The Big Bang and Evolution

[leibowde84]

I feel a God with supreme intelligence would judge a man by his individual actions and not his Religious affiliation.

If not he would be a bit foolish to take a less moral person over a moral one based on their beliefs.

Even a moral Athiest should enter heaven

Very true.

 

[leibowde84]

They are both grossly incomplete philosophies full of contradictions and good observations.
They are both wrongly attributed to the category of 'science'; when they are both more than half guess-work;
and rely more on a 'science of the gaps' narrative than on rigorous logic.

Because they both entirely ignore the argument from design, the chaotic nature of their narratives
resembles a process of monkeys randomly typing at keyboards.

But, there is no evidence for the argument from design beyond the "God of the gaps". So, isn't it guilty of the same logical fallacy you pointed to?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

If evolution was true, the vast majority of fossils would be intermediate and to date you have zero, zilch, nada.

DNA actually separates species, not links them. It is not the similarites that are important, it is the differences.

Fruit flies remaining fruit flies is not evidence of evolution. Hint: Evolution preaches a change of species.

Mutations do not change the species. They only altar the characteristics of a species.

Natural selection can't be proven. l Even if it is true it also will not result in a change of species, it would only give the species a better chance of survival.

All this is becoming ever more apparent scientifically. Darwinism made sense 150 years ago, it wasn't a bad guess if you were trying to find a way to explain life by simple unguided spontaneous processes, very fashionable in that day

But if you remove that philosophical restriction, and simply follow the evidence where it leads, in the 21st C information age, as opposed to the 19th C Victorian age, it points fairly emphatically to life developing according to specific design information, not relying on the blind luck of merely random mutations.

 

[omega2xx]

All this is becoming ever more apparent scientifically. Darwinism made sense 150 years ago, it wasn't a bad guess if you were trying to find a way to explain life by simple unguided spontaneous processes, very fashionable in that day

Right. In its day it was good guess. Real science has disproved it. Actually the fossil record disprovoes it.

But if you remove that philosophical restriction, and simply follow the evidence where it leads, in the 21st C information age, as opposed to the 19th C Victorian age, it points fairly emphatically to life developing according to specific design information, not relying on the blind luck of merely random mutations.

Right. Genetics keeps life developing in accordance to specific designs.

 

[metis]

In genetics, the only "real design" is d.n.a. itself as all sorts of genetic combinations can and have occurred over time.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Right. In its day it was good guess. Real science has disproved it. Actually the fossil record disprovoes it.

I think by his own standards, Darwin would be a skeptic by now also, he talked frankly about the problems of the theory, in a way you don't hear from many followers today, for whom any questioning of any part of the theory is 'science denial!!'

Right. Genetics keeps life developing in accordance to specific designs.

That's certainly the way it turned out for physical reality- everything unfolded according to pre-determined information at the quantum level, and that's where 'random' mutations are taking place also.

Darwin reasonably assumed that life would develop by a similar general mechanism to physics. And I agree with that rationale, in his day that meant a handful of simple 'immutable' God refuting laws. given enough time to randomly bump around in, would be bound to produce interesting results eventually. Today we know better, but evolution has amassed a monumental ideological following science then.

 

[Valjean]

That is the sorriest excuse the evos have invented yet. Look up "evolution of ______." Fill in the blank and you will find seval intermediate fossils of the species. The evolution of whales goes from a dog-like land animal to a full blown sea creature they named a whale with about 5 or 6 intermediate fossils. Go to o"Talk Origins," and google intermediate fossils and they will give you a list.

What are you saying here? I can't figure out if you're supporting my point or not.

Of course. You evos have preached intermediate fossils will prove evolution ever since pope Darwin said they would 100+ years ago. It finally became evidence there were no intermediate fossils, do to give the faithful hope, some evolution evangelist came up with a new doctrine and everyone recognized its necessity, so the all jumped on board.

We've preached no such thing (and your use of "proof" is undermining your credibility, by the way). Intermediate forms is just one of many supporting lines of evidence.

It has never been observed that an A gave birth to a B in one generation and that is what such an absurd idea is preaching. Also it violates the laws of genetics and if you understood genetics, you would know that it is not true.

Where do you come up with this stuff? No-one's claiming any such thing.
If you understood genetics you'd know it shows clearer interspecies relationships and a clearer sequence of change than do the fossils.
How does evolution violate the 'laws' of genetics?

Evolution is more than change. A difference in eye color is change. Evolution is a change of species and salamanders remaining salamanders is not a change of species.

True, eye color variation can be change, as can eye shape, size, photoreceptor mix and anything else. These little changes accumulate.
You bring up salamanders again. Why salamanders? You're citing one of the few living species where the steps to speciation can be directly observed in vivo. Again you seem to undermine your case while attempting to support it.

As soon as you tell me how life originated out of lifeless elements, I will tell you how the variety of life we have today originated.

Omega, you're conflating two different areas of study, and I'm sure you've been told this before. If you're interested in abiogenesis google it, but don't keep making the specious contention that an understanding of it is a necessary prelude to a discussion of evolution.

All this is becoming ever more apparent scientifically. Darwinism made sense 150 years ago, it wasn't a bad guess if you were trying to find a way to explain life by simple unguided spontaneous processes, very fashionable in that day

What do you mean by "explain life?" Darwin proposed a mechanism speciation. I wouldn't say he was explaining life; and I'd hardly say natural selection was popular at the time.

But if you remove that philosophical restriction, and simply follow the evidence where it leads, in the 21st C information age, as opposed to the 19th C Victorian age, it points fairly emphatically to life developing according to specific design information, not relying on the blind luck of merely random mutations.

OK, consider me a blockhead and explain some of this specific design information.

I think by his own standards, Darwin would be a skeptic by now also, he talked frankly about the problems of the theory, in a way you don't hear from many followers today, for whom any questioning of any part of the theory is 'science denial!!'

With the thousands of times more supporting evidence we have today, I think Darwin would feel vindicated.
Scientists are constantly questioning the various mechanisms of evolution -- that's what science does. It's not the scientists who are deliberately turning a blind eye to established, tested, peer reviewed evidence.
Finally, Darwin. Why do you keep bring Darwin up? What does he have to do with today's understanding of the ToE?

Darwin reasonably assumed that life would develop by a similar general mechanism to physics.

Darwin explored change, not development, and the mechanism he proposed was natural selection. What does this have to do with a "general mechanism to physics?" What mechanism are you talking about?

... in his day that meant a handful of simple 'immutable' God refuting laws. given enough time to randomly bump around in, would be bound to produce interesting results eventually. Today we know better, but evolution has amassed a monumental ideological following science then.

I don't recall any God refuting going on, or any laws being proposed, for that matter. He described natural selection -- essentially the same mechanism as selective breeding (by God-refuting breeders?)
"Today we know better?" What does that mean? Better than what? What are you saying?

 

[omega2xx]

I think by his own standards, Darwin would be a skeptic by now also, he talked frankly about the problems of the theory, in a way you don't hear from many followers today, for whom any questioning of any part of the theory is 'science denial!!'

Right. He knew it was a , but thought they would be found in time. They haven't been so now some try to say all all fossils are intermediate which is absurd.[/QUOTE]

That's certainly the way it turned out for physical reality- everything unfolded according to pre-determined information at the quantum level, and that's where 'random' mutations are taking place also.

Mutations DO NOT change the species.

Darwin reasonably assumed that life would develop by a similar general mechanism to physics. And I agree with that rationale, in his day that meant a handful of simple 'immutable' God refuting laws. given enough time to randomly bump around in, would be bound to produce interesting results eventually. Today we know better, but evolution has amassed a monumental ideological following science then.

Ideological, but not science. Not one thing in the TOE can be proven scientifically.

 

[omega2xx]

What are you saying here? I can't figure out if you're supporting my point or not.

We've preached no such thing (and your use of "proof" is undermining your credibility, by the way). Intermediate forms is just one of many supporting lines of evidence.

Saying all fossils are intermediates is silly. It became necessary when it became evident there were no intermediate fossils.

Where do you come up with this stuff? No-one's claiming any such thing.

You just said all fossils are intermediates. Whee do you comed up with that stuff.

If you understood genetics you'd know it shows clearer interspecies relationships and a clearer sequence of change than do the fossils.
How does evolution violate the 'laws' of genetics?

If you understood genetics you would not make such an ignorant statement.

True, eye color variation can be change, as can eye shape, size, photoreceptor mix and anything else. These little changes accumulate.

They do not. There is no guarentee they will even be passed on to the next generation.

You bring up salamanders again. Why salamanders? You're citing one of the few living species where the steps to speciation can be directly observed in vivo. Again you seem to undermine your case while attempting to support it.

Salamanders has been one of the main studies of ring species. The did speciate but the they remained salamanders.

Omega, you're conflating two different areas of study, and I'm sure you've been told this before. If you're interested in abiogenesis google it, but don't keep making the specious contention that an understanding of it is a necessary prelude to a discussion of evolution.
What do you mean by "explain life?" Darwin proposed a mechanism speciation. I wouldn't say he was explaining life; and I'd hardly say natural selection was popular at the time.

Originally the TOE started with the origin of life.

OK, consider me a blockhead and explain some of this specific design information.

You are not a blockhead. You have been indoctrinated. Answer you own question---What determines if the offspring will have a certain characteristic. That is basic genetics.

With the thousands of times more supporting evidence we have today, I think Darwin would feel vindicated.

If there are thousands, post just one thin in the TOE that has been proves scientifically. Be sure to include the "HOE."

Scientists are constantly questioning the various mechanisms of evolution -- that's what science does. It's not the scientists who are deliberately turning a blind eye to established, tested, peer reviewed evidence.
Finally, Darwin. Why do you keep bring Darwin up? What does he have to do with today's understanding of the ToE?
Darwin explored change, not development, and the mechanism he proposed was natural selection. What does this have to do with a "general mechanism to physics?" What mechanism are you talking about?

I don't think scientist are constantly questioning various mechanisms for evolution. The only 2 ever mentioned these days is mutations and natural selection, neiter of which will cause a change of species, and you can't give even one example how they have.



I don't recall any God refuting going on, or any laws being proposed, for that matter. He described natural selection -- essentially the same mechanism as selective breeding (by God-refuting breeders?)
"Today we know better?" What does that mean? Better than what? What are you saying?[/QUOTE]

 

[Valjean]

Right. He knew it was a , but thought they would be found in time. They haven't been so now some try to say all all fossils are intermediate which is absurd.

Why do you have so much trouble with the intermediate fossils?

Mutations DO NOT change the species.

And mispronunciation and bad grammar do not change language, and yet Latin somehow turned into French.
So, if not mutation, or sexual variation, what?

Ideological, but not science. Not one thing in the TOE can be proven scientifically.

Your ignorance is showing again. Not one thing in the germ theory or heliocentric theory can be proven scientifically, either.
What's this fixation on "proof?" Science doesn't prove things.

Saying all fossils are intermediates is silly. It became necessary when it became evident there were no intermediate fossils.

When was that?
We have lots of intermediate fossils, and keep digging up more. I don't understand how you can just blithely deny them.

You just said all fossils are intermediates. Whee do you comed up with that stuff.

Which link in a chain is not an intermediate?

If you understood genetics you would not make such an ignorant statement.

I don't understand how you can dismiss the DNA evidence. All the world's scientists can see it clearly, yet you miss it entirely.

They do not. There is no guarentee they will even be passed on to the next generation.

Of course not, but if a variation confers a reproductive advantage don't you think its frequency in a population is likely to increase? How have farmers managed to use this principle to selectively breed desired characteristics into livestock if it doesn't work?

Salamanders has been one of the main studies of ring species. The did speciate but the they remained salamanders.

So now you acknowledge speciation but are demanding greater change? If they became frogs would you insist they must become lizards, if lizards must they morph into birds? Why is is so hard to grasp that small changes can accumulate into big ones? How do they know when to stop?

Originally the TOE started with the origin of life.

No, it started with the fact of extinct species and multiple current species. It sought to explain this.
Why must the ToE explain abiogenesis?

You are not a blockhead. You have been indoctrinated. Answer you own question---What determines if the offspring will have a certain characteristic. That is basic genetics.

Of course. Evolution requires reproductive variation to work. Characteristics that benefit reproduction tend to increase in frequency. Evo 101.
Are you saying this doesn't work? Do you think toy poodles have always existed?

If there are thousands, post just one thin in the TOE that has been proves scientifically. Be sure to include the "HOE."

Please! You're doing it again. "Proof?"
Prove to me that germs cause disease.

I don't think scientist are constantly questioning various mechanisms for evolution. The only 2 ever mentioned these days is mutations and natural selection, neiter of which will cause a change of species, and you can't give even one example how they have.

You really don't have a clue. Scientists are exploring dozens of avenues of evolution. Maybe you should subscribe to a few journals. Category:Evolutionary biology journals - Wikipedia

 

[Guy Threepwood]

What are you saying here? I can't figure out if you're supporting my point or not.

We've preached no such thing (and your use of "proof" is undermining your credibility, by the way). Intermediate forms is just one of many supporting lines of evidence.
Where do you come up with this stuff? No-one's claiming any such thing.
If you understood genetics you'd know it shows clearer interspecies relationships and a clearer sequence of change than do the fossils.
How does evolution violate the 'laws' of genetics?
True, eye color variation can be change, as can eye shape, size, photoreceptor mix and anything else. These little changes accumulate.
You bring up salamanders again. Why salamanders? You're citing one of the few living species where the steps to speciation can be directly observed in vivo. Again you seem to undermine your case while attempting to support it.
Omega, you're conflating two different areas of study, and I'm sure you've been told this before. If you're interested in abiogenesis google it, but don't keep making the specious contention that an understanding of it is a necessary prelude to a discussion of evolution.
What do you mean by "explain life?" Darwin proposed a mechanism speciation. I wouldn't say he was explaining life; and I'd hardly say natural selection was popular at the time.
OK, consider me a blockhead and explain some of this specific design information.
With the thousands of times more supporting evidence we have today, I think Darwin would feel vindicated.
Scientists are constantly questioning the various mechanisms of evolution -- that's what science does. It's not the scientists who are deliberately turning a blind eye to established, tested, peer reviewed evidence.
Finally, Darwin. Why do you keep bring Darwin up? What does he have to do with today's understanding of the ToE?
Darwin explored change, not development, and the mechanism he proposed was natural selection. What does this have to do with a "general mechanism to physics?" What mechanism are you talking about?
I don't recall any God refuting going on, or any laws being proposed, for that matter. He described natural selection -- essentially the same mechanism as selective breeding (by God-refuting breeders?)
"Today we know better?" What does that mean? Better than what? What are you saying?

Physics boils down to mathematics, there are extremely specific constants, equations and algorithms required for the physical world to operate. These were required by necessity to predetermine exactly how the physical universe would develop.

This was unknown in Darwin's time, when we knew only of the superficial effect of this information, the simple observable mechanics of Newtonian physics- and so it appeared that simple observable laws could account for all. And this is what Darwinists still believe today, that random mutation and natural selection account for and create merely an illusion of predetermined design.

In this day of information systems, we understand the necessity for nested, integrated hierarchies of information, just as we see in physics and life.

So we can randomly 'mutate' specific parameters in this forum software which govern text color and size etc, and produce various functional results which one might select from as 'fitter'. But we cannot randomly mutate the code in the software application that processes these parameters, without crashing the entire system. Far less the operating system beneath that, and far less the hardware supporting it all.

Similarly with life, DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created

Math has no prejudice against any particular philosophy, it does not seek to make an intelligent designer redundant. And so the same principles apply to any information system, we can randomly tweak parameters that might control superficial attributes like hair length, beak size, but we cannot, by utter necessity, produce the literal digital code for each species by the same process.

This is not just theory, and not just borne out in information systems analysis, it is also borne out in direct testable repeatable observations with life, along with the ever more distinctly 'gappy' fossil record. i.e. multiple lines of evidence all concur

You cite human breeding of dogs. It's a little odd, to reference intelligent agency changing species according to predetermined goals... as proof of unguided mechanisms achieving the same..
but even WITH guidance, we see the clear limits in the range of possible change in the underlying 'template' of a dog, before the design becomes dysfunctional.

 

[viole]

I haven't mentioned God. Stick to science. I haven't mention the Bible . Stick to science. You are going to stick to evolution, not to real science. I depend on science to refute evolution. I am not threatened by it, you are if you really understood science.

Evolution is not real science?

Who said that? The scientists? Or just some believers in invisible beings who think they can define what is real science and what is not, depending on what contradicts an ancient book or not?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

All this is becoming ever more apparent scientifically. Darwinism made sense 150 years ago, it wasn't a bad guess if you were trying to find a way to explain life by simple unguided spontaneous processes, very fashionable in that day

But if you remove that philosophical restriction, and simply follow the evidence where it leads, in the 21st C information age, as opposed to the 19th C Victorian age, it points fairly emphatically to life developing according to specific design information, not relying on the blind luck of merely random mutations.

Yet, the Lamaitre equivalent who can expose that fasehood is still missing in action. After 150 years. Before the first Lamaitre was born. This starts looking like the myth of the second return.

So, where is he? Where is that science guy that can vindicate you? We are in the 21st century information age and still no trace of that prophet that wiil show us wrong.

I am sure that if atheistic naturalism has been beaten once, as you believe, it can be beaten twice.

So, where is he, or she? Is it you?

Or is that one of those atheistic conspiracies that sometimes work and sometimes don't?

Ciao

- viole

 

[JustWondering]

Don't post links, post the evidence they offer.

Reread my response in post #361.

 

[omega2xx]

Why do you have so much trouble with the intermediate fossils?
And mispronunciation and bad grammar do not change language, and yet Latin somehow turned into French.
So, if not mutation, or sexual variation, what?
Your ignorance is showing again. Not one thing in the germ theory or heliocentric theory can be proven scientifically, either.
What's this fixation on "proof?" Science doesn't prove things.
When was that?
We have lots of intermediate fossils, and keep digging up more. I don't understand how you can just blithely deny them.
Which link in a chain is not an intermediate?
I don't understand how you can dismiss the DNA evidence. All the world's scientists can see it clearly, yet you miss it entirely.
Of course not, but if a variation confers a reproductive advantage don't you think its frequency in a population is likely to increase? How have farmers managed to use this principle to selectively breed desired characteristics into livestock if it doesn't work?
So now you acknowledge speciation but are demanding greater change? If they became frogs would you insist they must become lizards, if lizards must they morph into birds? Why is is so hard to grasp that small changes can accumulate into big ones? How do they know when to stop?
No, it started with the fact of extinct species and multiple current species. It sought to explain this.
Why must the ToE explain abiogenesis?
Of course. Evolution requires reproductive variation to work. Characteristics that benefit reproduction tend to increase in frequency. Evo 101.
Are you saying this doesn't work? Do you think toy poodles have always existed?
Please! You're doing it again. "Proof?"
Prove to me that germs cause disease.
You really don't have a clue. Scientists are exploring dozens of avenues of evolution. Maybe you should subscribe to a few journals. Category:Evolutionary biology journals - Wikipedia

When you can prove one thing in the TOE, get back to me. Your ignorance of science is underwhelming.

 

[omega2xx]

Evolution is not real science?

Who said that? The scientists? Or just some believers in invisible beings who think they can define what is real science and what is not, depending on what contradicts an ancient book or not?

Ciao

- viole

Real science proves/disproves theories. That an offspring can acquire a characteristic not in the gene pool of the parents contradicts KNOWN genetics.

NOTHING in science contradicts the Bible. Where the Bible speaks of science, it is accurate.

 

[omega2xx]

Reread my response in post #361.

The usual evo talking points, which are not evidence. Evidently you don't understand what scientific evidence is.

 

[ratiocinator]

That an offspring can acquire a characteristic not in the gene pool of the parents contradicts KNOWN genetics.

This is saying that there is no such thing as a mutation - which is obviously wrong.

The case for evolution can be made from genetic evidence alone. It is madness to think that we can accept genetic evidence for (say) paternity in a court and then reject the evidence (from the same science) for evolutionary relationships between species.

 

[omega2xx]

This is saying that there is no such thing as a mutation - which is obviously wrong.

Thanks for revealing you do not understand mutations. Mutations do not add information, they only alter the information the kid would have gotten without the mutation. The albino was going to get skin, the mutation only changed the skin it got.

To show you really mutations, give us all an example of a mutation being the mechanism for a change of species. Be sure to explain HOW it cause the change.

The case for evolution can be made from genetic evidence alone. It is madness to think that we can accept genetic evidence for (say) paternity in a court and then reject the evidence (from the same science) for evolutionary relationships between species.

Talk is cheap, make the case or admit there is none.

Courts will accept DNA evidence, not genetic evidence. Evidently you don't understand the difference there either.

 

[ratiocinator]

Mutations do not add information...

Really? What definition of "information" are you using and why do you think a mutation can't add to it?

To show you really mutations, give us all an example of a mutation being the mechanism for a change of species.

Humm. If you think a single mutation can change a species, I don't think you've quite grasped the theory. Perhaps you should read up on speciation: for example, here. You could also consider that we can observe speciation over geographical distance as well as time - see Ring Species.

Talk is cheap, make the case or admit there is none.

You could always look for yourself: here. If reading books is more your thing, I can recommend The Making of the Fittest by Sean B. Carroll - lots of specific examples. Some time since I read it, but the mutations that led to colour vision stick in my mind.