Just Accidental?

[metis]

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.

It's more that she refuses to even acknowledge the possibility that the creation accounts can be taken as allegory. IOW, it's the old "my way or the highway" approach that the JW's are well known for.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It's more that she refuses to even acknowledge the possibility that the creation accounts can be taken as allegory. IOW, it's the old "my way or the highway" approach that the JW's are well known for.

I think you're right. Good point.

 

[Jose Fly]

If there is one true fact in evolutionary science.....it is that there are no facts...just assumptions and suggestions...

Despite that little voice telling me not to go round and round and round and round the same circles with the same people......

What you and @Guy Threepwood fail to appreciate or acknowledge is one very obvious and simple fact: The only thing we ever see produce new traits, abilities, genetic sequences, and species is evolution. No matter what we study, no matter where we look, and no matter the circumstances, it's always evolution that generates those things. Not once has anyone ever seen some "intelligent designer" (a god) producing anything, let alone new traits, abilities, genetic sequences, and species.

But what you creationists are trying to argue is that in the past, everything was different. In the past "intelligent designers" were responsible for new traits, abilities, genetic sequences and species, and evolution didn't produce anything, and it was only once we started looking that it all flipped.

Now, my bet is neither of you appreciate just how ridiculous a position that is, but then, such is the nature of creationism.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

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,

No but some scientists certainly are, and use evolution explicitly to support their assertions

Evolution is a theory, an inherently speculative one. We all believe in something, whether we acknowledge that belief, faith as such, or declare it fact. Blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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

A claim frequently made but never supported. There is never a mechanism offered with this claim to explain what could prevent lesser degrees of evolution occurring over shorter periods of time from accruing over much longer periods of time into much greater changes.

Making this claim is essentially saying that you can't see how it could happen - not much of an argument to those can't see what could stop it.

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

This is incorrect as well. The fossil findings confirm the theory, as does all of the other kinds of evidence. Since Darwin's time, many new intermediates bridging the "kinds" have been found exactly as predicted, Tiktaalik, Archeopteryx, and Austalopithecus afarensis being among the best known.

 

[Mister Silver]

No but some scientists certainly are, and use evolution explicitly to support their assertions

Evolution is a theory, an inherently speculative one. We all believe in something, whether we acknowledge that belief, faith as such, or declare it fact. Blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself

And "scientific theories" are not theories as thought of in layman terms.

"The way that scientists use the word 'theory' is a little different than how it is commonly used in the lay public," said Jaime Tanner, a professor of biology at Marlboro College. "Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts."

What Is a Scientific Theory?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

A claim frequently made but never supported. There is never a mechanism offered with this claim to explain what could prevent lesser degrees of evolution occurring over shorter periods of time from accruing over much longer periods of time into much greater changes.

Making this claim is essentially saying that you can't see how it could happen - not much of an argument to those can't see what could stop it.

on the contrary-- this mechanism was not understood in the Victorian Age Darwinism was conceived. It is now, we now live in the information age.

We call them nested hierarchies in information systems. I'm sure you can understand the example I gave you, why no amount of adaptation of text attributes in this forum software, can ever author the very software that supports this very capacity for adaptation- it's not just tricky, it's a paradox. I don't expect you to accept this all in one go, as a refutation of Darwinism in itself, but at least accept the proof of principle here:

Capacity for adaptation ≠ creative mechanism for that same capacity

It's not just skeptics trying to solve this conundrum, it's a real problem, and pretending it doesn't exist would be a disservice to scientific progress either way

This is incorrect as well. The fossil findings confirm the theory, as does all of the other kinds of evidence. Since Darwin's time, many new intermediates bridging the "kinds" have been found exactly as predicted, Tiktaalik, Archeopteryx, and Austalopithecus afarensis being among the best known.

intermediates or transitionals are rather subjective/ fudgeable terms- but I agree with the late great curator of the Chicago field museum I have visited many times

“We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn't changed much... We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time.”
-- David M. Raup

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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.

This argument fails because the theory of biological evolution doesn't say that the history of descent with modification cannot be accounted for by an intelligent designer, just that it appears to need no such designer. Thus, there are two possible explanations for the fossil record.

There would be only one for the automobile "fossils." One cannot assume that because the automobiles can only be explained by an intelligent designer that that is also true of the fossils.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

And "scientific theories" are not theories as thought of in layman terms.



What Is a Scientific Theory?

Correct, they are not the same

e.g. steady state, phrenology, static universe, global cooling, big crunch, string theory, M theory, multiverse theory... Scientific theory, in practice, means something inherently speculative, very difficult or often impossible to demonstrate empirically, (and often as not total cobblers!) otherwise the term is redundant.

The layman term is usually something that is generally demonstrably true, but perhaps just difficult to execute 'in theory, the engine should start first time'

I'm less interested in whether something is labeled a 'scientific theory', far more interested in whether or not it's actually true, wouldn't you agree?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

This argument fails because the theory of biological evolution doesn't say that the history of descent with modification cannot be accounted for by an intelligent designer, just that it appears to need no such designer. Thus, there are two possible explanations for the fossil record.

There would be only one for the automobile "fossils." One cannot assume that because the automobiles can only be explained by an intelligent designer that that is also true of the fossils.

Sure, so as you note yourself, one is an inconclusive theory, and the other is unambiguously true

We know intelligent design leaves this pattern as a record, the same record being left by purely spontaneous natural mechanisms.. we just don't know if it's possible, I doubt it, but I can't write it off entirely

I'm just sticking with the empirical in all lines of evidence, fossil record, mathematical models and direct experimentation.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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?

The words are not evidence for the theory. The evidence is in the fossil morphologies, the geological column, the DNA, comparative embryology and anatomy, laboratory studies, biogeographical data, etc.. That is what convinces us that the theory of evolution is correct. It accounts for all of those observation, and no other hypothesis apart from a deceptive intelligent designer that wanted to make it look like life evolved on earth over deep time can. Could that be the god of the Christian Bible, the one that is said to want to be found, known, loved, obeyed, and worshiped. Such a god could not be responsible for what we find here on earth. Only a deceiver trying to conceal its act of creation could.

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.

Science does have concrete evidence for its theory. Christianity does not. In fact, as I just explained, the evidence for the scientific theory rules out the Christian hypothesis. The evidence only allows for evolution and deceptive intelligent designers that wanted us to think that evolution had occurred.

You are blaming the Creator for something that humans did

With omniscience and omnipotence comes omniresponsibility. Such a deity would be responsible for everything that happens, including what human beings do and even what Satan does.

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?

That would be God's fault as well for the reasons just given (omniresponsibility).

The Christian apologist must hold his god blameless for things that he would blame any other agent for. Those of us not so encumbered find it easy to know who would be responsible if an omniscient, omnipotent god existed. You can try to reassign the blame from the creator to its creation, but you'll get no traction with that argument with anybody except other believers.

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.

Omniresponsibility.

 

[Jose Fly]

A claim frequently made but never supported. There is never a mechanism offered with this claim to explain what could prevent lesser degrees of evolution occurring over shorter periods of time from accruing over much longer periods of time into much greater changes.

They'll never answer the question because they can't. I guarantee you no creationist will ever answer your question.

"Macroevolution" is just a series of speciation events over long periods of time. According to the creationists here, at some point a species realizes that if they were to give rise to just one more species, the new species will have crossed an imaginary line into a new "kind" or something like that. So they somehow stop the process and all subsequent members of the population also come to this realization, lest they themselves give rise to a new "kind". This requires the existing species to be aware of their taxonomic and evolutionary status relative to both their ancestors and potential descendants.

It's pretty goofy and easily spotted as a rather absurd argument to make. But somehow I don't think that matters to them.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

No, the original was correct. There are two kinds of adaptation. The first is change during the life of the individual (which is usually called adaptation), such as building better muscles through exercise. This is NOT evolution. The second is changes in the genetics between generations and this *is* evolution. Both are observable, but the processes are much different.

What you call macro-evolution is simply the second form of adaptation over the course of more generations. Now, it is true that we can only test a few generations (since we don't have thousands to millions of years to watch), but the basic mechanisms are the same.

This is common in historical sciences: we watch processes today and use what we learn to see what will happen over longer periods of time.

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".

Again, the original statement is correct. There is no 'barrier' that has ever been found that could limit the adaptations between generations from adding up to larger scale changes. Furthermore, this is consistent with what we fid in the fossil record, including the limited amount we have found of DNA from fossils.

"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'.

Again, the original was correct. A new species is simply a reproductively isolated population. Again, we have seen this happening today. It does NOT require large scale changes, but once isolation happens, the populations change independently.

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?

Religious beliefs have nothing to do with it except in your mind. The reason this is so important is that this is the basis of *all* historical sciences: we use the knowledge we gain from labs today to understand what happened in the past.

So, for example, we can say how stars change over millions or billions of years by understanding the basic physics and the specific reactions that happen in our labs. We don't have to create a new star to be able to know how stars work. We can see how the small scale changes in populations that we see in our labs today can add up to produce the large scale changes we see in the fossil record.

To disallow this type of deduction is, ultimately, a claim that no historical science is possible.

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...?

Except that the tree derived from fossils is the same as the tree derived from genetic tests and is also the same as the tree done by comparison of anatomy and those (many) derived from the different proteins. The correspondence is what shows the tree is one showing descent rather than just similar body plans.

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.

On the contrary, we simply have to know the timing, and that these things were once alive to understand the descent relationship.

"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.

No, the fossil records does, in fact, have such a progression. There *are* transitional fossils in abundance. You simply refuse to acknowledge them as they are.

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.

Your filter is faulty. There *are* facts and they do show evolution.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Now, it is true that we can only test a few generations (since we don't have thousands to millions of years to watch), but the basic mechanisms are the same.

"but the basic mechanisms are the same"
^ an entirely untestable assumption as you concede

And there's your trouble, the whole theory is a speculation based on extrapolation rather than empirical evidence. Ever a great temptation, but also a notoriously unreliable method which has given us countless flawed 'undeniable' assumptions

Scales matter, things DO work differently, by necessity, at different scales. A system with capacity for adaption ≠ a creative mechanism for that system. Not in physics, not in information systems of any kind, life is not granted a waiver on this

 

[metis]

And there's your trouble, the whole theory is a speculation based on extrapolation rather than empirical evidence.

That's really quite a statement coming from a theist.

 

[Jose Fly]

That's really quite a statement coming from a theist.

And it's demonstrably false, as so many here have shown over the years by posting lengthy descriptions of the data and analyses. But as I noted in my last post, I don't think any of that matters to creationists like @Deeje and @Guy Threepwood . They have their talking point of "it's all just assumption" and they'll stick to it no matter what.

 

[metis]

years by posting lengthy descriptions of the data and analyses. But as I noted in my last post, I don't think any of that matters to creationists like @Deeje and @Guy Threepwood . They have their talking point of "it's all just assumption" and they'll stick to it no matter what.

I hear ya.

 

[Sapiens]

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

Tell me Guy, what do you know about "hierarchic transitions" in evolution?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Tell me Guy, what do you know about "hierarchic transitions" in evolution?

A little like punctuated equilibrium, in that's it's at least an acknowledgment of a problem, - always a key first step though!

That there are many distinct fundamental leaps in design that life had to take, not just slow gradual morphing within similar frameworks.

Again analogous to cars, we don't see certain intermediates in design, this is not an artifact of an incomplete record, but because they could never have existed as functional designs

 

[Sapiens]

The car analogy breaks down because cars are not self replicating. Additionally cars are not stuck with their previous state as a jumping off point, their designers can always go back to a clean sheet of paper for a given feature, a given system or a complete design. Organisms' inability to do this makes for some very clear evidence for the process of evolution.