Just Accidental?

[Guy Threepwood]

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

never heard of it

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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. You can make suggestions based on your interpretation of "evidence"....so can we. Why do you imagine that the words of your 'gods' are more are more valid than mine? Science is not my religion.

If you can excuse yourselves by justifying no need for verifiable proof...then so can we.

You just made his point, namely that, "You still don't understand the differences between proof and evidence." We don't need proof to know that we have a useful theory. Evidence is enough.

We simply need our theories to work for us. That is the empiricist's standard of belief, and it involves evidence, not proof.

Empirical adequacy is the term used to describe an idea that unifies observations, offers an explanatory mechanism, makes predictions that are never falsified about what can and cannot be found in nature if the theory is correct, and has technological applications that improve the human condition. That's as good as it gets or can get, and evolutionary theory rises to that standard with flying colors. Religion does not.

Disagree? Shall we evaluate the competing supernaturalistic hypothesis using the same criteria? What does creationism offer the world? What useful information has ever come from faith based assumptions? None. Nothing good comes from systems based around god beliefs that can't come from those without such ideas, including offering hope, instilling ethical behavior, and promoting charity - the three things that Christianity claims that it does for people.

There is nothing equivalent when comparing evolution and creationism, and your claim otherwise constitutes a fallacy known as false equivalency. Faith is not a path to truth, and has a perfect record of sterility regarding understanding reality. That makes it NOT equivalent.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So when we dig down and look at the remains, and see a historical record of generally older, simpler- branching out, diversifying, shared traits, some apparent sudden jumps, gaps, some dead ends.. but general progression towards more sophisticated and more specifically tailored to various environments.. what does it all suggest to you?

The evidence suggests that all life on earth evolved from a single common ancestral population. We come to the same conclusion by examining the non-fossil evidence as well,

 

[metis]

What do you consider an ugly animal design?

Your avatar?

 

[Looncall]

never heard of it

I suggest you do look them up. It won't take much effort. They are a good antidote to the "all things bright and beautiful" guff, as is the Monty Python song "All Things Dull and Ugly".

 

[Polymath257]

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-



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?

Because they don't know the selection criteria?

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

But it doesn't take a large success rate to guarantee success in this scenario. Nature doesn't care about the waste factor. Auto dealers do. And this is why genetic algorithms can be of less advantage than other methods.

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.

Not at all. That's why 99% of all species that have existed have gone extinct.

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[/QUOTE]

But there are factors at work other than simply fitness. For example, the cost of manufacture, which is a factor in survival of the firm, not just the auto model.

And randomness in the context of differential reproduction does NOT run foul to entropy, etc. The amount of heat generated *far* exceeds entropy considerations in evolution.

 

[Polymath257]

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

Evolution is simply adaptation over more generations.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I suggest you do look them up. It won't take much effort. They are a good antidote to the "all things bright and beautiful" guff, as is the Monty Python song "All Things Dull and Ugly".

Point being; who's cherry picking? Deeje started this thread with pics of ducks... hardly exotic, and yet very bright and very beautiful, like most of nature that is presented to us. Without which, we wouldn't even have a notion of 'dull and ugly'

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Evolution is simply adaptation over more generations.

That's the theory yes. and superficially a very intuitive one, but extremely problematic, inherently paradoxical beneath this.

Trying to explain how adaptable body plans are created, using that very same process of adaptation that they support... is like trying to explain how gravity works using classical physics. -


Here's the distinction; random variation among predetermined parameters which specifically support adaptation- yes absolutely this woks, very well, and we use it all the time in our designs and observe it all the time in life- the peppered moth for example. Similarly you could randomly mutate the body paint color for cars, lighter ones will sell better in the south, darker in the north: random mutation + natural selection = adaptation. where a range of functional parameters are specifically supported in the design

Another perfect example is this forum software, we can adapt text color, size, shape within reasonable ranges to suit our uses, this in no way suggests that the software was written by the same mechanism, quite the opposite

i.e. micro adaptation to macro evolution is not just a matter of extrapolating scales, it's an insurmountable paradox inherent to the information systems needed to support the capacity for adaptation

This is what we see in all life, in artificial design, in mathematical modelling, and direct experimentation, where the bacteria are always bacteria, the dog is always a dog, the fly always a fly- no matter the evolutionary pressure applied

It is also reflected in the fossil record, which could hardly have refuted the prediction of vast numbers of intermediates any more emphatically

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Because they don't know the selection criteria?



But it doesn't take a large success rate to guarantee success in this scenario. Nature doesn't care about the waste factor. Auto dealers do. And this is why genetic algorithms can be of less advantage than other methods.



Not at all. That's why 99% of all species that have existed have gone extinct.

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

But there are factors at work other than simply fitness. For example, the cost of manufacture, which is a factor in survival of the firm, not just the auto model.

And randomness in the context of differential reproduction does NOT run foul to entropy, etc. The amount of heat generated *far* exceeds entropy considerations in evolution.

They are not identical processes of course, but that was the original point, the record they both leave can be described in identical language.

a historical record of generally older, simpler- branching out, diversifying, shared traits, some apparent sudden jumps, gaps, some dead ends.. but general progression towards more sophisticated and more specifically tailored to various environments..

The larger point being, that this record, in itself, does nothing to suggest unguided Darwinian processes at work, rather than guided, predetermined realization of specific design goals.

Personal preferences and academic consensus aside, for those who are sticklers for the pure scientific method there is only one entirely proven process we know of, that leaves this exact fingerprint.

 

[Deeje]

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.

I'm sorry, but every article I have ever read that purports to be "evidence" for macro-evolution uses the words "might have"..."could have"..."leads us to believe that....."....."this leads us to the conclusion that...." "by inference we can see that..." Can you tell me how these words can be interpreted as convincing evidence for anything? It amazes me how these phrases are glossed over as if science is saying they have concrete evidence for their theory....when they do not. There is no "false equivalency"...there are only statements of fact. If there is one true fact in evolutionary science.....it is that there are no facts...just assumptions and suggestions....and lots of very nice diagrams and pictures of what they cannot prove.

I can provide nice pictures too.

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?

Can you tell me why it needs to be "better" and in whose opinion is it inadequate for the life the creature was designed to live?
Why do bats need great eyesight when sonar works better in a dark cave or at night when they feed? Eyesight is relative and is reflected in how vital vision is for the creature concerned. A rhino's poor eyesight is compensated for in its other heightened senses of hearing and smell. Every creature has what the Creator deemed to be "needed" for its own life in its own environment. I think that is obvious.

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.

Oh dear, here we go with the emotive language.

Can we leave the emotion out of the conversation and just address the problem? You are blaming the Creator for something that humans did in direct violation to a simple command ....one that carried the death penalty. God did not say how the death penalty was to be implemented....he didn't have to. When the death penalty is implemented by man, he has a variety of ways to carry out the sentence. Who chooses that? In the end, what does it matter? The convicted person is just as dead.

You are no doubt familiar with genetically inherited disorders and the devastating impact that they can have on families as a faulty gene is passed from one generation to the next. Is it the fault of the parent that their child inherited what in a lot of cases is a death sentence? If they had no idea that they carried this deadly gene and had their children innocently, only to find that later in life, they had unintentionally sentenced their child or children to an early grave....who do we blame? If the criminal who is executed passed on his faulty genes to his children, whose fault is it?

God does not afflict the human race with disease and death...it is inherited from a couple of rebels who passed their faulty genes onto us. Its that simple. Are we stuck in this situation forever? According to the Bible...no. A rescue mission was implemented straight away. But because the rebels in the Biblical scenario were not all human, the whole episode is played out in universal time, not in earth years. This is why we need patience. Rest assured that no human has to wait longer than their own lifetime to see the results. All consciousness ceases at death.

Apparently all the slaps to your head has caused damage.

Ya think?

Perhaps I could say the same thing?

 

[Deeje]

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.

Actually I look up a lot of things but I can see what perhaps you evolutionists don't want to....? Lets talk about "assumptions".

Here is the opening statement from your Wiki link....

"Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] Evolutionary processes give rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules.[3]

Repeated formation of new species (speciation), change within species (anagenesis), and loss of species (extinction) throughout the evolutionary history of life on Earth are demonstrated by shared sets of morphological and biochemical traits, including shared DNA sequences.[4] These shared traits are more similar among species that share a more recent common ancestor, and can be used to reconstruct a biological "tree of life" based on evolutionary relationships (phylogenetics), using both existing species and fossils. The fossil record includes a progression from early biogenicgraphite,[5] to microbial mat fossils,[6][7][8] to fossilised multicellular organisms. Existing patterns of biodiversity have been shaped both by speciation and by extinction.[9]"

Now reading through that, I'm sure you see nothing that indicates a problem with the scenario that is presented.....

Now let me challenge what is assumed to be true in that statement but for which evolutionary science has no real evidence. (in red)

"Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations."

That should read, "Adaptation is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations." This is what is provable to some extent in a lab, and only with organisms that are small and reproduce rapidly. Macro-evolution is assumed to carry on that process way beyond testable levels, thereby proving to be a 'suggestion' as to what "might have" or "could have" taken place....but not being able to prove that adaptation can go beyond a single family of creatures.

Evolutionary processes give rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules."

Since evolutionary processes cannot be tested beyond what is observable in a lab, none of that is more than "assumption".

"Repeated formation of new species (speciation), change within species (anagenesis), and loss of species (extinction) throughout the evolutionary history of life on Earth are demonstrated by shared sets of morphological and biochemical traits, including shared DNA sequences"

In defining "new species" it is assumed by many that this means seeing the formation of new organisms that have gradually changed over time to become completely new families of creatures. We see that in the diagrams presented as if this 'branching' was an absolute fact. But, that is simply not true. The "evolutionary history of life on Earth" is all made up by those with an inordinate need to cancel out any perceived 'supernatural' element in creation. This great divide is really all about 'believers' verse 'non-believers'.

What is given as "evidence" for macro-evolution is interpretation, prejudiced by extreme bias, and seen in the length of this thread and the ferocity with which this branch of science is defended. It is as if they MUST prove there is no God and no need for one. Why does it matter so much?

In the definition of "new species" we find in all the experimentation done regarding "speciation" to be only small and adaptive change within one species. Nowhere has there ever been evidence produced that demonstrated one species 'evolving' into another. That needs concocted diagrams and specific scientific jargon to 'explain'. Take those things away and evolution falls into the category of concocted myth. Science fiction...not science fact.

"These shared traits are more similar among species that share a more recent common ancestor, and can be used to reconstruct a biological "tree of life" based on evolutionary relationships (phylogenetics), using both existing species and fossils."

"Shared traits" are not necessarily evidence of evolution, but can be equally true of creatures with the same Creator. We can see in the skeletal formation of many vertebrates that a similar bone structure is used in a variety of creatures....none of which are necessarily related....except by assumption of the existence of this imaginary "tree". Funny how evolution's "tree of life" is supposed to cancel out the Biblical one...?

These "evolutionary relationships" are based on tons of assumption and very little real evidence. The "existing species and fossils" are the victims of interpretation, not real conclusive evidence.

"The fossil record includes a progression from early biogenicgraphite to microbial mat fossils, to fossilised multicellular organisms. Existing patterns of biodiversity have been shaped both by speciation and by extinction."

The fossil record includes no such thing. Again science 'assumes' a relationship with species in the record 'appearing' to have changed over time. But the complete lack of transitional fossils leaves them with embarrassing gaps that cannot filled with anything but imagination...and lots of nice drawings. A chain is not a chain unless there are links. Even if one is missing, the chain is broken. If all the links are missing then there never was a chain to begin with.

Unless you use a filter to catch the "suggestions" many can assume that facts are being presented...but in truth...there are no real facts. The power of suggestion can sell ice to Eskimos.

 

[Deeje]

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.

Since belief in the Creator goes back many thousands of years before human minds invented evolution, then I guess the onus is on you guys to produce the proof that a Creator wasn't responsible for all life on this planet...including your own.

There can be no winners in this argument metis because each side has to have "faith" that what they "believe" is true.
In order for something to be true it has to be provable, meaning that no faith or belief is required. Since neither side of this argument has what is needed to be the irrefutable truth, then all must decide their position on faith and hope that they are right. I know who has the most to lose in this argument. I think you do too.

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

I assert that the Creator of the universe would not leave his intelligent creation without direction and guidance in how to conduct themselves in the role assigned to them. As all inventors of complex mechanisms know, they can share instructions as to its use and application by providing a manual. I believe that we humans were provided with one one. The truth is, not many will consult it...human nature being what it is.

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.

The irrefutable evidence will be provided in good time metis, but the Creator will have already established where we have put our faith. It will either be in men of science and their recent scenario....or the one presented in a book that is thousands of years old. We choose where our own heart takes us. The divide will get wider as we each take our side. What then?

 

[Mister Silver]

Since belief in the Creator goes back many thousands of years before human minds invented evolution, then I guess the onus is on you guys to produce the proof that a Creator wasn't responsible for all life on this planet...including your own.

Your ignorance of science is your main problem. Humans did not invent evolution. Humans discovered evolution as human minds evolved. Science discovers new aspects regarding the world in which we live, dismissing religious notions such as a flat earth or the earth being the center of the universe. Science is not in the business of disproving god, but instead science is in the business of discovering answers rather than just filling in the gaps of knowledge with "god did it". If you are going to remain ignorant of how science works, or if you are going to bastardize science to ease your own mind, then perhaps you should consider trolling elsewhere.

 

[Deeje]

Your ignorance of science is your main problem.

Your ignorance of what science can actually prove is also a problem. You must take what they "assume" as absolute truth. You are welcome to do that of course.

Humans did not invent evolution. Humans discovered evolution as human minds evolved.

Humans saw adaptation and made assumptions about how far they could take it without any real evidence. Adaptation within a species is not a guarantee that macro-evolution is even remotely possible. Show us the evidence that does not rely on faith or belief in what scientists assume.

Science discovers new aspects regarding the world in which we live, dismissing religious notions such as a flat earth or the earth being the center of the universe.

It is a shame that many religious people are supporters of superstitious nonsense. This unfortunately gives all believers a bad rep. OTOH, throwing the baby out with the bathwater was never a good move. There is room for God and science to enjoy a wonderful relationship...each side just has to ditch their myths.

Science is not in the business of disproving god, but instead science is in the business of discovering answers rather than just filling in the gaps of knowledge with "god did it".

No, it seems that science fills the gaps with "natural selection did it".....if you can't prove it, what is the difference?

If you are going to remain ignorant of how science works, or if you are going to bastardize science to ease your own mind, then you need to stop trolling.

Sorry sunshine...this is my thread...who is the troll?

I am not ignorant about how science works.....I am fully aware of how it expresses its 'beliefs'....and how it promotes its agenda. You seem unaware that it has one.

I love science and what it can show us of the natural world around us.....the microscopic world.....and the far reaches of the universe where images are sent back to show us what is "out there". That is true demonstrable science.

As for the theoretical stuff? Its all made up rubbish IMO.

 

[metis]

I'm sorry, but every article I have ever read that purports to be "evidence" for macro-evolution uses the words "might have"..."could have"..."leads us to believe that....."....."this leads us to the conclusion that...." "by inference we can see that..."

Again, just another disingenuous song & dance whereas you simply have not, and apparently will not, answer the question I asked you, namely what evidence can you provide that miraculously stops "micro-evolution" before it becomes "macro-evolution"? This is the third time I've asked you. You're the one who's making the assertion that it stops, not either put up that evidence or at least be honest enough by saying that you can't.

You are blaming the Creator for something that humans did in direct violation to a simple command ....one that carried the death penalty. God did not say how the death penalty was to be implemented....

he didn't have to...God does not afflict the human race with disease and death...it is inherited from a couple of rebels who passed their faulty genes onto us. Its that simple.

I'm not "blaming the Creator" but asserting that your view is patently absurd. How can someone else's sins be held against a person born hundreds or thousands of yours later?

It is just so bizarre how disingenuous you are acting here, refusing to answer a simple question by deflecting back to me, and then falsely having me say things I didn't say. Have you no shame whatsoever, Deeje? Is this what your leaders tell you is morally acceptable? And you do this a lot, let me tell ya, which is why I and some others here get so frustrated with your approach here. Maybe act like a moral adult and admit when you don't know something instead of deflecting, and also stop making dishonest accusations. Is this too much to ask and expect from you?

 

[metis]

These "evolutionary relationships" are based on tons of assumption and very little real evidence.

There are two ways that scientific facts can be determined, and one of them is through direct resting and the other way is by discounting all other possibilities as being possible. When we look at the fossil record, now also reinforced by the genome testing, there simply is no other objective explanation other than there's been enough changes that cannot be accounted for in any other way, plus there's simply not one shred of evidence to suggest some sort of divine intervention.

But the complete lack of transitional fossils leaves them with embarrassing gaps that cannot filled with anything but imagination...and lots of nice drawings. A chain is not a chain unless there are links. Even if one is missing, the chain is broken. If all the links are missing then there never was a chain to begin with.

If we reproduce, we are all "transitional forms".

Secondly, gaps are being gradually filled in as we go through the decades of study, and this includes human evolution. When I first started teaching my introductory anthropology course, we could only go back in human history around 1 & 1/2 million years b.p., but now we can go back to roughly 4 & 1/2 million years b.p.. And back then, we didn't know the what exactly was the relationship between Neanderthal and H.s., but now we do know.

 

[metis]

Since belief in the Creator goes back many thousands of years before human minds invented evolution, then I guess the onus is on you guys to produce the proof that a Creator wasn't responsible for all life on this planet...including your own.

Hate to break the news to ya, Deeje, but the early view was "Creators", not "Creator".

But, again, notice your utterly disingenuous tactic, namely to not answer the question asked but simply deflecting it back to the person asking the question.

There can be no winners in this argument metis because each side has to have "faith" that what they "believe" is true.

Again, another pathetic lie from you, as science relies on objectively-derived evidence, not "faith". Repeating a lie, Deeje, doesn't make a lie the truth.

I know who has the most to lose in this argument. I think you do too.

I used to tell my students that, if they had trouble accepting the basic ToE because of their religious views, that they should go with their religious views. When dealing with evolution, we're in essence mostly dealing with the past. Religion, however, more deals with teachings that can affect every single person today, even though these teachings are largely derived from the past.

Surprised?

The irrefutable evidence will be provided in good time metis,

Well, then let me know when that happens, OK?

 

[SkepticThinker]

never heard of it

Luckily you're on the internets.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Since belief in the Creator goes back many thousands of years before human minds invented evolution, then I guess the onus is on you guys to produce the proof that a Creator wasn't responsible for all life on this planet...including your own.

No. You need to learn how the burden of proof works. I know it's been explained to you before in this thread.
It works like this: You make a claim, you back it up. You claim there's a god? You back it up. You provide the evidence.It's not up to others to show that the thing you claim isn't true. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. For example, If I say, "There are pink unicorns currently living in the North Pole." It's completely rational and logical to disbelieve my claim unless I provide some sort of evidence that points to the existence of pink unicorns at the North Pole. Why should it be on you to show that there are not actually any pink unicorns at the North Pole.

In evolutionary science, the claim has both been made, and backed up - by many people, in many places throughout the world, over a period of many years. It's the same reason germ theory is accepted in the scientific community.

There can be no winners in this argument metis because each side has to have "faith" that what they "believe" is true.
In order for something to be true it has to be provable, meaning that no faith or belief is required. Since neither side of this argument has what is needed to be the irrefutable truth, then all must decide their position on faith and hope that they are right. I know who has the most to lose in this argument. I think you do too.

There is no faith required in science, that's kind of the point. There is no "irrefutable proof" involved in scientific theories, as science does not work that way. Theories are always open to modification if/when new evidence comes to light, as it should be. Science is the reason we know everything we know about our planet, our solar system and our universe.

To me, faith is the excuse people give for believing in things when they don't have a good reason. If you had a good reason, you wouldn't need faith.

I assert that the Creator of the universe would not leave his intelligent creation without direction and guidance in how to conduct themselves in the role assigned to them. As all inventors of complex mechanisms know, they can share instructions as to its use and application by providing a manual. I believe that we humans were provided with one one. The truth is, not many will consult it...human nature being what it is.

We can speculate all day long as to what supposed deities think about things. If you can't actually demonstrate any of it though, what's the point?

The irrefutable evidence will be provided in good time metis, but the Creator will have already established where we have put our faith. It will either be in men of science and their recent scenario....or the one presented in a book that is thousands of years old. We choose where our own heart takes us. The divide will get wider as we each take our side. What then?

Why put your trust in some old book written by people who didn't know anything close to what we know about our world now, thousands of years later? Seems like an exercise in folly, to me.