be an anatomical vestige at one stage, but they had to change their position on that one.....tonsils too. Sometimes science likes to think there are vestigal organs but the truth is, they just haven't found the reason for them yet. I readily acknowledge adaptation in all species, but to me it does not naturally translate into "the curious accidents of nature" all originally evolving from the primordial soup.....



I was blown a way by the cuttlefish.....this guy is 'other worldly'.....utterly amazing!.....no fluke of nature could produce that.

Hi @Deeje thanks for the link to the Science of Human Evolution. Some interesting stuff there!
Yes, I agree that scientific papers use wording like 'this suggests' rather than 'this proves'. As the author of the OP pointed out, scientists and other professionals are very careful with their wording, especially not to make excessive claims. If such are made and debunked, it is a serious blow to an author's reputation.
in your post #32 on that thread you said

I just wanted to highlight something that most people don't see in their eagerness to accept evolution as truth....the language used in the articles of evolutionary scientists who want to promote their theory as fact.

Now the intent of careful wording is certainly NOT to 'sell' the ToE! A scientific theory that has never been falsified doesn't need to be promoted.

Please provide these examples and the text used to describe them. Ancient species that are now extinct are very hard to study in fossil form and hard to trace back in a line of decent without the living proof and transitional stages being in evidence....it is doubly hard when those transitional forms do not exist.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex1
I was particularly impressed by the dinosaur to bird transitionals.

I am always amused when they fine "a scull" or "a tooth" as if one specimen represents the whole species.....and then they portend to know all about how the creature that owned that scull or tooth. They speak adamantly from the silent past as if what the scientists 'suggest' about it really ever happened.....?

There have indeed been both mistakes made and frauds perpetrated in this field. What does this prove? People are over-eager to claim credit for an important discovery. Exactly as everywhere else, except in the religious area comparable mistakes are glossed over as 'imperfect men'. Which religion would admit that the mistake(s) invalidate the whole belief system?

I want to know how life arose and who made the soup.

And so do I!

Ah, but I have seen the evidence that they do.....a lot. There is no way to "experiment" with the past going back millions of years. It's guesswork, it can't be anything else.

True, you can't directly experiment, but you CAN collect circumstantial evidence. And it can be very persuasive when it all points one way. As a society we trust it enough to convict people of very serious crimes on it. . and need to, since there is rarely an independent witness standing by.

Yet we do not need to invest 'belief' in the ToE. I'm perfectly comfortable with my personal joy in God and nature; no changes in scientific understandings are likely to change that. Particularly exciting is the work being done on epigenetic inheritance!

 

[Deeje]

thanks for the link to the Science of Human Evolution. Some interesting stuff there!
Yes, I agree that scientific papers use wording like 'this suggests' rather than 'this proves'. As the author of the OP pointed out, scientists and other professionals are very careful with their wording, especially not to make excessive claims. If such are made and debunked, it is a serious blow to an author's reputation.
in your post #32 on that thread you said
"I just wanted to highlight something that most people don't see in their eagerness to accept evolution as truth....the language used in the articles of evolutionary scientists who want to promote their theory as fact."

Now the intent of careful wording is certainly NOT to 'sell' the ToE! A scientific theory that has never been falsified doesn't need to be promoted.

The fact that it has completely replaced all notion of intelligent design in creation, I might beg to differ on that. Promotion of evolution has convinced children that there is no Creator. Disbelieving children grow into disbelieving adults. Surely it is up to parents to judge whether their children should be taught evolution or creation? Or whether both could be offered?
Evolution has no more "proof" for its validity than does the proof for intelligent design, in fact intelligent design is promoting itself to people who have their eyes and ears open.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex1
I was particularly impressed by the dinosaur to bird transitionals.

What transitionals? The fossil record has no transitionals. It wishes it did, and it wishes that the fossils it has told a much more convincing story, so they fill in the gaps with really good computer graphics showing exactly how they "suggest" that it all happened.....

only none of it is real.

There have indeed been both mistakes made and frauds perpetrated in this field. What does this prove? People are over-eager to claim credit for an important discovery. Exactly as everywhere else, except in the religious area comparable mistakes are glossed over as 'imperfect men'. Which religion would admit that the mistake(s) invalidate the whole belief system?

Didn't Jesus encounter the same problem? Possibly because they operate on human assumption more than they operate on evidence.
Never assume...they say because it makes......well, you know the rest.

True, you can't directly experiment, but you CAN collect circumstantial evidence. And it can be very persuasive when it all points one way.

I have serious doubts that it does point one way. They would never present anything that showed their theory up to be in error. The reputation of scientists is at stake.

The pictorial evidence that I have posted on this thread speaks louder than any text written in scientific jargon, IMO.

As a society we trust it enough to convict people of very serious crimes on it. . and need to, since there is rarely an independent witness standing by.

Interestingly, because in times past, so many men were executed on circumstantial evidence, that were later proven to be "not guilty", they can no longer execute anyone on circumstantial evidence. Those who rotted in jail for decades but who were later proven to be innocent, could not have those lost years of their lives given back to them.
Jesus was convicted on circumstantial evidence.....it isn't "proof". It only sounds like it.

Yet we do not need to invest 'belief' in the ToE. I'm perfectly comfortable with my personal joy in God and nature; no changes in scientific understandings are likely to change that. Particularly exciting is the work being done on epigenetic inheritance!

My faith is not challenged by the ToE either, but I see a whole godless generation of kids who think its OK to behave like amoral animals because of being convinced in their school systems that they are.
Tell me who benefits from that?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Surely it is up to parents to judge whether their children should be taught evolution or creation? Or whether both could be offered?

If you want your kids to be taught religious doctrine in the guise of education, send them to a private religious school. But it has no place in publically-funded schools.

 

[Deeje]

If you want your kids to be taught religious doctrine in the guise of education, send them to a private religious school. But it has no place in publically-funded schools.

Why not? Are public schools any less deserving of a choice in this matter? What if I can't afford private schooling? Do only the religiously wealthy get to make those choices?

 

[viole]

Why not? Are public schools any less deserving of a choice in this matter? What if I can't afford private schooling? Do only the religiously wealthy get to make those choices?

Good point. The son of my British friend wanted to go to a school with a strong focus on jediism. Which is the seventh largest religion in the UK.

It is a scandal that tax payers are not required to support schools for a poor kid, and his parents, who strongly believe in the magical powers of the Force. Why do we allow public schools to arrogate themselves the right to decide that the Force should only be taught during physics lessons and in materialistic terms?

I also believe that the controversy between embryology and storkism should be equally represented in a public school room. So that kids can make their free choice about the origin of babies.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Why not? Are public schools any less deserving of a choice in this matter? What if I can't afford private schooling? Do only the religiously wealthy get to make those choices?

You can teach whatever nonsense you want in your own home or at your religious gatherings, but public schools aren't for religious indoctrination.

 

[McBell]

Good point. The son of my British friend wanted to go to a school with a strong focus on jediism. Which is the seventh largest religion in the UK.

It is a scandal that tax payers are not required to support schools for a poor kid, and his parents, who strongly believe in the magical powers of the Force. Why do we allow public schools to arrogate themselves the right to decide that the Force should only be taught during physics lessons and in materialistic terms?

I also believe that the controversy between embryology and storkism should be equally represented in a public school room. So that kids can make their free choice about the origin of babies.

Ciao

- viole

Don't forget Intelligent Falling
And Dark Suckers

 

[SkepticThinker]

I know of nothing designed that did not have a designer....

That's a great circular argument. You just inserted the thing you were trying to prove.

these are exquisitely designed.

Who can deny that?

What would "non-designed" ducks look like?

 

[Deeje]

You can teach whatever nonsense you want in your own home or at your religious gatherings, but public schools aren't for religious indoctrination.

But it's quite OK for scientific 'indoctrination' when there is no more actual "proof" for what is taught? Just because science wants to bury a Creator is no reason to cancel out the alternate view that creation itself "suggests" Intelligent Design.

Funny I though Catholics would actually support the Bible's view of events.....

 

[Deeje]

That's a great circular argument. You just inserted the thing you were trying to prove.

What would "non-designed" ducks look like?

I shudder to think!!!

What did this guy evolve from?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I shudder to think!!!

I ask because I'm wondering how you've determined that the creatures of the earth are designed, without having any non-designed creatures to compare them to.

What did this guy evolve from?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080507131453.htm
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2441467/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/extreme-monotremes/
http://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/gb-2010-11-9-r95

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

But it's quite OK for scientific 'indoctrination' when there is no more actual "proof" for what is taught? Just because science wants to bury a Creator is no reason to cancel out the alternate view that creation itself "suggests" Intelligent Design.

At best, discussion of a Prime Mover or First Cause would belong in a philosophy or comparative religion course, but it would be unbiased and present various points of view. It doesn't belong in a natural science class as that is outside of the scope of that discipline.

Funny I though Catholics would actually support the Bible's view of events.....

The mainstream viewpoint in Catholicism on this issue is theistic evolution.

 

[Milton Platt]

They just designed themselves to be too irresistible to their women? Really? How did they do that? Did they imagine a design long enough for the outfit to materialize out of thin air?
The world's top designers would win awards for color co-ordination and fashion accessories like these.

That is a ridiculous comment. they didn't 'design themselves". They evolved over many many generations by females of their species (not women) selecting specific patterns during the mating process. The designer award statement is not even relevant. Suggest you read the science behind evolution....or do you wish to remain deliberately ignorant of it?

 

[Milton Platt]

I gave you an <informative> frubler, but what I really wanted to bestow was <pithy>.
Succinct language which effectively conveys much meaning deserves its own recognition.

You just made wine come out of my nose......

 

[Milton Platt]

I know of nothing designed that did not have a designer....these are exquisitely designed.

Who can deny that?

I can agree that they are exquisite....you have yet to produce a designer

 

[Deeje]

I ask because I'm wondering how you've determined that the creatures of the earth are designed, without having any non-designed creatures to compare them to.

I couldn't agree more.....there are no non-designed creatures to compare any of them to.

Look at these "houses" that no one taught these case moths to build. They just chopped down tiny trees and constructed these dwellings with no intelligent direction at all....?

What about these ones? Just accidents of nature....?

It's so easy to read the jargon and make assumptions about a lot of things from science literature, but when you observe these things with your own eyes it has to become more difficult for anyone with a modicum of intelligence, to suggest no intelligent direction is evident in the construction. I defy anyone to prove that these are not all the product of directed intelligence, not blind chance.

Now lets examine your cited references.....

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080507131453.htm

"While we've always been able to compare and consider all of these creatures on the basis of their physical characteristics, internal anatomy and behavior, it's truly amazing to be able to compare their genetic blueprints and begin to get a close-up look at how evolution brings about change," Wilson says......
Sequencing and assembling the platypus genome proved far more daunting than sequencing any other mammalian genome to date. About 50 percent of the genome is composed of repetitive elements of DNA, which makes it a challenge to assemble properly."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2441467/

"The observed loss of genes involved in gastric functions might be responsible for the anatomical and physiological differences in gastrointestinal tract between monotremes and other vertebrates, including small size, lack of glands, and high pH of the monotreme stomach. This study contributes to a better understanding of the mechanisms that underlie the evolution of the platypus genome, might extend the less-is-more evolutionary model to monotremes, and provides novel insights into the importance of gene loss events during mammalian evolution."

This of course, "assumes" that the gastric function of a platypus was modeled after some pre-existing creature that may have preceded it. Do we have evidence for any creature that this mysterious mammal may have "evolved" from? It has the bill and webbed feet of a duck, the fur and tail of a beaver, it suckles its young with milk and it lays eggs and has venomous spurs......seriously.....where is the evidence that this creature evolved from anything pre-existing? Attempts to explain it become comical.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/extreme-monotremes/

"Only two kinds of egg-laying mammals are left on the planet today—the duck-billed platypus and the echidna, or spiny anteater. These odd “monotremes” once dominated Australia, until their pouch-bearing cousins, the marsupials, invaded the land down under 71 million to 54 million years ago and swept them away. New research suggests these two kinds of creatures managed to survive because their ancestors took to the water....
Phillips and his colleagues suggest that platypuses and echidnas made it through the marsupial invasion because their ancestors sought refuge where marsupials could not follow—the water. When marsupials are born, they need to constantly suckle milk for weeks, and as such, newborns could drown if their mothers ever had to swim for long.

The theory seems plausible for platypuses, which are amphibious creatures. Echidnas, however, dwell solely on land."

Oops. There goes the theory....and again we see the power of suggestion....but no real proof of anything they "suggest".

http://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/gb-2010-11-9-r95

"This study represents a step towards fully characterizing the first mammal venom transcriptome. We have found similarities between putative platypus toxins and those of a number of unrelated species, providing insight into the evolution of mammalian venom."

What "insight" has this provided, exactly?

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

I couldn't agree more.....there are no non-designed creatures to compare any of them to.

Is there anything that's non-designed in your eyes?

 

[Deeje]

I can agree that they are exquisite....you have yet to produce a designer

You have yet to prove that a designer does not exist. I believe that creation itself testifies to Intelligent Design.

 

[Deeje]

Is there anything that's non-designed in your eyes?

Look at those pics Andromeda.....and see what is right in front of your nose.....it speaks for itself.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Look at those pics Andromeda.....and see what is right in front of your nose.....it speaks for itself.

I know what animals look like. Can you just answer the question? Is there anything you consider as being non-designed? Whether it's a living thing or not?