Just Accidental?

[FearGod]

Hiding ones head in the sand does not make a problem go away. Natural selection is meaningless without variation, and when variation is added into the mix evolution is the result.

And the variations are random and the result may bring a successful organism,so the process
itself is blind and random, as you said natural selection is meaningless without it.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

evolution theory and mathematics predict that the less cooperative and selfish are more "fit" to pass on their genes.

Nope. The theory makes no comment about what is most fit before it is naturally selected.

Also, researchers are finding species that share a lot of genetic material with each other but didn’t behave altruistically, and other species that shared little and did.

We have much DNA in common with corn, which is very rarely altruistic.

More instances where the field data is not bearing out the mathematical predictions of evolution theory.

Evolutionary theory makes no mathematical predictions.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Hiding ones head in the sand does not make a problem go away. Natural selection is meaningless without variation, and when variation is added into the mix evolution is the result.

Nice to see you here on this site. I think you'll like it better than you-know-what.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The fear in those folks' eyes when they realized they had no answer to what I was showing them was obvious. Their fight-or-flight response was triggered and since their literature offered them no help they had no choice but to run. It's the same thing we've seen from many creationists here. No answer? Just ignore the post and run away.

Deeje described the emotional and social devastation Jehovah's Witnesses would have to face should they ever waver on evolution/creationism. Losing your friends and family? Losing all meaning to your life? Being treated "like a piece of garbage"? No wonder you guys are afraid.

'Fear', and 'afraid'. Right. And yet, we go from door to door, knocking on strangers' doors, not knowing what to expect on others territory.

That sound like fearful people to you?

We're peaceful (try to be), but we're not fearful. I'd still come to your home and discuss this.

Later, cousin.

 

[Jose Fly]

'Fear', and 'afraid'. Right. And yet, we go from door to door, knocking on strangers' doors, not knowing what to expect on others territory.

That sound like fearful people to you?

We're peaceful (try to be), but we're not fearful. I'd still come to your home and discuss this.

Later, cousin.

I didn't say it was universal fear, or fear of strangers. Instead I specifically noted that it's fear of the consequences that would ensue should they/you waver on the subject.

Surely you're not saying that losing one's friends and family, being treated like a piece of garbage, and life no longer having any meaning are not things to be afraid of, are you?

Also, I asked you a question earlier and you didn't answer: Why do you not debate the YEC's here? I would think your disagreement with them is more significant than the one you have with us science advocates. After all, your disagreement with YECs is not just about science but is also about scripture, which I would think is more important.

 

[Profound Realization]

Nope. The theory makes no comment about what is most fit before it is naturally selected.



We have much DNA in common with corn, which is very rarely altruistic.



Evolutionary theory makes no mathematical predictions.

All it took was adding one irrelevant word, "before" to yet again misrepresent reasoning and communication. But let's say that this had anything to do with the discussion, you're then correct, as it isn't about intent but rather the outcome. This takes half of its explanatory and predictive power away alone. The other half predicts what is most fit "after" the outcome and what Nature chose.
Meaning, altruistic behavior is an outcome. We go around and around and you haven't become aware of a whole lot. Once you'll say that evolutionary theory predicted antibiotic resistance when it really predicted antibiotic resistance "after" the outcome of antibiotic resistance developed.

Thank you for the corn reference. You're doing great work at finding holes and issues with evolution theory and likely don't even realize it. Since a legion of its principles and beliefs are based off of genetic similarity... it would seem your corn similarity reference thwarts a legion of principles, beliefs. Including what is currently being discussed with altruism. Since with all altruistic theories, that all have and make mathematics predictions, based on genetic similarities.

So, on the flip side from an evolutionary theorists argument for altruism....when it is stated that when individuals(self's) share a lot of genetic material and behave altruistically... why aren't you responding with this corn argument? Biased much? It is funny that @Deeje can make this same argument with bananas and it's not taken seriously.

So altruistic models, such as kin selection, ESS, game theory, group selection, etc. have no mathematical predictions?

 

[Profound Realization]

I didn't say it was universal fear, or fear of strangers. Instead I specifically noted that it's fear of the consequences that would ensue should they/you waver on the subject.

Surely you're not saying that losing one's friends and family, being treated like a piece of garbage, and life no longer having any meaning are not things to be afraid of, are you?

Also, I asked you a question earlier and you didn't answer: Why do you not debate the YEC's here? I would think your disagreement with them is more significant than the one you have with us science advocates. After all, your disagreement with YECs is not just about science but is also about scripture, which I would think is more important.

This applies to anyone. Many fear the consequences and loss of friends, reputation, and what ensues if they were to question anything regarding evolution theory or the discerning as to what is actual science and what is pseudoscience masquerading as science.

Many "scientists" themselves also fear loss of career, grants, money, reputation if they oppose the status quo in anyway.

It is slavery to be a people pleaser, worry about reputation, worry about what others will think of them if someone decides to be free and escape those chains.

“The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion.”
— Albert Camus

 

[Deeje]

Up to your old tricks again Jose Fly?

When there is no defense...attack, and make it personal.
Demean your opponent so that you appear to be the hero....

....seriously, do you think anyone but your fan club will swallow that rubbish? A rather pathetic attempt at psychoanalysis....is this another attempt to tell us what you think you know? How about you stick to the topic and present your arguments from science, not your own self importance? OK?

As I asked Deeje multiple times (and she ignored each time), given your extreme bias on this subject, why do you think you get to be the one who decides what is and isn't scientifically valid?

That's is laughable!

You don't recognize your own "extreme bias" on this subject.
What makes scientists think that everything they say about macro-evolution must be believed when all they have is supposition, backed up by what?....more supposition.

All the actual evidence for evolution is in reality, based on adaptation within a single species. There is no real scientific evidence that it can go beyond what is seen in a lab...it is an assumption. Macro-evolution is no more provable "scientifically" than is our Creator....the Intelligence behind creation and science.

Present your evidence and we will see what we have already seen so many times on this thread....not denying the science as much as showing it up to be not real evidence at all. Science itself does not present macro-evolution as a fact, but more as a possibility...because they can't do anything else......yet you would think that they had proved it beyond all reasonable doubt....when nothing could be further from the truth.

If you have the real evidence that macro-evolution is not merely a blindly supported belief system, then lets see it.
Your diversionary tactics are getting a bit old....and very transparent.

The reason they left is the same reason you and the other creationists here ignore questions, wave away data, and leave discussions, and is the primary factor behind Morton's Demon (referenced earlier in this thread)...fear.

The reason they left.....are you kidding? If you presented yourself the same way you present here, I'd have left too.
We are not there to argue with anyone, but to reason and discuss and to convey the message that we are commissioned to deliver. And you know what?.....I would have used the experience as a motive to do more research so as to be better equipped (in my own head) for the next time someone like you answered the door. That is not to say we would stay and argue next time, (what would be the point with someone like you?) but simply to be more confident about how pathetic the "scientific" evidence really is. It sounds convincing until you take it apart. This is why I have never "run away" from any so-called evidence presented on this thread by the staunch, close minded, evolutionists who regularly respond here.

The fear in those folks' eyes when they realized they had no answer to what I was showing them was obvious. Their fight-or-flight response was triggered and since their literature offered them no help they had no choice but to run. It's the same thing we've seen from many creationists here. No answer? Just ignore the post and run away.

The fear? If we were fearful, (as my brother mentioned) do you think we would be going around our neighborhoods knocking on the doors of strangers in the first place? It is a most unnatural thing to do, especially in a world where the majority in the western world have confidently ditched all belief in the Creator to opt for "more intelligent" science. But it's a work that needs to be carried out and there is a power greater than man ensuring that it is accomplished. What do we have to fear from the likes of you?

All that ignoring of the evidence that you like to keep repeating?......you do that yourself. Are you even aware of it?
Are you aware that personal jibes designed to paint your opponent in a negative light is a poor excuse for presenting real evidence for your own position? You do yourself more harm by repeating the behavior.

Deeje described the emotional and social devastation Jehovah's Witnesses would have to face should they ever waver on evolution/creationism.

Oh please .....again the distractions with emotional blackmail. What emotional devastation can come about from knowing the truth?
You act as if we are just blind to all this so-called evidence that you base all your beliefs on....but I have not seen one single shred of your evidence that was remotely convincing in the first place. The more I learn about science from the scientists themselves, the more I see the smoke and mirrors they use to convince others of their personal conviction by the power of suggestion. You honestly see only religion as "brainwashing" and "indoctrinating" others? Science is right up there with the best of them IMV.

Losing your friends and family? Losing all meaning to your life? Being treated "like a piece of garbage"? No wonder you guys are afraid.

Shaking my head......you just don't see how transparent that reasoning is, do you?
When my questions go unanswered, you can ignore whatever you wish and we aren't supposed to notice....perhaps concentrate on the topic and put your evidence up for the same scrutiny that you use on others instead of resorting to accusations that are so far off the truth that it is ridiculous. Talk about what you "know", not what you "assume" to know......but I have to wonder if assumption actually works for scientists better than the truth? It appears so.

 

[Thief]

Transitional does not mean ancestral. So no, we do not see a continual line nor is one expected. What is expected is that every fossil found fits the paradigm made by the theory of evolution, and that is what we do find, at least to date.

and what happens when we find that rib .....used to generate Eve?

 

[Deeje]

Dawkins, on the cover of The Blind Watchmaker, said:

Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning. The purpose of this book is to resolve the paradox to the satisfaction of the reader, and the purpose of this chapter is further to impress the reader with the power of the illusion of design.

Ah Dawkins ......one of the most arrogant and smug of his ilk. All Dawkins is good for is making his own opinion sound like proven science and everyone else's sound like drivel. The man is a legend in his own lunchbox. How does one make sense of even this statement on a book cover?

"Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view."

So nothing in the natural world is "planned"?......there are no 'consequences' and no 'purpose' to what it does?
Then how do you explain the problem of something presenting clear evidence of being planned and designed? You make it sound like an illusion (actually a delusion) that only a feeble mind would accept, whilst masking the fact that you are talking out of the top of your own empty head and making yourself sound like you are spouting facts.

"Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning."

Read the underlined section carefully. What is the admission here? Everything gives the "appearance" of being designed by a master watchmaker.....not just in a small way, but "overwhelmingly"....and yet Dawkins attributes all this impressive activity to "natural selection".....science's substitute for "Goddidit". It just looks like it was designed... Dawkins recommendation?.......ignore what your common sense tells you and listen to me!.....
I'm a scientist...everything I say must be true!

What is with the self appointed science gods....?

Take the relationship between the orchid wasp and the scheming plant that fools it into pollinating other orchids so that perpetuation only of the orchid can be sustained.....
All the wasp gets is hoodwinked.

Sometimes in a mob!

Why would the wasp naturally select for something that was of no benefit to him? How does a plant decide to manufacture the exact pheromone and replica of a female wasp on the cusp of its flower to attract the male and trick it into 'mating'? No planning or consequence demonstrated here? You've got to be kidding! This is just one example.

"The purpose of this book is to resolve the paradox to the satisfaction of the reader, and the purpose of this chapter is further to impress the reader with the power of the illusion of design."

How does one gain "the satisfaction of the reader".....? With the power of suggestion and the intimidation of not being considered "intelligent" by ones peers in scientific circles. The power of illusion is used to counter the power of illusion....priceless!

 

[Thief]

I believe in evolution
and each one of us is a transitory participation.

as for Eve....
I find the story interesting as it speaks of
selection, anesthesia, surgery, cloning and genetic manipulation

far sooner than we humans would know of such things

and evolution is still being taught with notation that 'something happened'
and Man diverged from the rest of the life on this planet......rather suddenly

 

[Deeje]

so transitional does not apply to each and every generation?

If by "transitional" you mean that a creature can alter its color or other physical feature to compensate for a change in diet or environment?....then yes....but it will always be in the same taxonomic family. What science cannot provide is any evidence that adaptation went further than what they can actually test in a lab. Beyond adaptation, it is all assumption....not proven fact.

Speciation as described by science, provides evidence that it creates variety within a family of creatures...it never creates a new species outside of it own family of creatures. That is a fact.

Darwin's finches are still finches....the iguanas have adapted to a marine environment, but they are still iguanas. No creature has been shown to transform itself into an entirely different animal or even a different kind of bacteria.

and linking each fossil to a previous generation....cannot be done?

Of course there are many creatures that existed back before recorded history, but science concludes that there is relationship or descent because they want that to be true. But the so called "missing links" are all still missing. That is because they never existed. When you examine the fossils, they tell no story at all apart from the one scientists want them to tell.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Ah Dawkins ......one of the most arrogant and smug of his ilk. All Dawkins is good for is making his own opinion sound like proven science and everyone else's sound like drivel. The man is a legend in his own lunchbox. How does one make sense of even this statement on a book cover?

"Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view."

So nothing in the natural world is "planned"?......there are no 'consequences' and no 'purpose' to what it does?
Then how do you explain the problem of something presenting clear evidence of being planned and designed? You make it sound like an illusion (actually a delusion) that only a feeble mind would accept, whilst masking the fact that you are talking out of the top of your own empty head and making yourself sound like you are spouting facts.

"Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning."

Read the underlined section carefully. What is the admission here? Everything "looks" like it was designed by a master watchmaker.....not just in a small way, but "overwhelmingly"....and yet Dawkins attributes all this impressive activity to "natural selection".....science's substitute for "Goddidit". It just looks like it was designed... Dawkins recommendation?.......ignore what your common sense tells you and listen to me!.....
I'm a scientist...everything I say must be true!

What is with the self appointed science gods....?

Take the relationship between the orchid wasp and the scheming plant that fools it into pollinating other orchids so that perpetuation only of the orchid can be sustained.....
All the wasp gets is hoodwinked.

Sometimes by a mob!

Why would the wasp naturally select for something that was of no benefit to him? How does a plant decide to manufacture the exact pheromone and replica of a female wasp on the cusp of its flower to attract the male and trick it into 'mating'? No planning or consequence demonstrated here? You've got to be kidding! This is just one example.

"The purpose of this book is to resolve the paradox to the satisfaction of the reader, and the purpose of this chapter is further to impress the reader with the power of the illusion of design."

How does one gain "the satisfaction of the reader".....? With the power of suggestion and the intimidation of not being considered "intelligent" by ones peers in scientific circles. The power of illusion is used to counter the power of illusion....priceless!

Once again ID accepts the empirical scientific evidence, which Darwinism must write off as 'illusion'

Dawkins admits that it looks overwhelmingly like design.. even at his simplistic, superficial, physical, evolutionary biology level, and that's not even touching where the real evidence lies, in the digital information systems in DNA, the systems that support life in the first place, that predate his all powerful Victorian 'natural selection' - he'd be even more impressed with what modern science has revealed.

Ultimately, you'd have to really, passionately dislike the implications of what the evidence itself shows in the 21st C, and I think Dawkins may have a teensy bit of a record of that bias?

 

[Thief]

If by "transitional" you mean that a creature can alter its color or other physical feature to compensate for a change in diet or environment?....then yes....but it will always be in the same taxonomic family. What science cannot provide is any evidence that adaptation went further than what they can actually test in a lab. Beyond adaptation, it is all assumption....not proven fact.

Speciation as described by science, provides evidence that it creates variety within a family of creatures...it never creates a new species outside of it own family of creatures. That is a fact.

Darwin's finches are still finches....the iguanas have adapted to a marine environment, but they are still iguanas. No creature has been shown to transform itself into an entirely different animal or even a different kind of bacteria.



Of course there are many creatures that existed back before recorded history, but science concludes that there is relationship or descent because they want that to be true. But the so called "missing links" are all still missing. That is because they never existed. When you examine the fossils, they tell no story at all apart from the one scientists want them to tell.

when sufficient transition has occurred.....you have a new species
and you can't go back

 

[Deeje]

Transitional does not mean ancestral. So no, we do not see a continual line nor is one expected. What is expected is that every fossil found fits the paradigm made by the theory of evolution, and that is what we do find, at least to date.

Yet a continual line is what we would expect if evolution on the scale that science suggests is true. You would expect to see many more transitional fossils in the intervening millions of years between one fossil specimen and another. They are never forthcoming.

You actually believe that this...

morphed into this...?

Based on what?

Something like this?

How do you know that these aren't completely separate creatures created "as is" in their own time periods? Science only assumes an evolutionary relationship and tries to connect them by means of diagrams showing what they are thought to have looked like.....no license taken?
How many unrelated species could you find today with similar skeletal structure? It seems to me that science can concoct whatever it wants to feed to the uneducated and easily convinced. Get kids indoctrinated before they leave school and have devotees for life. Most students and even many teachers of science swallow down the whole pill without ever questioning the validity of what they are fed.

What about the horse?

Where is the evidence for relationship except in the similarity of members of the same family. So little is known from fossil evidence, but from these illustrations, you would think that they had actual photos of these creatures....but that diagram is based on nothing but assumption. No one knows what they looked like. Large and small horse breeds still exist. What does it prove? Even if they are of the same taxonomic family, all it proves is variety within a kind....that's all.

Hiding ones head in the sand does not make a problem go away..

This applies to evolutionists as much as it applies to creationists. If you act like a mushroom, people will usually treat you like one.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Yet a continual line is what we would expect if evolution on the scale that science suggests is true. You would expect to see many more transitional fossils in the intervening millions of years between one fossil specimen and another. They are never forthcoming.

You actually believe that this...

morphed into this...?

Based on what?

Something like this?

How do you know that these aren't completely separate creatures created "as is" in their own time periods? Science only assumes an evolutionary relationship and tries to connect them by means of diagrams showing what they are thought to have looked like.....no license taken?
How many unrelated species could you find today with similar skeletal structure? It seems to me that science can concoct whatever it wants to feed to the uneducated and easily convinced. Get kids indoctrinated before they leave school and have devotees for life. Most students and even many teachers of science swallow down the whole pill without ever questioning the validity of what they are fed.

What about the horse?

Where is the evidence for relationship except in the similarity of members of the same family. So little is known from fossil evidence, but from these illustrations, you would think that they had actual photos of these creatures....but that diagram is based on nothing but assumption. No one knows what they looked like. Large and small horse breeds still exist. What does it prove? Even if they are of the same taxonomic family, all it proves is variety within a kind....that's all.



This applies to evolutionists as much as it applies to creationists. If you act like a mushroom, people will usually treat you like one.

You,me, Darwin and every evolutionist at the time the theory was proposed agree entirely on the logic;

I'm sure I'm not telling you anything you don't know, but progress through random mutations means lots of very small steps, not great leaps- we should see vast numbers of intermediates. The lack of these was originally attributed to being an artifact of an incomplete record, the gaps would be smoothed out over time, as fossils emerged. In stark contrast, the gaps, leaps, sudden appearances have become ever more abrupt, well defined.

There are countless examples of transitionals that were once claimed as evidence for evolution, based purely on superficial physical appearance, but were later debunked.

The remaining ones like hippos to whales, have never been confirmed- they are just the remaining ambiguous ones- though like all the others, the available time slot for this miraculous metamorphosis is ever shrinking to absurdly small time frames

Yet these shrouded events, where the light of science cannot illuminate...and contrary to all evidence, testing and modelling MUST be where all that evolutionary magic happened somehow- because the theory demands it

evolution of the gaps

 

[Subduction Zone]

And the variations are random and the result may bring a successful organism,so the process
itself is blind and random, as you said natural selection is meaningless without it.

No, it isn't. Talk to an insurance actuary. They can explain how their work is not "accidental". Don't focus on the individual. That is a common creationist error. Focus on the population. There will always be variation in a population. That is not an accident.

 

[Subduction Zone]

and what happens when we find that rib .....used to generate Eve?

If there was any evidence at all for the creation side then rational thinking people would change their minds, if enough evidence was found. To date there is not any scientific evidence at all for creationism that I am aware of. In fact I have yet to meet a creationist that understands the nature of evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yet a continual line is what we would expect if evolution on the scale that science suggests is true. You would expect to see many more transitional fossils in the intervening millions of years between one fossil specimen and another. They are never forthcoming.

Nope, such a line was never expected. That is a creationist strawman at best. What we do find are more and more fossils that always fall into the evolutionary paradigm and the creationists cannot even come up with one. It is a case of mountains of evidence against none at all.

You actually believe that this...

morphed into this...?

Based on what?

Something like this?

How do you know that these aren't completely separate creatures created "as is" in their own time periods? Science only assumes an evolutionary relationship and tries to connect them by means of diagrams showing what they are thought to have looked like.....no license taken?
How many unrelated species could you find today with similar skeletal structure? It seems to me that science can concoct whatever it wants to feed to the uneducated and easily convinced. Get kids indoctrinated before they leave school and have devotees for life. Most students and even many teachers of science swallow down the whole pill without ever questioning the validity of what they are fed.

Based upon evidence, more than half of which you have ignored. And once again no evidence to the contrary. Find some evidence for your claims and you might convince some people.

What about the horse?

Where is the evidence for relationship except in the similarity of members of the same family. So little is known from fossil evidence, but from these illustrations, you would think that they had actual photos of these creatures....but that diagram is based on nothing but assumption. No one knows what they looked like. Large and small horse breeds still exist. What does it prove? Even if they are of the same taxonomic family, all it proves is variety within a kind....that's all.



This applies to evolutionists as much as it applies to creationists. If you act like a mushroom, people will usually treat you like one.

And a strawman again. There are over 50 species of ancestral and side species that have been identified to date. Trying to refute the argument with an over simplified argument is not proper. Of course if a proper one was used any honest person would immediately see that horses evolved. Here let me help you:

Evolution of the horse - Wikipedia

That is still an over simplified article. It is Wikipedia after all. And it has at least 4 times the examples that you cited.

This article mentions about 30 different examples. again mostly on the genus level. If you really want to understand you should find a paleontologist that specializes in this topic. I am barely skimming the surface and I still way outperformed the attempt in your post:

Horse Evolution


And again I must emphasize the point that creation "scientists" are afraid to form a testable model that has not been almost instantly refuted that explains the fossil record. We don't need to know how God did it to explain the fossil record, but it needs to be explained if someone wants to claim that creationism is true.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nice to see you here on this site. I think you'll like it better than you-know-what.

Probably so. Thanks for the welcome.