Conference on Evolution

[edwest2]

Hi rossum,

Thank you for your response. It is very clear to me that the creationist-evolutionist debate is about politics and advertising. That’s why “comedians” like Bill Maher have to point to swine flu and mention mutations. Science is the current love of the secular world because it will take away your sins, justify almost any sexual behavior and give you new toys to play with.

True transitionals likely do not exist. Ignorance is used as a buzz word and deflects from any original thinking regarding evolutionary dogma. The common seal, being a mere animal, has no problem walking on its flippers. Surely, if this activity caused it pain it wouldn’t do it. Is it on its way to developing feet or hands or legs? No. It is fully functional now.

And I am not convinced there are true transitionals either. Whenever people point to this or that fossil, it is obvious that this or that animal was fully functional and knew how to use all of its body features in a useful way.

Regarding genetics, similar body plans would require similar DNA construction coding. Simple. I am, like Pope Benedict, at this point: “But it also true that evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”

Just like the Enlightenment was brought about by advances in science, this new attempt to “enlighten” people is being brought about so that people who love, and I mean nothing less than love, science can use science to take away their shame, their guilt and their sin so their actions, whatever they are, can be approved and justified. So they can live in a false reality where sin and shame and guilt no longer exist, and they have no greater power to answer to. This is a deception that is being accepted by too many. And it is why it is being heavily promoted here.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Namesake]

Just like the Enlightenment was brought about by advances in science, this new attempt to “enlighten” people is being brought about so that people who love, and I mean nothing less than love, science can use science to take away their shame, their guilt and their sin so their actions, whatever they are, can be approved and justified. So they can live in a false reality where sin and shame and guilt no longer exist, and they have no greater power to answer to. This is a deception that is being accepted by too many. And it is why it is being heavily promoted here.

Peace,
Ed

Do you think that deeply religious people who not only support but actually advance evolution theory fit the above description?

 

[StAnastasia]

Do you think that deeply religious people who not only support but actually advance evolution theory fit the above description?

No – I’m in touch with half a dozen Catholic priests who would regard Ed’s statement as totally bizarre. The do their work in evolutionary biology, they counsel students, they say Mass, they hear confessions. They are good priests and good scientists, not evil people celebrating science for liberating them from all moral constraints.

StAnastasia

 

[rossum]

Thank you for your response. It is very clear to me that the creationist-evolutionist debate is about politics and advertising.

In America a lot of the debate is indeed about politics and in particular about what is taught in public schools. In Europe the debate tends to be a lot less political. Over here, to quote Tony Blair, politicians do not “do God”.

Science is the current love of the secular world because it will take away your sins, justify almost any sexual behavior and give you new toys to play with.

I cannot speak for the secular world. I am Buddhist, so I get my morality from Buddhism. “Sin” has no place in Buddhist morality, unfortunately neither does forgiveness of sin. If you do the crime then you do the time. Hence the great importance of mindfulness in Buddhism, there is no “Get Out of Hell Free” card.

True transitionals likely do not exist. Ignorance is used as a buzz word and deflects from any original thinking regarding evolutionary dogma. The common seal, being a mere animal, has no problem walking on its flippers. Surely, if this activity caused it pain it wouldn’t do it. Is it on its way to developing feet or hands or legs? No. It is fully functional now.

This is what I was talking about. Creationists use a different definition of “transitional” from biologists. The transitinoal seal we have just found was a fully functional animal, working in pretty much the same way as a modern otter. Able to walk on land using its legs and able to swim in water to catch its prey. All transitionals are fully functional organisms; if they were not fully functional then they would not be able to breed and have offspring. There are indeed no “creationist-transitionals” because “creationist-transitional” is a strawman that does not exist. There is no “half a wing”, instead the sequence may have been something like:* forelimb with scales.

• forelimb with down feathers for heat insulation.
• forelimb with stiff feathers for display (sexual or frightening predators).
• forelimb with stiff feathers to help with gliding.
• forelimb with stiff feathers to help with powered flight = wing.

At every step the forelimb is fully functional as something. It does not always have to have the same function throughout.

Whenever people point to this or that fossil, it is obvious that this or that animal was fully functional and knew how to use all of its body features in a useful way.

All transitionals are fully functional. Organisms that are not fully functional go extinct and do not have descendants.

Regarding genetics, similar body plans would require similar DNA construction coding. Simple. I am, like Pope Benedict, at this point: “But it also true that evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”

The pope is correct, no scientific theory is ever proven. The theory of gravity is not proven - we know that it has errors. The theory of evolution has no known errors and is not complete because scientists are still working on it. If science were complete then all scientists would be out of jobs and we would just look up the answers in books.

Just like the Enlightenment was brought about by advances in science, this new attempt to “enlighten” people is being brought about so that people who love, and I mean nothing less than love, science can use science to take away their shame, their guilt and their sin so their actions, whatever they are, can be approved and justified. So they can live in a false reality where sin and shame and guilt no longer exist, and they have no greater power to answer to. This is a deception that is being accepted by too many. And it is why it is being heavily promoted here.

You have completely missed my motives for supporting science. My morality comes from my religion, not from science.

rossum

 

[edwest2]

Do you think that deeply religious people who not only support but actually advance evolution theory fit the above description?

One example of a deeply religious person, like Pope Benedict, had this to say: “But it is also true that evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”

Secondly, thanks to the mainstream media, too many deeply religious Catholics think the Church is perfectly OK with evolution. They are purposely misinformed by media entities who are enthralled by the new atheism and the new paganism. Just say yes to evolution represents the bulk of the posts here. The reason to say yes is clear: your Bible is wrong, there is no invisible man in the sky (ask any comedian on TV) and you can do what you want. Sin? What’s that?

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

In America a lot of the debate is indeed about politics and in particular about what is taught in public schools. In Europe the debate tends to be a lot less political. Over here, to quote Tony Blair, politicians do not “do God”.

I cannot speak for the secular world. I am Buddhist, so I get my morality from Buddhism. “Sin” has no place in Buddhist morality, unfortunately neither does forgiveness of sin. If you do the crime then you do the time. Hence the great importance of mindfulness in Buddhism, there is no “Get Out of Hell Free” card.

This is what I was talking about. Creationists use a different definition of “transitional” from biologists. The transitinoal seal we have just found was a fully functional animal, working in pretty much the same way as a modern otter. Able to walk on land using its legs and able to swim in water to catch its prey. All transitionals are fully functional organisms; if they were not fully functional then they would not be able to breed and have offspring. There are indeed no “creationist-transitionals” because “creationist-transitional” is a strawman that does not exist. There is no “half a wing”, instead the sequence may have been something like:* forelimb with scales.

• forelimb with down feathers for heat insulation.
• forelimb with stiff feathers for display (sexual or frightening predators).
• forelimb with stiff feathers to help with gliding.
• forelimb with stiff feathers to help with powered flight = wing.

At every step the forelimb is fully functional as something. It does not always have to have the same function throughout.

All transitionals are fully functional. Organisms that are not fully functional go extinct and do not have descendants.

The pope is correct, no scientific theory is ever proven. The theory of gravity is not proven - we know that it has errors. The theory of evolution has no known errors and is not complete because scientists are still working on it. If science were complete then all scientists would be out of jobs and we would just look up the answers in books.

You have completely missed my motives for supporting science. My morality comes from my religion, not from science.

rossum

Where your individual morality comes from in no way addresses the marketing campaign currently going on in the United States: Atheism and Paganism are the new religions and joyfully embraced by the the secular faithful

By using science, they get a We Can Make Up Whatever Morality We Want card.

Science justifies them. It is their explanation for anything immoral. It gives them an illusion to use as an excuse to do what they want. By worshipping the human mind, they believe they are free. But free from what exactly? What many of them want is any intellectual excuse to flee God.

The transitional story you’ve just presented still does not deal with the directional, goal oriented information origin problem. Random mutations and natural selection seem very unlikely to progress to the specific, orderly and integrated changes necessary to produce novel functional structures in mammals.

Peace,
Ed

 

[grannymh]

Do you think that deeply religious people who not only support but actually advance evolution theory fit the above description?

I would like to write a letter to deeply religious people who actually advance evolution theory if by that you mean scientists and not teachers. Anybody, any ideas?

Blessings,
granny

Human life is worthy of understanding.

 

[Namesake]

I would like to write a letter to deeply religious people who actually advance evolution theory if by that you mean scientists and not teachers. Anybody, any ideas?

Blessings,
granny

Human life is worthy of understanding.

Most scientists also teach.

millerandlevine.com/km/

 

[grannymh]

This is what I was talking about. Creationists use a different definition of “transitional” from biologists. The transitinoal seal we have just found was a fully functional animal, working in pretty much the same way as a modern otter. Able to walk on land using its legs and able to swim in water to catch its prey. All transitionals are fully functional organisms; if they were not fully functional then they would not be able to breed and have offspring. There are indeed no “creationist-transitionals” because “creationist-transitional” is a strawman that does not exist. There is no “half a wing”, instead the sequence may have been something like:

• forelimb with scales.
• forelimb with down feathers for heat insulation.
• forelimb with stiff feathers for display (sexual or frightening predators).
• forelimb with stiff feathers to help with gliding.
• forelimb with stiff feathers to help with powered flight = wing.

At every step the forelimb is fully functional as something. It does not always have to have the same function throughout.

All transitionals are fully functional. Organisms that are not fully functional go extinct and do not have descendants.

rossum

Thank you for the previous links you sent me.

When I first came across the idea of evolutionary transitionals, it was in regard to the evolving of animals in very broad terms and to the “missing links” for humans which were still being talked about in my part of the world. As I catch up with evolution, I’m finding out about common ancestors and extinct and extant hominids.

Now I wonder if the common ancestor of humans and chimps is a fully functional transitional. From my initial reading, it seems a divergence itself takes place over time and sometimes according to a founder effect over time so that there would have to be, seems to me, fully functional transitionals between the common ancestor and you, me and our shirttail chimp cousins. But would there also be fully functional transitionals going back from the common ancestor to its parents and grandparents all the way back to the major domains?

Blessings,
granny

All human life is worthy of understanding.

 

[StAnastasia]

Now I wonder if the common ancestor of humans and chimps is a fully functional transitional. From my initial reading, it seems a divergence itself takes place over time and sometimes according to a founder effect over time so that there would have to be, seems to me, fully functional transitionals between the common ancestor and you, me and our shirttail chimp cousins. But would there also be fully functional transitionals going back from the common ancestor to its parents and grandparents all the way back to the major domains?Blessings,granny.

Grannymh, what do you mean by a “fully functional transitional?” I don’t know this term; perhaps it comes from the ICR or AiG.

For example, what does it mean to talk about a “fully functional transitional” between a Ford Model T and a Ford Explorer?

StAnastasia

 

[rossum]

When I first came across the idea of evolutionary transitionals, it was in regard to the evolving of animals in very broad terms and to the “missing links” for humans which were still being talked about in my part of the world. As I catch up with evolution, I’m finding out about common ancestors and extinct and extant hominids.

Common ancestors is a much better way of thinking of things than “missing links”. The problem with missing links is that they are all missing. Once we have found them then they are really “found links”.

Now I wonder if the common ancestor of humans and chimps is a fully functional transitional.

Our last common ancestor (LCA) with the chimps was a fully functional organism. It, obviously, was functional enough to have offspring - if it had not been then neither ourselves nor chimps would be here now. As well as being fully functional it was also a transitional to both ourselves and chimps.

From my initial reading, it seems a divergence itself takes place over time and sometimes according to a founder effect over time so that there would have to be, seems to me, fully functional transitionals between the common ancestor and you, me and our shirttail chimp cousins.

Yes, there are two chains of common ancestors leading back from chimps to the LCA and humans to the LCA. And from that LCA with chimps back to our LCA with other primates, our LCA with other mammals, our LCA with other tetrapods, our LCA with other vertebrates and so on back through our LCAs with deuterostomes, bilaterians, metazoans and eukaryotes. “It’s LCAs all the way down”.

But would there also be fully functional transitionals going back from the common ancestor to its parents and grandparents all the way back to the major domains?

Correct. Have a look at the Tree of Life webpages. You can start from Homo Sapiens and go backwards through the LCAs, (look for the “containing group” link), or you can start at the root of the tree and go forwards in the direction of evolution.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Where your individual morality comes from in no way addresses the marketing campaign currently going on in the United States: Atheism and Paganism are the new religions and joyfully embraced by the the secular faithful

By using science, they get a We Can Make Up Whatever Morality We Want card.

Science justifies them. It is their explanation for anything immoral. It gives them an illusion to use as an excuse to do what they want. By worshipping the human mind, they believe they are free. But free from what exactly? What many of them want is any intellectual excuse to flee God.

Science describes what is. Morality is more about what should be. It is a misuse of science to try to derive a morality from it. You can legitimately complain about the misuse of science without rejecting science as a whole. Fred Phelps misuses the Bible to say that “God hates America”; that does not mean that everyone else has to reject the Bible because he misuses it.

The transitional story you’ve just presented still does not deal with the directional, goal oriented information origin problem. Random mutations and natural selection seem very unlikely to progress to the specific, orderly and integrated changes necessary to produce novel functional structures in mammals.

Evolution does not have an overall direction, it is a local and short term process: “have more grandchildren than other members of your species”. Grandchildren because your own children need to be able to reproduce; having lots of non-reproducing children is not of any use. There is no problem with the origin of information since random mutation and natural selection acting together copy information from the environment into DNA. The information is already present in the envoronment. Random mutation performs a random search of the immediate vicinity in search space, and natural selection (“how many grandchildren”) selects those random mutations which have the best copy of that information. Hence the selection of white fur in arctic areas.

The point of my story was to show that at every stage the not-quite-yet-a-wing was “fully functional”, just not yet fully functional as a wing. I was trying to show that the creationist “what use is half a wing” argument is not relevant - half a wing may be very useful to attract mates of the opposite sex.

rossum

 

[reggieM]

Science describes what is. Morality is more about what should be. It is a misuse of science to try to derive a morality from it.

This is a refutation of materialism or naturalism (or scientism) since there would have to be some other source for morality than natural laws (evolution) acting on unintelligent matter.

You said previously on this thread that your religion is the source of your morality. Through what means is that morality communicated to you? I would seem that some, non-natural power (or essence of some kind) would provide morality to you, an entirely natural (product of evolutionary laws) organism.

Evolution does not have an overall direction, it is a local and short term process: “have more grandchildren than other members of your species”.

I think that’s the standard explanation of evolution. It has no direction or purpose. It is an unintelligent, amoral process. It does not “care” about human beings and cannot command or forbid any human behavior. If atheistic-materialism (the most common view of evolutionary science) is true, then anything is permitted.

 

[rossum]

This is a refutation of materialism or naturalism (or scientism) since there would have to be some other source for morality than natural laws (evolution) acting on unintelligent matter.

I am not a materialist but I suspect that most materialists would assign the source of morality to the human mind since according to them all religious scriptures are products of the human mind.

You said previously on this thread that your religion is the source of your morality. Through what means is that morality communicated to you?

Through the scriptures ans tradition of the religion I follow, in much the same way as you get your morality from your religion.

I would seem that some, non-natural power (or essence of some kind) would provide morality to you, an entirely natural (product of evolutionary laws) organism.

Buddhist morality is ultimately derived from the Buddha’s insight into the nature of the universe and the workings of cause and effect. All actions that we take have effects; if we wish to avoid the effects then we must avoid the actions that trigger them:Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with an evil mind then suffering will follow you,
as the wheel follows the draught ox.

Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with a pure mind then happiness will follow you,
as a shadow that never leaves.

Dhammapada vv 1-2
If there is a “power” behind Buddhist morality then it is the power of cause and effect - karma. It is not a personal power but an impersonal one. It is “natural” in that it is part of the universe. It is not materialistic because the Buddhist universe includes a lot of non-materialistic elements: gods, heavens, hells, devils (Mara, Yama), angels (kinnaras, gandharvas) and so forth.

I think that’s the standard explanation of evolution. It has no direction or purpose. It is an unintelligent, amoral process. It does not “care” about human beings and cannot command or forbid any human behavior.

As with all science. The theory of gravity is just as unintelligent and amoral and does not “care” about human beings. Your description applies to all of science.

If atheistic-materialism (the most common view of evolutionary science) is true, then anything is permitted.

Atheistic materialism is a belief or ideology which has nothing to do with evolution. Many scientists who accept the theory of gravity are also atheistic materialists. Does that mean that you have to reject gravity? By all means reject atheist materialism, but do not assume that that you are automatically required to reject gravity and evolution as well.

rossum

 

[reggieM]

I am not a materialist but I suspect that most materialists would assign the source of morality to the human mind since according to them all religious scriptures are products of the human mind.

Materialists believe that nature is all that there is and the human mind is the material product of evolution. As stated, nature does not command or forbid any human behaviors so there really can be no basis for moral support or outrage for or against any actions.

Through the scriptures ans tradition of the religion I follow, in much the same way as you get your morality from your religion.

I get morality from my religion from teachings revealed by God, through God’s direct intervention in nature, and also through the moral laws which are placed in human nature by divine power.

If there is a “power” behind Buddhist morality then it is the power of cause and effect - karma. It is not a personal power but an impersonal one. It is “natural” in that it is part of the universe. It is not materialistic because the Buddhist universe includes a lot of non-materialistic elements: gods, heavens, hells, devils (Mara, Yama), angels (kinnaras, gandharvas) and so forth.

That is interesting. But I don’t think it addresses the question I posed:

Through what means is that morality communicated to you? I would seem that some, non-natural power (or essence of some kind) would provide morality to you, an entirely natural (product of evolutionary laws) organism.

I think you’re saying that gods and angels communicate morality to you. But you seem also to be saying that morality is a natural, impersonal power that emerges from “mind”. To what extent is “mind” not the proper subject of science? You compare the power of cause and effect to the non-natural existence of angels.

As with all science. The theory of gravity is just as unintelligent and amoral and does not “care” about human beings. Your description applies to all of science.

Gravity is not the cause of the human mind, for example, but it is claimed that evolution is. Again, in the most widespread and common view of evolution, nature is all that there is and nature alone is responsible for the emergence of human life, mind, soul and everything. The same cannot be said of gravity.

Atheistic materialism is a belief or ideology which has nothing to do with evolution.

That’s an interesting opinion, but I reject it as false for many reasons – the first of which, your terms are not defined. I don’t think a term like “nothing to do with” can be evaluated without further explanation.

 

[rossum]

That is interesting. But I don’t think it addresses the question I posed:

Through what means is that morality communicated to you? I would seem that some, non-natural power (or essence of some kind) would provide morality to you, an entirely natural (product of evolutionary laws) organism.

I think you’re saying that gods and angels communicate morality to you. But you seem also to be saying that morality is a natural, impersonal power that emerges from “mind”. To what extent is “mind” not the proper subject of science? You compare the power of cause and effect to the non-natural existence of angels.

My apologies for not making my position clear. Buddhism is not a revealed religion, it is a discovered religion. Every so often an individual, a Buddha, will attain enlightenment and gain insight into the way that the universe works. He will spread this knowledge and be seen as a founder of a religion. The latest person to (re)discover Buddhism was the historical Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama Sakya. So my immediate knowledge of morality comes from the Buddhist scriptures and traditions handed down from the Buddha, and confirmed by others who have attained enlightenment in the interim.

The Buddha got his knowledge of morality from his insight into the workings of the universe consequent on his enlightenment. As with the rest of Buddhism, the Buddha (re)discovered the underlying laws of morality - cause and effect. Morality was not revealed, it was discovered.

As to myself, I am not a “product of evolutionary laws”. I am a product of my mother, my father and a gandhabba. Evolution only deals with the first two. The gandhabba is what passed from my previous life into my current life carrying what might be called my ‘karmic load’ - past actions which have not yet had their effect.

Gravity is not the cause of the human mind, for example, but it is claimed that evolution is.

Evolution is only claimed to be responsible for the development of the human mind. Its actual daily operation is assigned to chemistry and electricity - the brain contains many chemical interactions and many electrical interactions. Are you going to reject chemistry and electricity as well as evolution? For that matter a great deal of evolution can be seen as chemistry - DNA is a just chemical after all.

Again, in the most widespread and common view of evolution, nature is all that there is and nature alone is responsible for the emergence of human life, mind, soul and everything.

Evolution says nothing at all about a human soul; there are no fossils of souls and there is no evidence of what might code for a soul in our DNA.

rossum

 

[StAnastasia]

Gravity is not the cause of the human mind, for example, but it is claimed that evolution is. Again, in the most widespread and common view of evolution, nature is all that there is and nature alone is responsible for the emergence of human life, mind, soul and everything. The same cannot be said of gravity.

The same can indeed be said of gravity. Nature is all there is, and gravity – not God’s perpetual willing it – is the cause of the planets revolving about the sun.

 

[StAnastasia]

Evolution is only claimed to be responsible for the development of the human mind. Its actual daily operation is assigned to chemistry and electricity - the brain contains many chemical interactions and many electrical interactions. Are you going to reject chemistry and electricity as well as evolution? For that matter a great deal of evolution can be seen as chemistry - DNA is a just chemical after all. Evolution says nothing at all about a human soul; there are no fossils of souls and there is no evidence of what might code for a soul in our DNA.rossum

There are no fossils of the mind, either. Mind, consciousness, morality, spiritual awareness – these are emergent properties.

 

[reggieM]

The Buddha got his knowledge of morality from his insight into the workings of the universe consequent on his enlightenment. As with the rest of Buddhism, the Buddha (re)discovered the underlying laws of morality - cause and effect. Morality was not revealed, it was discovered.

Thanks again for your reply. Actually, I think I didn’t make my questions clear enough.

I asked:

Through what means is that morality communicated to you? I would seem that some, non-natural power (or essence of some kind) would provide morality to you, an entirely natural (product of evolutionary laws) organism.
I think you’re saying that gods and angels communicate morality to you. But you seem also to be saying that morality is a natural, impersonal power that emerges from “mind”. To what extent is “mind” not the proper subject of science? You compare the power of cause and effect to the non-natural existence of angels.

I didn’t see your answer here. You stated that the Buddah got his information about morality from “the workings of the universe”. That does answer my question on “what means morality is communicated to you” – it is through an enlightened person, who has insights on “the workings of the universe”. But you have not answered whether these “workings” are natural or not. It seems that you’re saying that they are natural, but somehow not the subject of science. I asked you to what extent this “moral source” that the Buddah or you have access to is “not the proper subject of science”. You didn’t answer that. I also asked (implicitly) how your gods and angels factor into this discussion. You made the statement: “I am not a materialist”. I have never seen you argue against materialism or naturalism (or scientism). What are your arguments against these ideas?

So, I should make the questions clearer.

What part of the universe, that the Buddah gained insight from to discover morality, is not the subject of science? Where is this non-natural part of the universe located and how did it get there? What influence have your gods and angels had on material nature, if any? Where do they exist and how do they communicate their existence to human beings? Do they have any role in the development of moral laws?

The gandhabba is what passed from my previous life into my current life carrying what might be called my ‘karmic load’ - past actions which have not yet had their effect.

What effect does gahdhabba have on the evolution of human beings?

Evolution is only claimed to be responsible for the development of the human mind. Its actual daily operation is assigned to chemistry and electricity - the brain contains many chemical interactions and many electrical interactions. Are you going to reject chemistry and electricity as well as evolution? For that matter a great deal of evolution can be seen as chemistry - DNA is a just chemical after all.

You seem to be saying that evolution is only responsible for some parts of a human being. Where in the scientific literature does it state that there are any aspects of human life that are not the result of evolutionary processes?

 

[reggieM]

Mind, consciousness, morality, spiritual awareness – these are emergent properties.

Are they the products of nature?