What convinced you that Evolution is the truth?

[Agent Smith]

Teleonomy? The fishes didn't bite; odd!?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Interesting theory, maketh sense!

That said, some remain unconvinced as to how bacterial flagella evolved from 0. I wouldn't have chosen that particular tune to play, if you catch my drift. There are stuff that science is more uncertain of than microscopic whips.

Yes, abiogenesis is not a fully understood process yet. And we might not ever know for sure the exact path followed from non life to life. And not because "it's impossible!". But rather because it is " too possible ". The idea has been broken apart into different problems. And some of the problems of abiogenesis seem to have more than one possible answwr.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm sorry to hear that my English is not up to the mark. Anyway, your synopsis of eye-evolution is accurate. Richard Dawkins goes out of his way to explain that evolution is not random. There's something called selection pressure which, how should I say this?, vectorizes the process (gives it direction).

In reluctant defense of ID, I'd say there's teleonomy, the concession awarded by hardcore atheists/scientists, which is (apparent) design.

Bringing atheism into the picture muddies the issues of the sciences of evolution. Atheism is a philosophical subjective conclusion that based on the lack of evidence of Gods, particularly the ancient hands on anthropomorphic Gods there is no reason to believe in Gods. It in reality has nothing to do with Methodological Naturalism and science in general. It is true that atheists and many agnostics believe all the questions that our reality and nature existence can be explained by science, because they do not believe anything exists beyond out physical existence. Science cannot reach this conclusion.

Actually Dawkins is correct in that evolution and all of the nature of cause and effect outcomes in nature are not random. The limits and nature of the range of possible outcomes in nature is based on the constraints of Natural Laws and processes and can be explained by fractal math in Chaos Theory. I have posted an extensive thread on this issue of the problem of randomness based on the contemporary Chaos Theory. I may refer to it in a later post.

The questions of Teleonomy and Teleology are in a way mute questions concerning science, because the question of a teleological "purpose" is outside the constraints of Natural Laws and processes and is not necessary to explain the nature of evolution, and is a theological/philosophical question and not science. It is a subjective belief that outcomes in nature have a "special purpose," or

Definition of TELEOLOGY

the study of evidences of design in nature; a doctrine (as in vitalism) that ends are immanent in nature; a doctrine explaining phenomena by final causes… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

a doctrine (as in vitalism) that ends are immanent in nature, a doctrine explaining phenomena by final causes.

Science can explain the complexity of nature of nature based on Natural Laws and processes without the necessity of a "special purpose" to explain natural outcomes. In the view of science outcomes are not "immanent" in nature, but will always occur within the constraints of Natural
Laws and processes.

 

[shunyadragon]

Interesting theory, maketh sense!

That said, some remain unconvinced as to how bacterial flagella evolved from 0. I wouldn't have chosen that particular tune to play, if you catch my drift. There are stuff that science is more uncertain of than microscopic whips.

'Some remain unconvinced? Not a meaningful approach to a discussion and the their flagella did not evolve from zero. The steps of the evolution of the flagella evolved form more simpler forms with an evolutionary function.

Careful using the 'argument from ignorance' in "stuff that science is more uncertain of." it lacks a meaningful "purpose" in the discussion. The sciences of evolution do not have any problems with the uncertainty concerning the complexity of life.

 

[Agent Smith]

'Some remain unconvinced? Not a meaningful approach to a discussion and the their flagella did not evolve from zero. The steps of the evolution of the flagella evolved form more simpler forms with an evolutionary function.

Careful using the 'argument from ignorance' in "stuff that science is more uncertain of." it lacks a meaningful "purpose" in the discussion. The sciences of evolution do not have any problems with the uncertainty concerning the complexity of life.

Good points. Scientists take their job seriously and I shouldn't downplay what could probably be years of hard sweat and toil in cold, deserted labs. I haven't read a bona fide scientific paper in a reputable journal, but I do have some idea as to how one should write one (having briefly skimmed through National Library of Medicine, US of A). It definitely is not someone lounging in armchair, beer in hand, and going "oh! That's a good idea! I think I'll write it down."

 

[shunyadragon]

Teleonomy? The fishes didn't bite; odd!?

Use the right bait and the fish will bite. When fishing for bass I recommend fishing the shadows in the morning, go home and have bass for lunch, and return to fish the shadows in the evening.

The "purpose" of fishing is to catch bass, and the "purpose" of the bass is they are hungry. Unfortunate for the bass you have bass for lunch,

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

But the origin of these (taxonomic) families of organisms, their first parents, each with their cells and its unique DNA & molecular michinery within those cells, came from a Mind. We never find integrated complex systems, originating ex nihilo, that build function & maintain balance. Certainly not from thoughtless processes. That isn’t logical. I’ve been accused at times of making “arguments from incredulity.” Well, life’s diversity & the arrangement of finely tuned forces supporting it, is incredible.

Came from a mind? You're guessing. Maybe it did, or maybe it didn't.

And are you describing creation of the kinds when you refer to first parents in various taxa? If so, we know that that never happened. There were no first parents for anything that reproduces sexually including man. That may seem counterintuitive given that once there were no human beings and now there are, but no human being that ever lived didn't have human parents.

And yes, you are making incredulity arguments when your case is merely that you can't imagine how the tree of life came to be naturalistically.

Regarding the fine tuning argument, if a deity is must conform to certain parameters to create a stable universe containing life and mind, then it is subject to higher laws that constrain it, not omnipotent. Where did these laws come from? If the universe can only be one way to appear as it does, then the deity merely discovered those laws, and built a universe according to them.

 

[Bthoth]

Gracias for the warning. How exactly though?

Regarding irreducible complexity, Richard Dawkins, foremost among evolutionary biologists to champion the atheist movement,

Do you think that evolution is an atheist movement?

states that evolution is like a drunkard's walk (random) with a wall on one side (this wall being what I call the simplicity barrier).

OK, you have an opinion.

What to be certain, is evolution is not just a bunch of accidents by drunks. The living processes, intend to survive and why they 'evolve with change' over time. The lives intent to survive and will adapt to do so.

Even though the drunkard totters in both directions, he eventually ends up being far away from the wall i.e. life becomes more complex, instead of less. Isn't this a defense of irreducible complexity?

No idea what spin cycle that you are using. i dont follow gibberish.

 

[Agent Smith]

Do you think that evolution is an atheist movement?

OK, you have an opinion.

What to be certain, is evolution is not just a bunch of accidents by drunks. The living processes, intend to survive and why they 'evolve with change' over time. The lives intent to survive and will adapt to do so.

No idea what spin cycle that you are using. i dont follow gibberish.

Evolution is part of the atheist manifesto (an alternative to God did it) and theists are well-aware of this fact and hence creation "science" an alternative to the alternative. Also, explain why an evolutionary biologist, viz. Richard Dawkins, is at the head of so-called militant atheism (I strongly condemn this label, because it distracts from what atheism really is, an above-all rational, hence good enterprise).

What gibberish? Would you say an atom or a molecule is alive? Clearly reduction (reducible complexity) has a limit i.e. irreducible complexity is true, but for better/worse, not at the level theists would have liked (the bacterial flagella and the human eye are simplifiable).

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evolution is part of the atheist manifesto (an alternative to God did it) and theists are well-aware of this fact and hence creation "science" an alternative to the alternative. Also, explain why an evolutionary biologist, viz. Richard Dawkins, is at the head of so-called militant atheism (I strongly condemn this label, because it distracts from what atheism really is, an above-all rational, hence good enterprise).

There is no atheist manifesto, and even in the US more theists accept evolution than atheists do.

What gibberish? Would you say an atom or a molecule is alive? Clearly reduction (reducible complexity) has a limit i.e. irreducible complexity is true, but for better/worse, not at the level theists would have liked (the bacterial flagella and the human eye are simplifiable).

Where can we see irreducible complicity?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Evolution is part of the atheist manifesto (an alternative to God did it) and theists are well-aware of this fact and hence creation "science" an alternative to the alternative. Also, explain why an evolutionary biologist, viz. Richard Dawkins, is at the head of so-called militant atheism (I strongly condemn this label, because it distracts from what atheism really is, an above-all rational, hence good enterprise).

No. It isn't. It is science. Christians can understand the evidence and accept the theory. Many do. I do.

What gibberish? Would you say an atom or a molecule is alive? Clearly reduction (reducible complexity) has a limit i.e. irreducible complexity is true, but for better/worse, not at the level theists would have liked (the bacterial flagella and the human eye are simplifiable).

Irreducible complexity isn't logically possible to determine or demonstrate.

 

[Agent Smith]

There is no atheist manifesto, and even in the US more theists accept evolution than atheists do.

Where can we see irreducible complicity?

That's an intriguing statement. Where can we see irreducible complexity? We already have the virus controversy( are they life/nonlife). So lemme err on the side of caution that biology considers molecules to be living, but atoms, are they alive?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. It isn't. It is science. Christians can understand the evidence and accept the theory. Many do. I do.

Irreducible complexity isn't logically possible to determine or demonstrate.

I do not like it when theism is conflated with atheism. To me that is a false smear against all theists

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's an intriguing statement. Where can we see irreducible complexity? We already have the virus controversy( are they life/nonlife). So lemme err on the side of caution that biology considers molecules to be living, but atoms, are they alive?

But that doesn't make them irreducibly complex. We do not know how they evolved. That does not mean that they didn't do so.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I do not like it when theism is conflated with atheism. To me that is a false smear against all theists

I'm getting used to theism being smeared and often by other theists too. But not solely.

 

[TLK Valentine]

That's an intriguing statement. Where can we see irreducible complexity? We already have the virus controversy( are they life/nonlife). So lemme err on the side of caution that biology considers molecules to be living, but atoms, are they alive?

Biologists consider molecules to be living? That ain't "caution" you're erring on.

 

[Agent Smith]

Biologists consider molecules to be living? That ain't "caution" you're erring on.

Too quick to the draw! Mea culpa! I meant they're not certain as to what life is.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Too quick to the draw! Mea culpa! I meant they're not certain as to what life is.

It's as much a philosophical conundrum as it is a scientific one: What does it mean to be "alive"?

We can make a list of characteristics, but that's not the same as a definition.

 

[Bthoth]

Evolution is part of the atheist manifesto (an alternative to God did it) and theists are well-aware of this fact and hence creation "science" an alternative to the alternative.

That's a false line of rhetoric by outlandish opinion, but not by any god, nor any religious doctrine.

The terms and concepts did not even exist during the periods of the written theologies.

Also, explain why an evolutionary biologist, viz. Richard Dawkins, is at the head of so-called militant atheism (I strongly condemn this label, because it distracts from what atheism really is, an above-all rational, hence good enterprise).

What's the name of that 'militant atheism' that you are accusing RD of partaking. Unless you have direct witness or evidence, please DO NOT falsely accuse a human being, for your lust and hatred.

What gibberish? Would you say an atom or a molecule is alive?

Oscillating yes. The light upon that mass is the life of mass itself.

When you find the light, the perfect cross of nature, you will know more about the living process of god, nature and what IS REAL.

Get with the spirit and skip the hate and attempt to fight based on accusations.

Clearly reduction (reducible complexity) has a limit i.e. irreducible complexity is true, but for better/worse, not at the level theists would have liked (the bacterial flagella and the human eye are simplifiable).

Even the combining of scientific disciplines can look like cross ups of incorrect descriptions, that does not mean give up. Try picking a topic at a specific level and do the dig. Be a jack of a specific description of living systems (life).



You can do it!

Between you and I, it was watching an embryo, from the sperm/egg thru to the birth of a human life, that turned the light on for me on 'evolution'.

And now a days, the images and productions are so good, that it's about like loving our whole development from atoms and energy (Light) to now, conscious of ourselves and articulating our own queries to understand.

 

[YoursTrue]

That's a false line of rhetoric by outlandish opinion, but not by any god, nor any religious doctrine.

The terms and concepts did not even exist during the periods of the written theologies.

What's the name of that 'militant atheism' that you are accusing RD of partaking. Unless you have direct witness or evidence, please DO NOT falsely accuse a human being, for your lust and hatred.

Oscillating yes. The light upon that mass is the life of mass itself.

When you find the light, the perfect cross of nature, you will know more about the living process of god, nature and what IS REAL.

Get with the spirit and skip the hate and attempt to fight based on accusations.

Even the combining of scientific disciplines can look like cross ups of incorrect descriptions, that does not mean give up. Try picking a topic at a specific level and do the dig. Be a jack of a specific description of living systems (life).



You can do it!

Between you and I, it was watching an embryo, from the sperm/egg thru to the birth of a human life, that turned the light on for me on 'evolution'.

And now a days, the images and productions are so good, that it's about like loving our whole development from atoms and energy (Light) to now, conscious of ourselves and articulating our own queries to understand.

Our perceptions are obviously different. To see an embryo from the meeting of sperm/egg through the completion of a human life in the form of a baby who cannot take care of itself only shows me that this cannot come about by natural circumstances starting a long, long time ago, but that the properties of growth from conception must come from someone beyond any "scientific" description. Now yes, the cells and particulars can be described in scientific terms, such as DNA and RNA, but this does not mean they came about by evolution. Growth does not equate to evolution either. Another form, perhaps, is a seed planted in the ground. A large tree might come from that seed. It really goes against the theory of evolution.