Theistic Evolution?

[SkepticThinker]

Very well-put.

Thank you

 

[leibowde84]

Thank you

You're welcome. Very interested to see how he replies.

 

[metis]

The main difference being- that classical physics was far more directly observable, measurable, repeatable in experiment, and hence prevailed 'immutable' for longer than evolution has been around as a theory.

Except that quantum physics has upset the classical-physics apple-cart.

All science is a work-in-progress, but the basic fact that there has been and continues to be an evolutionary process is well established, plus is just plain old common sense-- all material seems to change over time in some way or another.

I've long found it interesting that some people reject what we actually do know through testing and/or observation but think nothing of accepting deities that have not been confirmed by any objective evidence whatsoever.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

What inconclusive sets of data are you talking about? All the data points to the same explanation.


I'm not interested in getting into classical physics with you.

Evolution is observable, measurable, repeatable and predictable which again, is why it is the prevailing scientific theory used to explain the diversity of life on earth. It is fairly easily falsifiable, and yet it still stands as the most comprehensive explanation. The amount of evidence from multiple independent researchers in multiple different fields of science that supports the theory is quite overwhelming.

All of which could have been, and was, said about classical physics as you well know. Which is only to say that this perception is clearly not in itself a very reliable measure of truth in tackling these big questions is it?


can we observe a single cell morphing into a man, by a series of accidental mutations?

Of course not, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence-

And the two sets of evidence again; whenever the missing evidence in the fossil record is pointed out, the invariable response is that it doesn't matter, because we have genetics.

..and vice versa..

Similarly, the failure to observe solar systems actually self creating under classical physics didn't matter, because we had the smaller scale experiments to 'prove' the principle.
And the inability to re-create the full scale experiment didn't matter because we had the finished product to observe. So we could kinda mesh them together, fill in the gaps, excuse the anomalies as irrelevent exceptions, and produce an answer that was nice and simple as desired, comprehensive, falsifiable, hence convincing

circular reasoning in both cases, and both eagerly, explicitly embraced by many for their would-be implication of making God redundant



In short: two sets of separate and incomplete data do not make a whole. They are just two separate sets of incomplete data

 

[SkepticThinker]

All of which could have been, and was, said about classical physics as you well know. Which is only to say that this perception is clearly not in itself a very reliable measure of truth in tackling these big questions is it?


can we observe a single cell morphing into a man, by a series of accidental mutations?

Of course not, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence-

And the two sets of evidence again; whenever the missing evidence in the fossil record is pointed out, the invariable response is that it doesn't matter, because we have genetics.

..and vice versa..

Similarly, the failure to observe solar systems actually self creating under classical physics didn't matter, because we had the smaller scale experiments to 'prove' the principle.
And the inability to re-create the full scale experiment didn't matter because we had the finished product to observe. So we could kinda mesh them together, fill in the gaps, excuse the anomalies as irrelevent exceptions, and produce an answer that was nice and simple as desired, comprehensive, falsifiable, hence convincing

circular reasoning in both cases, and both eagerly, explicitly embraced by many for their would-be implication of making God redundant



In short: two sets of separate and incomplete data do not make a whole. They are just two separate sets of incomplete data

I ask again, what what inconclusive sets of data are you talking about (in regards to evolution)? Because as I pointed out, all the data collected from all the various different fields of science combined, all point to evolution being a fact of reality.

Are you asserting that the genetic evidence for evolution contradicts the evidence from the fossil record, or vice versa?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I ask again, what what inconclusive sets of data are you talking about (in regards to evolution)? Because as I pointed out, all the data collected from all the various different fields of science combined, all point to evolution being a fact of reality.

I'll tell you again, the fossil record and genetics.

The fossil record does not show significant improvements in design spontaneously appearing by accident

and the genetic record does not show this, OR record evolution, natural history long enough to be relevant to the macro theory of single cell to man evolution.


One does not fill the gaps of the other, tempting as may be.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'll tell you again, the fossil record and genetics.

The fossil record does not show accidental improvements in design

and the genetic record does not record evolution to any degree relevant to the macro theory of single cell to man evolution.

Both sets of evidence point to change of living organisms over time and the diversification of life on earth. Maybe the problem is you're looking for design?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Both sets of evidence point to change of living organisms over time and the diversification of life on earth. Maybe the problem is you're looking for design?

I don't think we should be looking for any conclusion, design or spontaneous mechanism, I say follow where the evidence leads. Obviously evolution is entangled with implications for our personal beliefs, some of which we are loathed to acknowledge we even have.

As I think I mentioned, I confess that I personally approached this subject with my own distinct bias, I was looking for and attempting to reconstruct a functional spontaneous method of design improvements through random mutation and natural selection, to present to skeptics, and ran into some problems with the theory I personally had not appreciated.

I also assume everyone here is capable of critical thought, we all are interested in the truth or I don't think we'd bother being here?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don't think we should be looking for any conclusion, design or spontaneous mechanism, I say follow where the evidence leads. Obviously evolution is entangled with implications for our personal beliefs, some of which we are loathed to acknowledge we even have.

Then it's a little odd that you keep using the word "design" all the time, isn't it?

As I think I mentioned, I confess that I personally approached this subject with my own distinct bias, I was looking for and attempting to reconstruct a functional spontaneous method of design improvements through random mutation and natural selection, to present to skeptics, and ran into some problems with the theory I personally had not appreciated.

Like this?

http://www.framsticks.com/
http://sourceforge.net/projects/biogenesis/
http://www.biologyinmotion.com/evol/index.html
http://evolution.gs.washington.edu/popgen/popg.html

I also assume everyone here is capable of critical thought, we all are interested in the truth or I don't think we'd bother being here?

I think that's the idea.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Then it's a little odd that you keep using the word "design" all the time, isn't it?

design as in form, composition, layout, pattern

I don't meant to infer anything by the word itself, it's just tricky without going out of one's way, to refer to a complex functional design without using words like complex functional and design,
it's sometimes the inherent implications of what is being described rather than the word being used to describe it, that people dislike.

 

[leibowde84]

All of which could have been, and was, said about classical physics as you well know. Which is only to say that this perception is clearly not in itself a very reliable measure of truth in tackling these big questions is it?


can we observe a single cell morphing into a man, by a series of accidental mutations?

Of course not, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence-

And the two sets of evidence again; whenever the missing evidence in the fossil record is pointed out, the invariable response is that it doesn't matter, because we have genetics.

..and vice versa..

Similarly, the failure to observe solar systems actually self creating under classical physics didn't matter, because we had the smaller scale experiments to 'prove' the principle.
And the inability to re-create the full scale experiment didn't matter because we had the finished product to observe. So we could kinda mesh them together, fill in the gaps, excuse the anomalies as irrelevent exceptions, and produce an answer that was nice and simple as desired, comprehensive, falsifiable, hence convincing

circular reasoning in both cases, and both eagerly, explicitly embraced by many for their would-be implication of making God redundant



In short: two sets of separate and incomplete data do not make a whole. They are just two separate sets of incomplete data

I think the following addresses your misconceptions here regarding the lack of observable evidence for macroevolution. Observable evidence would in no way require us to be able to see a single cell evolve into human being. The Theory of Evolution is a Scientific Theory, which has been repeatedly confirmed by the evidence through experimentation, observations, and the ability to make predictions about evidence that will be found in the future. Pointing to something like the cambrian explosion (which actually lasted roughly 25 million years ... so not really a good name for it) does not contradict evolution. It merely points to something that scientists have yet to fully grasp and understand.

3. Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created.
This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad areas: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution looks at changes within species over time--changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related.

These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in Grant's studies of evolving beak shapes among Gal¿pagos finches). Natural selection and other mechanisms--such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridization--can drive profound changes in populations over time.

The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest-known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 100,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominid creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not--and does not--find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (144 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.

Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.

It should be noted that the idea of falsifiability as the defining characteristic of science originated with philosopher Karl Popper in the 1930s. More recent elaborations on his thinking have expanded the narrowest interpretation of his principle precisely because it would eliminate too many branches of clearly scientific endeavor.

 

[Theunis]

Well then, there is tons of verifiable evidence that supports evolution that was not discovered by the "frauds" you mentioned. So, why doubt their conclusions?

I never reject legitimate findings.

That said as far as fanatics and those saying Evolution is the ultimate, the question remains if it is what they claim why must they falsify evidence.
These are the people the question was aimed at.
They pooh pooh the para-normal and claim it is pseudoscience whilst it is beyond physics and science. They label the unexplained as supernatural and ridicule it from a point of total ignorance and fear of the unknown.. They say that the findings are not repeatable but ignore and turn the blind eye to the fact that these are "phenomena" of the mind and the mind is wild, tumultuous and strong and almost impossible to control, it is like trying to tame the wind, not one day is the same as the next.

Evolution - It appears to be based on intellligent choices where adaptation is concerned. Where does this intelligence come from?
Some time back I found three or four links to researches where it was found that plants are not merely intelligent but that they also commuicate.

 

[Theunis]

Which is why people who commit fraud in the scientific community end up being exiled from that community and basically destroying their own career.
Kind of like when a doctor is found guilty of malpractice.

Well let me see. About five or six years ago we had a case of a plastic surgeon why got away with 17 cases against him. The Broedesbond (Freemasons} on the medical board did it for him.

 

[leibowde84]

Evolution - It appears to be based on intellligent choices where adaptation is concerned.

I've never heard this claim, and I certainly don't agree with it. So, can you provide support to back it up?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well let me see. About five or six years ago we had a case of a plastic surgeon why got away with 17 cases against him. The Broedesbond (Freemasons} on the medical board did it for him.

Freemasons?

Oh boy.

Who and what are you talking about?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I never reject legitimate findings.

That said as far as fanatics and those saying Evolution is the ultimate, the question remains if it is what they claim why must they falsify evidence.
These are the people the question was aimed at.

I feel like this has already been addressed.

Many of these frauds you're talking about weren't even perpetuated by scientists, and the few that were perpetuated by scientists were discovered and called out by ... scientists! That's where the scientific method comes in handy.

They pooh pooh the para-normal and claim it is pseudoscience whilst it is beyond physics and science. They label the unexplained as supernatural and ridicule it from a point of total ignorance and fear of the unknown.. They say that the findings are not repeatable but ignore and turn the blind eye to the fact that these are "phenomena" of the mind and the mind is wild, tumultuous and strong and almost impossible to control, it is like trying to tame the wind, not one day is the same as the next.

People "pooh pooh" paranormal claims as pseudoscience because in order to test something scientifically it has to be testable, repeatable and falsifiable.

The human mind (brain) can be (and is) tested using the scientific method.

Evolution - It appears to be based on intellligent choices where adaptation is concerned. Where does this intelligence come from?
Some time back I found three or four links to researches where it was found that plants are not merely intelligent but that they also commuicate.

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

 

[Theunis]

People "pooh pooh" paranormal claims as pseudoscience because in order to test something scientifically it has to be testable, repeatable and falsifiable.

The human mind (brain) can be (and is) tested using the scientific method.

1. The human mind is beyond physics and science.
2. The human mind cannot be tested by science. To detect brain activity is not detecting the mind.

 

[SkepticThinker]

1. The human mind is beyond physics and science.
2. The human mind cannot be tested by science. To detect brain activity is not detecting the mind.

1. I don't think that's true.
2. The mind is tied to the brain in measurable ways. Alter the brain and the mind is also altered. We have no evidence of minds existing without brains.

 

[Theunis]

I've never heard this claim, and I certainly don't agree with it. So, can you provide support to back it up?

Two of my sources date back to the 1960's -
1. Backster, C, "Evidence of a Primary Perception in Plant Life," International Journal of parapsychology 10 : 4, 1968.
He connected plants to a lie detector and found reactions to thoughts of violence to the plants
His work was substantiated by repetition in other laboratories ( See 2)
2. DE LA WARR, G, "Do Plants Feel Emotions?" Electro Technology, April 1969.

I cannot find the other two where sentience is claimed.
However if you do a Google search on "Sentient Plants" there are a number of sites/articles in this regard.

Please note I am not making any claims; I am only passing on information that I found fascinating.

 

[Theunis]

1. I don't think that's true.
2. The mind is tied to the brain in measurable ways. Alter the brain and the mind is also altered. We have no evidence of minds existing without brains.

Okay I already said neurologists can "Map"the brain. They cannot however say what activated the neurological response because they cannot detect the mind.
It is like a motorcar; an external source must turn the ignition key; Place the car in gear and then depress the accelarator pedal to get it going. The car is not capable of doing this.
Of course you could equip the car with an AI (Artificial Intelligent Computer) yet again the car needs this external source.