Evolution

BTW what about the bible and astronomy?


The Bible mentions God creating the Earth, moon and stars. But what about the other planets and moons located throughout the Solar system? Why did God create them? If just for signs, why did he give some of them water and ice, which could be useful for life? Why did he create moons, like Io, which are incredibly violent? Or are they a giant demonic illusion?

 

To the Intelligent Design Enthusiasts out there :

After being at this sight for a few weeks; doing a lot of jumping around the web - and trying to be somewhat fair and objective, I am becoming more and more convinced that "evolution," as presented typically in a news story below is not worthy of the deferrence given it in the public domain.


No Need to Guzzle All That Water, Expert Says
Fri Aug 9, 7:40 PM ET

"I did 43 years of research on that system -- the osmoregulatory system. That system is so precise and so fast that I find it impossible to believe that evolution left us with a chronic water deficit," Valtin said.

For years I have felt like I was being "brainwashed" every time I have heard that "evolution" is my creator. I am trying to probe deeply for evidence which can justify such a claim - and I am not finding it.

The best single discussion I have found (so far) of the impotence of "natural selection" as a substitute for a powerful and extremely "Intelligent Designer" can be found here:

trueorigin.org/Dawkinfo.asp

Giving due respect to all of the evidence for "Evolution" as commonly used and understood in the article above, without a proven mechanism (natural selection fails as as a proven mechanism to explain either our descent from less complicated life forms, or sophisticated biological systems within ourselves) - the Theory of Evolution "fails" as a "creator" - and those promoting at as such are, to say the least, underinformed.

 

EDIT: Arrgh, your post changed 2 times by the time I typed this!

There are quite a few answers to the questions you ask, Chris. Unfortunately, most Christians don't know them. It's forgiveable, really, because to answer these questions requires a huge amount or reasearch.

You can find a huge, very detailed refutation of the copycat myths at my favorite site, christian-thinktank.com

Specifically, http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycat.html

 

osmoregulatory now theres a five dollar word.

Chris, I'm with phantom, it's hard to know if you want answers when you throw out five questions and three red herrings per post on average.

as to the chaos, maybe God wanted us to see chaos, and wonder at the order here...

how could this place be so supportive of life by accident when all around is completely void of life?

 

phantomwaver:

After being at this sight for a few weeks; doing a lot of jumping around the web - and trying to be somewhat fair and objective, I am becoming more and more convinced that "evolution," as presented typically in a news story below is not worthy of the deferrence given it in the public domain.

(...)

Giving due respect to all of the evidence for "Evolution" as commonly used and understood in the article above, without a proven mechanism (natural selection fails as as a proven mechanism to explain either our descent from less complicated life forms, or sophisticated biological systems within ourselves) - the Theory of Evolution "fails" as a "creator" - and those promoting at as such are, to say the least, underinformed.

Let's see: after a few weeks, you come to the conclusion that those promoting the theory of evolution, thus including for example 95% of american scientists, are "to say the least,underinformed"? Don't you think this might be, to say the least, a little presumptious?

You looked at some pieces of evidence (and not directly: browsing the web is very different from conducting your own research) and concluded that this evidence pointed to creation rather than evolution. Fine. Many on the net have done the same, and come to either the same or different conclusions. So far I actually recommend you for having looked at the evidence for both (creation and evolution).
But now you are saying that everyone disagreeing with you is underinformed?
Let's be serious here: a few weeks are not enough to study (or even understand) all of the evidence for "Evolution", especially for someone who has little to no training in any of the scientific fields involved.

 

A while back Chris you threw out a remark which can only be classified as non-educated.

While it is certainly true that there have been backwards thinkers within the church (as well as outside of it); that ignorance is breed largley by their own fear and misunderstanding or total lack thereof of what scripture actually states.

Evolutionists have long been on the bandwagon of throwing out that "flat-earther" slur.

Remember a while back, I asked if anyone knows who said "never the less, it is true" after he recanted before the dhurch???

No one has yet been able to tell be who said that or what it referenced.

But this much is true, it is no more true that most believers believed that.. than it is true that most christian men are pedophiles; though we certainly know some are. It is no more true than to say because some misled "christians" (if that is what they really were is still in question) tortured others who did not agree with them on every point, that therefore this is what the scripture says to do, or what most believe is right.

All you do when you throw out statements like that is prove your lack of understanding.

for your benefit therefore:

I found this:

Evolutionists often falsely accuse creationists of believing in a flat Earth. But neither history nor modern scholarship supports the claim that Christians ever widely believed that the Earth was flat. And the Bible doesn't teach it.
Christianity has often been accused of opposing science and hindering technology throughout history by superstitious ignorance. However, a closer study of historical facts shows that this accusation is ill-founded.

For instance, Christianity has been held responsible for promoting the flat Earth theory. In his book The Discovers, author Daniel Boorstin stated:


"A Europe-wide phenomenon of scholarly amnesia . . . afflicted the continent from AD 300 to at least 1300. During those centuries Christian faith and dogma suppressed the useful image of the world that had been so slowly, so painfully, and so scrupulously drawn by ancient geographers."
Yet, it was only a handful of so-called intellectual scholars throughout the centuries, claiming to represent the Church, who held to a flat Earth. Most of these were ignored by the Church, yet somehow their writings made it into early history books as being the 'official Christian viewpoint'.
Lactantius

The earliest of these flat-Earth promoters was the African Lactantius (AD 245?325), a professional rhetorician who converted to Christianity mid-life.

He rejected all the Greek philosophers, and in doing so also rejected a spherical Earth. His views were considered heresy by the Church Fathers and his work was ignored until the Renaissance (at which time some humanists revived his writings as a model of good Latin, and of course, his flat Earth view also was revived).

Cosmas Indicopleustes and Church Fathers

Next was sixth century Eastern Greek Christian, Cosmas Indicopleustes, who claimed the Earth was flat and lay beneath the heavens (consisting of a rectangular vaulted arch). His work also was soundly rejected by the Church Fathers, but liberal historians have usually claimed his view as typical of that of the Church Fathers.

US Library of Congress head, Daniel Boorstin (quoted above), like historians before him, simply followed the pattern of others without checking the facts. In fact, most of the Church Fathers did not address the issue of the shape of the Earth, and those who did regarded it as "round" or spherical.


Washington Irving and Rip Van Winkle
In 1828, American writer Washington Irving (author of Rip Van Winkle) published a book entitled The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus. It was a mixture of fact and fiction, with Irving himself admitting he was "apt to indulge in the imagination."

Its theme was the victory of a lone believer in a spherical Earth over a united front of Bible-quoting, superstitious ignoramuses, convinced the Earth was flat. In fact, the well-known argument and the Council of Salamanca was about

 

The Bible mentions God creating the Earth, moon and stars. But what about the other planets and moons located throughout the Solar system? Why did God create them? If just for signs, why did he give some of them water and ice, which could be useful for life? Why did he create moons, like Io, which are incredibly violent? Or are they a giant demonic illusion?

*rolls eyes* Do the words: 'heavenly bodies' have any meaning to you? I was looking at a lot of pics of nebulas, galaxies, and such-thinking how beautiful they were-I dunno, God probably has a reason of his own for them, no one knows everything that he's going to do...sheesh, why'd he make the platypus???-but dontcha think that if he's the actual loving and kind God that we keep talking about, do you think he would have made alot of beautiful things for us to see? ? (BTW, if you hadn't caught on, I said the whole thing about no one knowing everything he does for the 'why did he give some of them water and ice?' jazz. )


hope that helps, yada yada
Didn't read all of it, but what I did read helped me.

 

Oliver Wrote:

But now you are saying that everyone disagreeing with you is underinformed?
Let's be serious here: a few weeks are not enough to study (or even understand) all of the evidence for "Evolution", especially for someone who has little to no training in any of the scientific fields involved.

Excellent Points: To better explain myself -

I am in the process of developing my own theory that "Evolution,", i.e., "common descent with modification," has not been "proven" at the same scientific level as other postulates, such as the "theory of gravity." And, thus, should not be taught in public schools as a "scientific fact" without some important qualifications.

So far, my theory is not fully developed - and may never be. At this point - from being at this thread - I have changed my personal viewpoint considerably. I now consider "common descent with modification" to be a very elegant theory with many hypotheses demonstrated to be "facts.'

I am not attempting to put forward, (at this time), any competing scientific theory based on "creationism," or "intelligent design." I have thus far accepted the well-reasoned arguments which I have heard against such a theory.


My previous post was an emotional response to having "evolution" put forward as a "fact" in the public domain. In my very limited investigations, I see evidentiary problems with a hypothesis that "natural selection," and similar "natural processes" - are sufficient mechanisms to explain all of "common descent with modification."

I am qualified by education and experience to analyze arguments. I have learned here that "common descent" can, in principle, be separated from "natural selection," and, thus, "stand on it's own" as a proven fact.

I have yet to be fully convinced of this, but, let us say here that "common descent" is a fact for purposes of this discussion.
Natural Selection is a fact in in a qualified sense. However, Natural Selection as a sufficient mechanism to explain "common descent" - in all of its ramifications, is not a "fact," from what I have seen so far.

"Evolution" is presented to the public as a scientific fact. In the public mind, in my opinion, this includes both "Common Descent" and "natural selection," et. al., as a sufficient independent mechanism.

If the "public" were taught that "common descent" has been proven as a "scientific fact," but "natural selection," et. al., as a sufficient mechanism to explain all of common descent, has not been established as scientific fact, I would then maybe be satisfied.

In that case, the "public," or students, or those watching "nature" programs on television, might at least be able to infer, to themselves, that perhaps Intelligent Design is at least part of the "common descent" equation. And, that "science" has not eliminated that as a reasonable inferrence.

This approach would not require Intelligent Design, or "creationism," to be put forward as any kind of science. It only needs to be given "rational space" in the public discussion.

I have heard of a San Francisco State biology teacher who attempted this, and was relieved of this teaching post. (He subsequently was reinstated after protesting to State officials.)

My problem is not with the Theory of Evolution as a theory, it is with how it is used as unqualified evidence in the public domain. By its nature, it competes, factually, with the deepest belief systems of most individuals. As such, there should be more disclosure if the evidence is weak in a critical part of the theory.

Thanks for taking the effort to read and respond to my post.

PW

 

adelaide,yup

"He stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain," how awesome is that!!

PW,

common desent is Biblical as well as now, finally, science admits (see site below), we all came from Eve, and Adam as well, the only thing in question is did we original come from the frog pond.

what fascinates me is how anyone can look at the DNA evidence, which has over 300,000 encoded factors all of which interrelate to achieve a particular tissue type which is human, and quite specialized from its so called near neighbors (apes).

codes of 300,000 unique digital type encodings and interrelating features don't exist in our most complex software programs, but do in each invisible strand of DNA, they are more complex than our most advanced microchip, while being thousands of times smaller..

not only do they take the code and produce result, but they self replicate using the encoding to achieve exact results, and reproducing not only similar, but varied attributes to repare and/or replace any area of the system (our body) which needs maintainance....all by chance?

http://www.ldolphin.org/genome.html

an excellent jumping off point

 

Hi everyone, sorry I've been gone for a while. I've just had a chance to catch myself up with the dialog here. It may be time to take this in another direction, but let me see if I can summarize my thoughts on this matter to date.

PW has very elegantly concluded that natural selection lacks overwhelming evidence as a mechanism that could bring about the state of affairs as we see it today. The only real critique that I would have of that position is to beware of getting into a semantic trap with regard to observable and unobservable phenomena. Opponents of evolutionary theory have split evolution into micro and macro - they admit that micro is possible and indeed happens, and postulate that macro is not. Of course micro is defined as anything that is in fact observable, which is really just a labeling game. When something is observed, it gets the micro label. Obviously we will never have observable evidence for something that can't ever be observed. The fact is however, that the rate of observed instances of microevolution, measured as the rate of change of some physical characteristic in a population exposed to environmental stimulus, is perfectly adequate to explain the rate of change as hypothesized through the fossil record. Observed instances of evolution are perfectly valid examples of what proponents of evolutionary theory suggest happened over millions of years. Since natural selection is an acceptable mechanism for small instances of evolution, it is perfectly logical to consider it acceptable for longer term ones.

That being said, I concede that natural selection over millions of years will never be observed, and even from an a priori analysis appears to be inadequate. Yada keeps bringing up the fact that it's ridiculous to imagine that the whole thing could happen by chance - first of all no one's saying that it did, but his point is otherwise well taken - there appears to be something else at work here beyond random mutation and reproductive advantage. Historically, complexity in life forms is clearly on the rise, but there doesn't seem to be any clear advantage for complexity over simplicity, so why would nature favor it so clearly? I still postulate that natural selection is working with some other, as yet unarticulated natural phenomenon, one that, by the way, would not be limited to the biosphere. Complexity theory is on the rise - this is my pet project for the moment, and I believe the answer is out there. A natural disposition toward complexity in combination with natural selection would be perfectly sufficient to explain the current state of affairs.

So to the opponents of evolution, I ask this, particularly to PW: Do you agree that natural selection is at least scientifically consistent, meaning is it at least a possible explanation for the way we got here, and that in combination with a complexity tendency, would be an adequate hypothesis? And second, what if my complexity theory explanation turns out to be true - what if you could be convinced of it? The reason I ask is that whether I'm right or wrong, my concept of God would appear to be secure, I wouldn't have to change much. You don't discount the possibility of your being incorrect about this, which I think is further than some would be willing to go - what would happen to God if evolution turned out to be true?

Also, and this may be the next direction for this thread to take. Regardless of how flawed a theory evolution is, intelligent design is much much more flawed, from what I've seen. A chink in the armor of evolution doesn't really help all the problems ID has - let me ask, to be given a proper place in public discourse, should ID have to stand on its own, independent of Biblical sources? And if so, should we start talking specifically about the implications of ID theory and what it would do to both our understanding of nature and of God?

 

FrankSlade,

You wrote;

"...intelligent design is much much more flawed, from what I've seen. A chink in the armor of evolution doesn't really help all the problems ID has - let me ask, to be given a proper place in public discourse, should ID have to stand on its own, independent of Biblical sources? "

You appear to have Creationism and Intelligent Design confused with one another.
("appear" being the operative term.)


For clarifications sake, let me ask you to specifically point out the flaws you find in ID?

 

Hello

Since I'm in a silly mood I'll type this:

If the birth of life started by chance and the only alternative is that a God created it, there shouldn't actually be any disagreemend between them. I can, and you can, scientifically prove that chance exists. Flip a coin or some dice. There, the proof that chance exists. Does anyone know how to prove that God exists?

But seriously, how do creationists explain the C-vitamin defects in humans and chimpanzees? No other mammal has the same kind of defect in their DNA. Did the Creator make us and the chimps in such a way only to make it _appear_ that evolution has happened?

 

Yada:
For a glimpse at the foolishness of assuming we know all, check this page

http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles&specific=34

You see, there is much info out there to refute the entire concept of slow fossilization. There are even trees buried in the mud layer around our new volcano (Mt. St. Helens) that disproves the entire concept of how quickly layers can form and debris can be imbedded. (Evolutionists would say it took millions of years, but we all know it took only days or weeks, because we all were here and witnessed it!!!!)

It is apparent that there is a wealth of information that does call seriously into question our assumptions concerning time lines,

I do not normally engage in ad homonym, but "Dr." Kent Hovind is an unreliable source, to say the least. Even ignoring his questionable integrity (see e.g. http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/lies, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind.html, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html, and http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/lies/bankrupt.html), his claims have been ably refuted (e.g. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood.html). The erronious claims based on Mt. St. Helens in particular are dealt with here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mtsthelens.html.

Peez

 

I.D. doesn't have any practical use, does it? All it says is that: life is complex, therefore it was created/designed. Am I wrong when I say that I.D. can be proven to be right only when we witness a creation of life in a test tube? [I'm using the same "scientific critisism" that creationists are using]

 

Hi phantomwaver,

The scenarios that you have presented seem to be examples of "scientific" investigation, but I would not generally accept a hypothesis as a fact based on just one piece of evidence, especially if contradictory evidence is also available.

Peez

 

DB, you may be right, my terms may be confused, but I do mean to talk specifically about ID, since PW mentioned that as a scientific alternative to evolutionary theory.

The major problems I see in it are as follows (and please do respond or correct):

1) ID hinges on the assumption that certain natural phenomena are not only unexplained by any natural mechansism, but also that they are a priori unexplainable. This puts it on extremely shaky ground scientifically, since all one has to do is find a mechanism and it loses all its scientific value. With evolutionary theory, even it it is attacked (or disproved) through scientific methods it still retains its value in the cases where related evidence has been observed. History shows that just about everything someone says can't be explained, one day is. Nature's an amazing thing, I don't see any reason the genius of it would stop short anywhere, even if we don't get it all yet.

2) Gotta take a break, this will come later...

 

phantomwaver:
To the Intelligent Design Enthusiasts out there :

After being at this sight for a few weeks; doing a lot of jumping around the web - and trying to be somewhat fair and objective, I am becoming more and more convinced that "evolution," as presented typically in a news story below is not worthy of the deferrence given it in the public domain.

No Need to Guzzle All That Water, Expert Says
Fri Aug 9, 7:40 PM ET

"I did 43 years of research on that system -- the osmoregulatory system. That system is so precise and so fast that I find it impossible to believe that evolution left us with a chronic water deficit," Valtin said.

This text is out of context, and it is hard to tell just what point you are trying to make. The person quoted, Dr. mmmmm, was certainly not questioning evolution at all. In fact, he was afirming it in basing his medical assessment on it. The context is

Newspaper articles, health and beauty magazines all advise drinking at least 8 full glasses of water a day totaling 64 ounces for optimal health -- an approach called "8x8" by proponents.

But Dr. Heinz Valtin of Dartmouth Medical School in New Hampshire said there is no scientific evidence to back up this advice, which has helped create a huge market for bottled water.

"After 10 months of careful searching I have found no scientific evidence that supports '8x8'," Valtin, who has written textbooks on the subject of human water balance, said in a telephone interview....

"I did 43 years of research on that system -- the osmoregulatory system. That system is so precise and so fast that I find it impossible to believe that evolution left us with a chronic water deficit," Valtin said.

(from http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/news/3833825.htm)

For years I have felt like I was being "brainwashed" every time I have heard that "evolution" is my creator. I am trying to probe deeply for evidence which can justify such a claim - and I am not finding it.

Where have you been looking, and what evidence would you expect to find?

The best single discussion I have found (so far) of the impotence of "natural selection" as a substitute for a powerful and extremely "Intelligent Designer" can be found here:

trueorigin.org/Dawkinfo.asp

For some reason I cannot connect to that site (I will try again later), but perhaps you can post a specific reason why you might think that.

Giving due respect to all of the evidence for "Evolution" as commonly used and understood in the article above, without a proven mechanism (natural selection fails as as a proven mechanism to explain either our descent from less complicated life forms, or sophisticated biological systems within ourselves) - the Theory of Evolution "fails" as a "creator" - and those promoting at as such are, to say the least, underinformed.

With all due respect, given how often I have had to explain evolution in this and other forums, I am not the one who is "underinformed". Also, as I have explained, the fact of common descent stands on its own, without the need for any specific mechanism. Even so, there is no reason to think that the theory of evolution is insufficient to accout for common descent. If you disagree, please present specific objections.

Peez

 

Frank Slade Wrote:

(BTW - MY APOLOGIES TO "OLIVIER" - I DON'T REMEMBER HIM PLAYING ANY "OLIVER" ROLES, BUT, I MAY BE WRONG)


The fact is however, that the rate of observed instances of microevolution, measured as the rate of change of some physical characteristic in a population exposed to environmental stimulus, is perfectly adequate to explain the rate of change as hypothesized through the fossil record

Hi. Great to have you back. I don't have as much trouble with "rates" as I do with "complexity." You are - it seems, trying to develop a theory which will relate the two. I look forward to your explanations. In my mind, "sufficient rate of change" does not automatically equal "observed complexity." Please correct me if I am mistaken.


I still postulate that natural selection is working with some other, as yet unarticulated natural phenomenon, one that, by the way, would not be limited to the biosphere. Complexity theory is on the rise - this is my pet project for the moment, and I believe the answer is out there. A natural disposition toward complexity in combination with natural selection would be perfectly sufficient to explain the current state of affairs.

Please explain "extra biosphere" possiblilities. I assume it still would
not include specific I D intervention.

So to the opponents of evolution, I ask this, particularly to PW: Do you agree that natural selection is at least scientifically consistent, meaning is it at least a possible explanation for the way we got here, and that in combination with a complexity tendency, would be an adequate hypothesis?

This may be intellectually adequate.

what would happen to God if evolution turned out to be true?

Many scientists with whose writings I am familiar who share my anthropomorphic interpretation of the Scriptures believe in evolution - much like you do. It would not ruin my understanding of God. However, I do draw a very strong line at human descendancy from apes. I just won't believe that one until I hear it from God. But - my God survives still.

I would be personally disappointed that the Scriptures are not more accurate.

should ID have to stand on its own, independent of Biblical sources? And if so, should we start talking specifically about the implications of ID theory and what it would do to both our understanding of nature and of God?

I don't know that I D can be a scientific theory. I just think that some day, when I know exactly how things were done, I will then be able to understand and describe it.
I D should stand apart from the Bible.

You seem to believe that God designed "nature" to create everything using natural selection, and give Him/It credit for amazing planning and organization. I see that role, but - observing "personal" intervention in my "non-biological" life, I don't see why intervention is not a consistent trait. (Of course, this is just a philosophical viewpoint).


I look at I D sort of like this: we see I D in everything man has created on the planet. We see inexplicable things in "nature." Why isn't I D occurring there?

Finally - my wife has pointed out - why don't we see any living transitional forms????

 

phantomwaver:
I am in the process of developing my own theory that "Evolution,", i.e., "common descent with modification," has not been "proven" at the same scientific level as other postulates, such as the "theory of gravity." And, thus, should not be taught in public schools as a "scientific fact" without some important qualifications.

First, even if common descent "has not been "proven" at the same scientific level as other postulates, such as the "theory of gravity."", this would not disqualify it from being a fact. To clarify, given that nothing in science is every proven absolutely, all "facts" are merely established by evidence. It is unlikely that any two hypotheses will have exactly the same degree of evidence in their favour, so one could (in principle) order "facts" from those with more evidence to those with less evidence. Of course, this would mean that we might argue that only one "fact" exists, and all others have less evidence and so should not be taught as "facts". Even if we could come up with a way of ordering "facts" in that way, the whole approach is illogical.

Meanwhile, you give the impression that you have already made up your mind as to the conclusion that you will reach, and that "developing (your) own theory" is not based on scientific evidence at all.

My previous post was an emotional response to having "evolution" put forward as a "fact" in the public domain.

It (in the sense of common descent) is a scientific fact.

In my very limited investigations, I see evidentiary problems with a hypothesis that "natural selection," and similar "natural processes" - are sufficient mechanisms to explain all of "common descent with modification."

What "evidentiary problems" with natural selection do you see, and how would that affect common descent as a fact? Keep in mind that you probably accept gravity as a fact, even though you almost certainly do not know the mechanism.

Natural Selection is a fact in in [sic] a qualified sense. However, Natural Selection as a sufficient mechanism to explain "common descent" - in all of its ramifications, is not a "fact," from what I have seen so far.

Do be more precise, natural selection as an explanation for every single example of evolution is not a fact, but natural selection certainly is sufficient (with the rest of the theory of evolution) to explain all observed evolution.

"Evolution" is presented to the public as a scientific fact. In the public mind, in my opinion, this includes both "Common Descent" and "natural selection," et. al., as a sufficient independent mechanism.

The theory of evolution is a sufficient mechanism, even though the details remain to be worked out.

If the "public" were taught that "common descent" has been proven as a "scientific fact," but "natural selection," et. al., as a sufficient mechanism to explain all of common descent, has not been established as scientific fact, I would then maybe be satisfied.

Most creationists object (very strongly) to common descent being taught as a scientific fact, and this is the biggest issue that comes up. In general, it seems to be creationists who mix together common descent and the theory of evolution (indeed, they generally have not thought about it or learned about it enough to realize that they are different). That the theory of evolution, including natural selection, is sufficient to explain common descent is not in question. What is not held to be "fact" is that the theory of evolution, as it now stands, is the actual explanation for certain particular evolutionary lineages.

This approach would not require Intelligent Design, or "creationism," to be put forward as any kind of science. It only needs to be given "rational space" in the public discussion.

I have heard of a San Francisco State biology teacher who attempted this, and was relieved of this teaching post. (He subsequently was

 

Peez Wrote:

This text is out of context, and it is hard to tell just what point you are trying to make. The person quoted, Dr. mmmmm, was certainly not questioning evolution at all. In fact, he was afirming it

That is the point. He was affirming it

 

phantomwaver:
I am working on a constructing a theory which focuses on testing, scientifically, the unproven hypotheses in the Theory of Evolution. I think it can be done.

I remind you that nothing in science is ever proven, but did you think that hypotheses from the theory of evolution are not beeing tested? Hundreds of papers describing such tests are published every year. Check out http://lsvl.la.asu.edu/evolution/ and http://www.evolutionary-ecology.com/ for just a few examples.

Peez

 

Frank Slade,

I think ID is basically saying that the idea of an intelligent designer is of importance if in truth nature shows too much complexity, and especially "irreducible complexity," to be ignored.

To continue regarding common descent by modification as the only rationally "scientific" explanation begins to tear at, and subtley undermine, the premise, credibility, and purpose of "science" if circumstantial evidence seems to confute a priori assumptions. To hold assumptions for the sake of those assumptions slowly, or quickly, evolves into mere prejudice, purposeful closed-mindedness, and philosophically based intellectual dishonesty.

We have to make the distinction between actual hard science and pseudo-scientific fiction.

If certain extrapolative conjectures cannot be scientifically verifed, then they can hardly be called science. Life emerging from some mysterious primordial bacteria fits this bill precisely. Therefore, it's practicality is on a par with that of ID.
So, what is the practicality of ID? What is the practicality of common descent by modification? Same-same.

What is really at stake is something inherently philosophical, and there is little avoiding that in it's more serious implications.


Hypothetically speaking, if the observations that have lead proponents to adhere to notions of intelligent design are correct, then it cannot be legitimately disgarded simply because a previously accepted paradigm sits in place.




The term "common descent by modification" implicitly refers to the 'origin of the species,' or the genesis of life. There are those who'd like to halt that mid-stream and conduct inquiry from a half-way point, but that is only an investigation of mechanism, which is fine, except from that investigation of mechanism we have extrapoloations upon origin, no matter how tacit. This is obviously self-sevingly circular argumentation. Yet, then, a semantical game begins in which a proponent of CDM(common descent by modification) proclaims that origin is irrelevent to biology. This, is to me, a form of intellectual dishonesty and card-stacking, and a bit of the bait and switch.


If one is to say that ID is not relevent, then one must, if interested in being intellectually honest and consistent, agree that that common descent by modification becomes also irrelevent.

Our common origins are, ironically perhaps, every bit as unassailable, unobservable and unproveable as a transcendent Creator. I suppose. What does one accept as "evidence"?


This should be aggreable.
In our conversation here in this thread that has occasionally been hard to do, although it shouldn't be.


Both are arrived at deductively, and neither are observed in actual propagative incipience. One has no more substantive validity or scientific factuality than the other on a certain level.

Keep in mind that ID doesn't attempt to negate evolution on any level, not micro or macro, or what is clinically observable, only to comment on a particular interpretation of observed "evidences."

Creationism, from a a different parallax comments on the "evidence" from yet another perspective.

To sum up overly succinctly:

1.)Naturalistic neo-Darwinism suggests a universe of chance, without a designer, based on spontaneous generation (in violation of the Law of Biogenesis).

2.)Intelligent Design basically agree's with everything under the theory of Naturalistic Darwinism, except for purely irrational naturalistic causation, and instead suggesting that there was an Intelligence that kick-started everything.

3.)Creationism agrees with observable evidence for micro-evolution, but disputes macroevolutionary idea's of purely naturalistic common descent by modification, instead promoting a suggestion of a common descent from a Creator with limitation upon extents of modification.

 

If IDeism insists that life was kick-started by some designer/being then all it[IDeism] has to do is to _prove_ that this has happened. I'm sure that is not a harsh demand considering what some people are demanding for evolution to be "true".

 

Peez Wrote:

Where have you been looking, and what evidence would you expect to find?

I have been learning from you, and mostly jumping around the web. I have read an "unfriendly" summary of the evidence for "natural selection as an independent and sufficient mechanism" to explain "common descent" in its full bloom.

(My link, on the "dawkinfo" article, seems to be working this morning).

I believe I saw a quote from John Maynard Smith to the effect that "Evolution" in its "complete" form, i.e., as it is generally understood in the "public domain" is no longer considered to be a "scientific fact." I will try and find the quote.

With all due respect, given how often I have had to explain evolution in this and other forums, I am not the one who is "underinformed". Also, as I have explained, the fact of common descent stands on its own, without the need for any specific mechanism. Even so, there is no reason to think that the theory of evolution is insufficient to accout for common descent. If you disagree, please present specific objections.

For now, I will accept "common descent" as a scientific fact, which, in scientific terms, can stand on its own, without the need for any specific mechanism. However, I believe that the "public" should be better informed about the fact that "common descent" doesn't need, or "have" a proven mechanism.

To a scientist, this lack of "coupling," for lack of a better term, may not be important. However, to a lay person, rightly or wrongly, it may have great significance. And, if one took some surveys of the "public," one might find that many would think that a "proven" sufficient mechanism does exist,[i/] and, would be somewhat surprised and even irritated to know that it does not.

Part of what this discussion is about is how "Evolution" is perceived by lay people. I have discovered, perhaps for the first time, that "common descent," which I do not personally believe, may nevertheless, in our culture, be deserving of the "scientific fact" status.

I want to give credit where credit is due. Also, from my Web Jumping here and previously, I am becoming convinced that the "young earth" model observed, in either scientific or psuedo-scientific terms, which purports to have a universal flood explain the fossil record, has some serious evidentiary problems. (apologies to Yada and DB).

When I also see evidentiary problems on the "Evolution" package, as presented to the public, I think it is fair to point them out.

I am as yet extremely underqualified to present "specific" objections to "natural selection as a sufficient mechanism." The best I can do is point out some apparently qualified discussions, and comment upon how they appear to me.

 

Yada:
common desent is Biblical

That depends on how one defines it.

as well as now, finally, science admits (see site below), we all came from Eve, and Adam as well,

Science "admits" nothing of the sort. There is no evidence that we have descended from two individuals who lived about 6,000 years ago. The argument is particularly silly if we consider the biblical claim that all males have inherited their "Y" chromosome from Noah.

the only thing in question is did we original come from the frog pond.

There is no question: we did not.

what fascinates me is how anyone can look at the DNA evidence, which has over 300,000 encoded factors all of which interrelate to achieve a particular tissue type which is human, and quite specialized from its so called near neighbors (apes).

First, the estimated number of genes in a human is about 35,000 (perhaps as high as 70,000). Note that the DNA of humans and chimps differs by less than 2%. Please explain the difference between human tissue and other ape tissue.

codes of 300,000 unique digital type encodings and interrelating features don't exist in our most complex software programs, but do in each invisible strand of DNA, they are more complex than our most advanced microchip, while being thousands of times smaller..

not only do they take the code and produce result, but they self replicate using the encoding to achieve exact results, and reproducing not only similar, but varied attributes to repare and/or replace any area of the system (our body) which needs maintainance....all by chance?

Is there somebody who thinks that any of that (ignoring the poor description) happens by chance?

http://www.ldolphin.org/genome.html

an excellent jumping off point

I would disagree. There are a number of inaccuracies, some minor like in the very first line:

Human cells (except for red blood cells) contain in their nuclei pairs of chromosomes (number 1 through 22 plus X and Y sex-determining chromosomes

In fact certain reproductive cells have only one of each chromosome, and some cells (in skeletal and cardiac muscle) have many nuclei, each with 46 chromosomes.

Other errors are more notable, like:

There are on average 30,000 genes per chromosome. The longest chromosomes contain 300 million bases. The genetic alphabet out of which genes are composed consists of four "letters," or bases. Each of these nucleic acid bases must be joined to its neighbors in precisely the correct order!

As already noted, there are probably only about 35,000 genes in all 46 chromosomes (though the exact number is uncertain, see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1426702.stm). As for the 300 million bases that "must be joined to its neighbors in precisely the correct order", where do they get that idea? Over 95% of the DNA in our cells does not code for any protein, and the sequence of much of it seems to be unimportant. In fact, there are "pseudogenes", sequences of DNA that code for useful proteins except for a few errors (e.g. humans have a pseudogene for vitamine C, and so do chimps (and this pseudogene has exactly the same errors in humans and chimps).

There are also misleading descriptions, such as:

Prof. A. E. Wilder Smith notes that the arrangement of bases is three-dimensional---an equivalent amount of information packed into two dimensions would make the length of the genome many thousands of miles long!

In what sense does "information" have a length? In fact, DNA is wound up to take up less room. If you took the DNA from all of the chromosomes in one of your skin cells, unwound it, and laid them end-to-end, the invisibly thin string would be about 5 cm long (all of that information is coded in less than 5% of the DNA that is only 5 cm long). There are between 10 and 100 trillion cells in the human body, so we have many trillions of copies of th