Just Accidental?

[Deeje]

You assume that man and woman were perfect to begin with, but I don't make assumptions like that.

I assume that a being capable of producing the universe, doesn't make junk.

We are all capable of assumptions.

You avoid the point, namely why is it that God supposedly didn't make the eye better? Also, can you also explain why a "loving God" supposedly made miscarriages and serious birth defects?

Who said the eye needed to be better? In whose estimations is human vision not adequate for his place in the scheme of things? We are all given what we 'need'.....its humans who seem to think that what they 'want' is more important.

And who said God is responsible for miscarriages and birth defects? Human genetics were altered as a result of disobeying a direct command of the Creator. That is what is responsible for all defects in humans. (Romans 5:12) It seems to me that man made pollution of various sorts has been responsible for more birth defects than anything.

Present objectively-derived evidence, not just your opinion, that there's some sort of magical wall that separates "micro-evolution" from "macro-evolution"? The reality is that you can't and I would hope that you would know that or you and some others would have long ago produced it. Again, your position is just another assumption.

Since when has evolutionary science's evidence been objectively derived?

Science has its pre-conceived ideas about everything to do with evolution, and makes its 'evidence' fit those ideas. There is a vast difference between something you can prove, and something you think might be possible. Without proof...(and how many times must we be told there is no "proof" in science).....there is no way to say with any certainty that macro-evolution ever took place. It is an assumption, based on inference not facts. It is what science 'assumes' according to the way they interpret their evidence, not what it 'knows' for a fact.

The plain fact is that you are actually defining the theistic position with the above, not a scientific one. Science is not based on "suggestions and assumptions", but theistic positions generally are since they generally are not "falsifiable".

Who said that science has to be right? For a belief to have credibility, there has to be more than assumption to back it up.
Intelligent Design along with an old earth is a scenario that answers most of the questions that science scoffs at in ID. Something that was thought of as not falsifiable, is. Can you say beyond a doubt, that an old earth, with a long creative process over many thousands of years cannot yield what we see as all life on this planet? It even dispenses with the one topic that evolutionist like to conveniently push aside....abiogenesis. "In the beginning, God created"......there it is. No "poofing" things into existence, just a master craftsman doing his thing over a very long period of time. The Genesis "days" did not have to be 24 hours long.

Then produce the evidence that one deity made the entire universe. Again, logically, you cannot do that because in order to do so people using objectively-derived evidence would have had to actually see this process take place or at least have overwhelming evidence that one deity made all with there being no other possibilities.

Please produce the evidence that there wasn't one deity that made the universe.

There is no objectivity on either side of this issue. You have to choose one or the other based on what you "believe" and "why" you believe it. This is how God knows who belongs to him and who doesn't. Its called "faith".......and those who put theirs in the wrong place will never see the wonders of creation with the proper reverence and express their appreciation for the one who produced it. It will all just seem like a series of fortunate accidents. No one to thank.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

We know living things reproduce and cars do not? Mutation and selection are strong forces for reproductive systems.

Higher rates of reproduction are determined by the fitter design, surviving to be copied more frequently and hence existing in greater numbers in successive generations.

Now which am I talking about? Darwinism or the auto industry? I don't know either-

So in both cases, yes, reproduction is the key factor, the superior design will naturally tend to be selected for reproduction over the inferior.. obviously, nobody disputes this, it goes without saying. And it's why we still have Ford Mustangs while Pintos went extinct

So the real question is; how are those superior designs introduced?

Of course, we know for certain that this model works fine with creative intelligence providing the superior designs to be selected. But could it also work by entirely random alteration of the designs? It's an interesting proposition, at the very least we just don't have as much evidence to support this, but it gets mathematically very problematic, very quickly.

 

[gnostic]

Context is easy to find: Blue-footed booby - Wikipedia

I mean context about what Deeje's claimed that these animals were created or designed by Deeje's God, and not by any natural mean.

She posted these images up, but she cannot present any logical explanation or evidences that God "is involved".

All we have is her conjectures about designs and creation by all-powerful being, without any evidence that god even exist and responsible. It is merely a projection of her personal belief.

She say it isn't evolution and it is not the work of nature, then she must present evidences for any alternative, like "God did it".

There are no context that God did anything.

 

[Sapiens]

But there is plenty of context to indicate why the boobies have blue feet and no god is needed there at all.

 

[gnostic]

You don't understand the need for one and justification for the other. Those who believe in an Intelligent Creator and evolutionists are equal in this position. You cannot provide proof for your theory any more than I can produce the Creator for you.

Evidences, Deeje. Evidences, not proof.

Scientific theory required evidences.

Mathematicians and theoretical physicists use proofs (solving complex mathematical equations). Proof are logical construct, not physical or tangible.

Proof and evidence are not the same things.

Finding fossils, testing DNA, studying mutation of viruses immunity against vaccines, are all evidences, not proofs.

Evolution rely on evidences, not proof.

How many times must everyone tell you this before you get in your head that they are not the same things?

You need both (nature AND God) to be true, to consider creationism to be true. So I have to disagree with you. You can justify one without the other.

Intelligent Design along with an old earth is a scenario that answers most of the questions that science scoffs at in ID. Something that was thought of as not falsifiable, is. Can you say beyond a doubt, that an old earth, with a long creative process over many thousands of years cannot yield what we see as all life on this planet?

Whether it be Old Earth Creationism or Young Earth Creationism, or the Intelligent Design, all three are based on conjectures and projection of belief, which amounted to the same things as holding personal opinion.

Anyone can have opinions and anyone can have belief, but they are not "scientific evidences".

Where are the evidences for the existence of God, Creator or Designer?

Where are the evidences that showed this supreme being is actively involved in creating nature (stars, planets, mountains, or life or or organisms, eg animals, plants, fungi, corals, bacteria, etc)?

You cannot have evidences for EFFECT, without evidences for CAUSE. Evidences must be exist for both CAUSE and EFFECT, and there must be evidences to link both together.

All your photos of animals you have posted, ONLY SHOW THAT THESE ANIMALS EXIST, but no evidences that God exists or that God is responsible for their existence.

I will repost your question, below:

Can you say beyond a doubt, that an old earth, with a long creative process over many thousands of years cannot yield what we see as all life on this planet?

That question is merely pleading for the possibility of creation.

Possibility is for philosophies and religions.

Science deal with probability, not possibility.

Probability deals with the results of available evidences or test or data, analysing them, to see if it is probable or not.

 

[gnostic]

But there is plenty of context to indicate why the boobies have blue feet and no god is needed there at all.

Yes, and I do agree.

All I am saying that Deeje provide no context of the photos FOR HER CLAIMS.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You can see it happening with your own eyes:

What did the bacteria evolve into?

 

[gnostic]

I was describing an automobile junk yard was there any other line of evidence you feel specifically supports Darwinian evolution?

We know living things reproduce and cars do not? Mutation and selection are strong forces for reproductive systems.

Like polymath said. Cars cannot reproduce...

...and a car cannot give birth to baby cars.

 

[Polymath257]

What did the bacteria evolve into?

Well, some bacteria formed a symbiotic relationship and became eucaryots.

 

[Polymath257]

Higher rates of reproduction are determined by the fitter design, surviving to be copied more frequently and hence existing in greater numbers in successive generations.

Now which am I talking about? Darwinism or the auto industry? I don't know either-

Well, since cars do not reproduce, you cannot be talking about the auto industry.

In the auto industry, the higher rates of reproduction are not caused by the fitter design. The *demand* may be caused by such, but there are additional steps. Also, there is not mutation from a genetic code.

No automobile 'survives until reproduction'.

So in both cases, yes, reproduction is the key factor, the superior design will naturally tend to be selected for reproduction over the inferior.. obviously, nobody disputes this, it goes without saying. And it's why we still have Ford Mustangs while Pintos went extinct

There is an analogy to evolution in an economy, I agree. Just as there is in language. But cars do not reproduce. Without humans around to effect the reproduction, no cars would be made at all. This is quite distinct from living things.

So the real question is; how are those superior designs introduced?

Well, for the auto industry, the sales figures and marketing determine which models are popular, and then people attempt to judge what the next fashion will be. There is no genetic transmission.

For living things, mutations provide variation. Some individuals live long enough to reproduce and others do not. The first get to pass on their genes.

Of course, we know for certain that this model works fine with creative intelligence providing the superior designs to be selected. But could it also work by entirely random alteration of the designs? It's an interesting proposition, at the very least we just don't have as much evidence to support this, but it gets mathematically very problematic, very quickly.

Not just random alteration of designs. That only provides variation. An absolutely crucial aspect is differential reproduction.

And, as I have actually studied this mathematically, it actually becomes significantly easier when you have mutation and selection. Configurations that are close to optimal are produced *much* faster than you would otherwise expect. That is why genetic algorithms in computers are so powerful. We can find optimal solutions by 'training' the programs through several generations of mutation and selection.

 

[metis]

I assume that a being capable of producing the universe, doesn't make junk.

We are all capable of assumptions.

In science we don't operate out of assumptions, but in theistic circles, that's all you can do. Therefore, all you have done is to stoop to using a false equivalency.

Who said the eye needed to be better?

I didn't say it "needed to be better", but said that if the eye was made by some sort of perfect deity, why wouldn't that deity have made it better? See the difference?

And who said God is responsible for miscarriages and birth defects? Human genetics were altered as a result of disobeying a direct command of the Creator.

Oh, so you believe that an innocent child is going to be indirectly killed or mutilated by God because some relatives in the child's past sinned? So, let's play through this using your "logic": if your grandfather killed someone, let's arrest you and put you in prison for his crime. Hey, that's in essence what you're saying here.

Since when has evolutionary science's evidence been objectively derived?

Apparently all the slaps to your head has caused damage. Here's just one source that can cure your ignorance: Evolution - Wikipedia But the reality is that you won't really look it up because it doesn't fit into your massive number of assumptions literally based on not one iota of objectively-derived evidence. Not one. nada. zilch.

Without proof...(and how many times must we be told there is no "proof" in science).....there is no way to say with any certainty that macro-evolution ever took place.

Again, you simply did not address my question, which was can you give us any objective evidence that "micro-evolution" miraculously stops before going into "macro-evolution". Please produce such evidence, and if you can't, then maybe actually admit you don't have any. My guess is that you're not honest enough to do that-- so prove me wrong.

Please produce the evidence that there wasn't one deity that made the universe.

It is your assertion, not mine, that says there's only "one God", so the burden of evidence is on you, not I.

I've repeatedly said that I don't know what caused it all, but you claim you know, so produce the evidence, Deeje, and stop trying to deflect it back to me.

 

[Polymath257]

What did the bacteria evolve into?

Oh, you mean in the video. They evolved new abilities to protect themselves against antibiotics.

Do you deny that this is evolution? They did not have the abilities at the beginning, but they did after several generations.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Well, since cars do not reproduce, you cannot be talking about the auto industry.

In the auto industry, the higher rates of reproduction are not caused by the fitter design. The *demand* may be caused by such, but there are additional steps. Also, there is not mutation from a genetic code.

No automobile 'survives until reproduction'.



There is an analogy to evolution in an economy, I agree. Just as there is in language. But cars do not reproduce. Without humans around to effect the reproduction, no cars would be made at all. This is quite distinct from living things.



Well, for the auto industry, the sales figures and marketing determine which models are popular, and then people attempt to judge what the next fashion will be. There is no genetic transmission.

For living things, mutations provide variation. Some individuals live long enough to reproduce and others do not. The first get to pass on their genes.

The most successful designs are reproduced, absolutely

It's survival of the fittest either way, fitter designs are passed on to be reproduced more often with further modifications, whether this reproduction involves sex or any another method of preserving & revising successful blueprints, the algorithm is the same. The information being passed on to future generations, is even stored in literal digital code in both cases

No analogy is perfect, but in this one, the autos have several distinct advantages- there are no (hmm.. far fewer!) deleterious random mutations to deal with, as you note, selection may use the benefit of forethought and also select from a wide range of fitness functions, rather than just ability to reproduce. Yet even with these advantages, still the algorithm cannot work with random mutation as the primary driver of variation-

Not just random alteration of designs. That only provides variation. An absolutely crucial aspect is differential reproduction.

.

as above, of course autos and life both experience differential rates of reproduction based on their variation- and in both cases selection of the fitter design goes entirely without saying-
So the question is not survival, but arrival of the fittest- how does this occur?


Why do auto makers not save themselves a fortune on R&D and simply use the powerful algorithm of random mutation & natural selection?

Take all new 2018 models from every maker, make entirely random mutations to the plans of each. What are the odds that you will significantly improve any of them? practically zero.
As in life, the overwhelming majority of changes would be either insignificantly or significantly deleterious

And survival of the fittest still works just fine, the car with the broken seat warmer will be selected over the car with the broken transmission. i.e. survival of the fittest, in no way demands survival of a fitter generation, that's an intuitive fallacy on our part.

The larger rate/direction of progress in design over generations depends entirely on the quality of the variation to choose from, 'random' simply doesn't provide a superior selection, it falls foul to entropy; decay, decline, degradation

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Oh, you mean in the video. They evolved new abilities to protect themselves against antibiotics.

Do you deny that this is evolution? They did not have the abilities at the beginning, but they did after several generations.

So the bacteria evolved into.. bacteria, while using their capacity for adaptation to different environments... to adapt to a different environment

This is also a specific feature of automobiles

 

[SkepticThinker]

I think It's perfectly understandable, we grow up with natural beauty as a given, it's just 'natural' to us. So no matter how stunning the art, or how sophisticated the engineering it is displayed upon- intuitively It can all be put down to 'natural mechanisms'- of course we can't replicate, observe, measure these mechanisms directly, but 100's of millions of years of natural history provide cover for any empirical evidence, while providing the imagination endless possibilities, where all sorts of miracles are 'bound' to emerge from simple mechanisms 'eventually'

But as we learn more about what is objectively, mathematically required to produce art and engineering like this-'time' is not the crucial factor, information is. These creations above are not the sort of thing that would tend to blunder into existence with simply 'replicating' being the sole requirement. Attractive as this simple mechanism seemed in the Victorian age, it simply lacks the necessary creative power. This is not just a skeptical position, evolutionists are seeking to solve the same problem. (Pop-science convention not withstanding)

It's becoming ever more clear, that these forms developed by similar mechanisms as did the physical reality that set the stage for them, according to excruciatingly specific predetermined instructions. But once again, the implications of that are still extremely irksome to many, hence the strength of emotion and visceral reactions you see here. Objective assessment is impossible with this.

Funny how you both ignore all the ugly things that exist on Earth while cherry picking the things you consider to be beautiful.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Funny how you both ignore all the ugly things that exist on Earth while cherry picking the things you consider to be beautiful.

What do you consider an ugly animal design?

 

[Sapiens]

So the bacteria evolved into.. bacteria, while using their capacity for adaptation to different environments... to adapt to a different environment

This is also a specific feature of automobiles

No automobiles do not adapt, it is the operator who must adapt. When the GT40 was introduced to a new environment (endurance racing at Le Mans) it's wheel braking was found to be insufficient. If driven in a normal fashion it would never finish a 24 hr. race. Driver Dan Gurney backed completely off the throttle several hundred yards before the approach to the Mulsanne hairpin and virtually coasting into the braking area on each lap. This technique saved the brakes had to be used to preserve the wheel brakes and finish the race. There was no adaptation on the part of the car, it remained unchanged.

 

[Looncall]

What do you consider an ugly animal design?

Please look up "guinea worm" and "river blindness". I recommend not doing so during or soon after a meal.

 

[Sapiens]

Please look up "guinea worm" and "river blindness". I recommend not doing so during or soon after a meal.

Parasite Rex, great book!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No automobiles do not adapt, it is the operator who must adapt. When the GT40 was introduced to a new environment (endurance racing at Le Mans) it's wheel braking was found to be insufficient. If driven in a normal fashion it would never finish a 24 hr. race. Driver Dan Gurney backed completely off the throttle several hundred yards before the approach to the Mulsanne hairpin and virtually coasting into the braking area on each lap. This technique saved the brakes had to be used to preserve the wheel brakes and finish the race. There was no adaptation on the part of the car, it remained unchanged.

Just like animals then,

or are you saying that individuals actually change, adapt their own genetics to their environments as they age?- as opposed to random mutation & natural selection driving changes? It's an interesting idea- epigenetics etc- & part of a possible solution to the problem for some