Evolution and Creationism

[Noose001]

So now we have an agreed unit we can use it to compare times.

All reality, every observable thing has a time stamp. We observe because of time; meaning that our hearing, smelling, seeing, touching, feeling is time dependent. The messages have to be collected and relayed to the brain and interpreted- all these requires time even in micro units. If it happens that time=0, then you can not observe anything by way of seeing, touching, smelling, hearing, feeling which means you are dead.

So, it is not the clock or the agreed upon unit of time that gives us time, it is our experience that gives the clock or the agreed upon unit of time so that by observing it we give meaning to our own experience of passage of time. IOW, we create.

Without our experience of passage of time, there’s no sun nor earth because we won’t make an observation.

 

[Freddy]

Mmm. Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[Noose001]

If anyone is to understand how God created, don’t just read Genesis literally and start to follow or create a religion out of it, go ahead and read the following verses to have a full understanding:

Ecc 3: 9 What does the worker gain from his toil? 10 I have seen the burden that God has laid on men to occupy them. 11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men, yet they cannot fathom the work that God has done from beginning to end.

Psalm 24:1 The earth is the LORD’s, and the fullness thereof,a
the world and all who dwell therein.
2 For He has founded it upon the seas
and established it upon the waters.

Prov 20:5The intentions of a man’s heart are deep waters, but a man of understanding draws them out.

Proverbs 18:4The words of a man’s mouth are deep waters; the fountain of wisdom is a bubbling brook.

Isa 51: 15 For I am the LORD your God
who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar—
the LORD of Hosts is His name.
16 I have put My words in your mouth,
and covered you in the shadow of My hand,
to establishb the heavens, to found the earth,
and to say to Zion, ‘You are My people.’

So guyz, the mystery lies in how God created not when. What is observable is very deceiving, the reason God says “do not go by sight…”

 

[o_mlly]

You really need to find better sources. Tauber and Tauber (1977) shows an example of macroevolution. Lyko (2017) shows an example of macroevolution.

You’ll need to find actual evidence of macroevolution. I’ve investigated your claims in the past and have found them wanting. If you have peer reviewed articles that support observations of macroevolution events, then give me the link that does not require cash up front to read.

… other scientists have been working on evolution as well as Darwin.

So what? The claim was that Darwin only observed microevolution events.

The species found before the Cambrian, such as Kimberella, are not the same as the species found after, such as early molluscs. However the similarities are such that macroevolution is the best scientific explanation.

The word “best” implies a higher degree of perfection obtained than others. What other scientific hypotheses did you reject in your selection of macroevolution as the best one?

Here are three of those beneficial mutations that your sources claim don’t exist: Trio of genes supercharged human brain evolution. Or are you going to claim that a larger brain in humans is not a beneficial mutation?

As with almost all evolutionary studies, this one concludes, “That work suggests how more human-specific DNA needs to be investigated.” More importantly, if bigger brains are better brains then the sperm whale would rule the planet. Bigger is not necessarily better. My huge clunky 1983 Apple IIe “luggable” running DOS 3.3 at 1.07 Mhz does not hold a candle to the smart phone in my pocket.

 

[tafan2]

Life comes from life; no matter how far back one goes, there’s no way life came out of non-life.

I believe in evolution, but I also agree with this. Evolution does not cover how life began .

Human language(s); perhaps this is the most damning evidence against evolution.
I’d simply define human language as words with specific pronunciation but most importantly, specific meaning(s) known to those who use the words to communicate. One can only acquire the meaning of words by learning from knowledgeable external sources. IOW, no one can speak a language unless they learn a language, no matter how far back one goes, meanings of words are acquired externally from knowledgeable sources.

Again, I believe in evolution, but I also agree with this. Evolution does not provide an adequate answer for language at all .

 

[o_mlly]

Has anyone seen anything at all by the Usual Suspects of how they think that the process works?

OK. Rather than answer the legitimate questioned posed, one may go into a rant or launch a pretend frustration tantrum hoping that the questioners will back down. Not going to happen in this forum.

The main question, IMO, being argued is the scientific quality of the macroevolution hypothesis.

As always, to disagree productively, we must first agree and then argue from those agreed points.

What do macroevolutionists and its skeptics agree on:

Reasonable minds agree:

• that all scientific hypotheses and theories are not facts.
• that science may only appeal to natural causes to explain observable effects.
• that effects that have no natural cause will never be explained by science.
• that nevertheless, science must put forward possible natural explanations as explanatory of observed events, even if those hypotheses are improbable but merely possible.
• that the value of a scientific hypothesis lies in to what degree does that hypothesis provide man to control nature.

Following on the last point, i.e., pragmatism, does a workable understanding of the diversity of life provide man some control over nature? It seems to me the answer may be positive and relates only to the work done and envisioned to be done in the molecular biology on understanding the mechanics of DNA/RNA. How we use what those biologists discover is a different question and that outcome we cannot know until the outcomes of the application of the new knowledge are known. Are non-reproductive, weed resistant plants good?

The value of a scientific hypothesis, therefore, is its workability, not its truth, in giving coherence to observed effects. The truth of the hypothesis belongs to a different realm of knowing.

 

[Noose001]

Again, I believe in evolution, but I also agree with this. Evolution does not provide an adequate answer for language at all .

It should, it is the theory that also explains diversity of species (life) and it happened that one species became diverse in its mode of communication.

Whereas all other species are dependent on a genetically wired mode of communication, this particular species (humans) communicate using externally acquired words and their meanings (human language).

A human language is as complex as the higher organisms themselves, if it took a billion years of trials and error (mutations) to come with a complex organism, it must have also taken another Billion years to come up with one human language and there’s no possible way to explain this transition from a perfectly ok genetically wired mode of communication to one that is externally acquired through learning. The reasons human language is a complex are:

1. Words and their meanings do not come first, laws and rules that govern the use of words comes first. Laws that govern the use of nouns, verbs, adverbs e.t.c.
   Ok, let’s assume that the earliest human language never required laws; we still can not bypass the following items
2. Words and their meanings are learned from people who know them. This includes an elaborate sign language; a series of signs that can be used to make phrases, paragraphs and even chapters if possible i.e, enough signs to tell a story otherwise few signs can be understood without even learning their meaning, signs that deal with basic life undertakings like eating, sleeping, running.
   Example, if you want to tell a person let’s run, you can run a little and they’ll understand but having enough signs to explain to them why they should run is an impossibility.
3. There must be at least two people who understand the meaning of the words for it to qualify as a language because a language is a language when it is used for communication. And the population must be calibrated of the words and their meaning for the words to be used by the population. The calibration process requires teaching and teaching requires more words which brings me to the next point
4. A human language can not start with one or two words but must have tens if not hundreds of already known words from the beginning. If a new word comes, you need these other words to explain the meaning of this new word
5. The only alternative to the above 4 points is coming up with words, recording them for future reference so that you don’t forget but most importantly, knowing how to read and write. If we know how to read and write, we can develop a language without the above, but knowing how to read and write itself requires an already established language

Q. Where does a Neanderthal fit

 

[tafan2]

It should, it is the theory that also explains diversity of species (life) and it happened that one species became diverse in its mode of communication.

As I said, evolution does not adequately address the origin of language at all. Now, I do not disagree that many proponents if evolution believe it does. Many proponents if evolution assume it addresses many things that are even outside the scope of biology (I would argue to a large extent language us out side the scope if biology). But just because evolutionists get quite a but wrong, does not mean " evolution cannot be true". It’s a theory, with flaws, and that us applied to broadly, but it cannot be all rejected.

 

[buffalo]

Please don’t avoid the question. We need to know the details please. When did this happen, has anything gone extinct, were there migrations to different parts of the world or was everything made where it is now, what are the time scales, do we need to consider geology (plate tectonics, mountain formation etc), why are some creatures carnivorous and some hernivores…all this and more.

Give us the details. Or are you just going to point to scripture?

That is what is being investigated and as time goes on more information supporting it comes in. I have pointed it out. Life started out complex and was front loaded with design and purpose.

As to your Scripture problem, the fact some information was revealed to us gives a standard to work from. You live in a box that you believe is all there is. There is nothing outside the box, so you are limited to trying to figure out what is inside the box. I believe that revelation gives us information that things exist outside the box and gives us some information to work with. At this point of intersection they must both be true. Applying this test purifies science from false absolutes. Science by its own limiting definition has painted itself into a corner.

@rossum has asked in the past about information. A new paper has just come out. (we are closing the gaps)

Measuring Active Information in Biological Systems​

Abstract​

In computer search optimization theory, active information is a measurement of a search algorithm’s internal information as it relates to its problem space. While it has been previously applied to evolutionary search algorithms on computers, it has not been applied yet to biological systems. Active information can be very useful in differentiating between mutational adaptations which are based on internally-coded information and those which are the results of happenstance. However, biological systems present many practical problems regarding measuring active information which are not present in digital systems. This paper describes active information, how it can be used in biology, and how some of these problems can be overcome in specific cases.

https://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2020.2

 

[buffalo]

If the date is correct, then YEC is obviously wrong and we have another Coelacanth or Wollemi pine. Something interesting but not a problem for evolution.

Not by the magnitude of an old earth. Nothing ever is a problem for evolution and why it is a religion.

 

[rossum]

If you have peer reviewed articles that support observations of macroevolution events, then give me the link that does not require cash up front to read.

Ladies and gentlemen, the sound you can hear is the goalposts being shifted. o_mlly is effectively admitting that there are peer-reviewed examples of macroevolution, as requested, but has found a spurious reason to reject them. Those papers exist. If you joined a good library you could read them, and many others, as well as some other books.

Macroevolution has been observed and you are agreeing that it has been observed. It is just that you are not prepared to put your money where your mouth is.

The word “best” implies a higher degree of perfection obtained than others. What other scientific hypotheses did you reject in your selection of macroevolution as the best one?

Lamarckianism was rejected in favour of Darwinism. Mendel and Kimura were incorporated into evolutionary theory, modifying it in the process. Lysenkoism was also rejected.

More importantly, if bigger brains are better brains then the sperm whale would rule the planet.

If long necks are better necks that giraffes would rule the planet. If more legs are better legs than millipedes would rule the planet.

You are forgetting the important fact that a mutation is only beneficial with respect to the environment. Thick white fur is beneficial in the Arctic, which is why we see a lot of it in the species that live there. Thick white fur is not beneficial at the equator, which is why we do not see it there.

A brain the size of a whale’s would need a whale’s lungs to support it; brains burn a lot of oxygen. Large brains come at a cost. It is one of the reasons human babies take longer to mature than a chimp baby. We effectively have our babies prematurely so the baby’s head can fit through the birth canal.

Evolution balances the costs and benefits.

 

[buffalo]

atheists are wired differently so they see it differently.

One has to wonder if this is an evolutionary mental deficiency. Perhaps worthy of study.

 

[rossum]

Not by the magnitude of an old earth. Nothing ever is a problem for evolution and why it is a religion.

We already have living dinosaurs today; we call them birds. Having a different non-avian dinosaur lineage surviving would not present a problem, given that we have birds. Why do you thing it would be a problem? Coelacanths disappeared from the fossil record before land dinosaurs did.

 

[buffalo]

We already have living dinosaurs today; we call them birds. Having a different non-avian dinosaur lineage surviving would not present a problem, given that we have birds.

So the rocks they are found in are not really 65M years old.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Please don’t avoid the question. We need to know the details please. When did this happen, has anything gone extinct, were there migrations to different parts of the world or was everything made where it is now, what are the time scales, do we need to consider geology (plate tectonics, mountain formation etc), why are some creatures carnivorous and some hernivores…all this and more.

Give us the details. Or are you just going to point to scripture?

That is what is being investigated and as time goes on more information supporting it comes in. I have pointed it out. Life started out complex and was front loaded with design and purpose.

And again, if you could be so kind as to supply us with some details? A time line might be appropriate.

 

[buffalo]

The Stairway To Life: An Origin-Of-Life Reality Check​

Could natural processes and millions of years have produced the first life?

We know enough to know better.

The Stairway to Life: An Origin-of-Life Reality Check, by Change Tan and Rob Stadler, takes a new approach to addressing the origin of life.

By studying the simplest forms of life and laboratory efforts to synthesize life, we know that the simplest living organisms are extraordinarily complex. Al life contains highly interdependent subsystems and hierarchical layers of information that flows between the subsystems. Tan and Stadler organize this knowledge into a set of minimal requirements for life. The minimal requirements are organized via the convenient metaphor of a stairway: The Stairway to Life.

We also know enough about physics, chemistry, and thermodynamics to understand the creative capacity of natural processes. Tan and Stadler then review the capacity of natural processes to meet the requirements and ascend the Stairway, concluding that none of the required steps can be accomplished by natural processes.

The book then explores why some intelligent people believe that life started naturally. Many believe that science supports a natural origin of life, but this reasoning is shown to be circular because they have constrained the scientific process to only consider natural phenomena. When science is constrained in this manner, it no longer seeks truth; it only seeks the best naturalistic explanation. The Stairway to Life opens inquiry to follow the evidence wherever it leads – notably beyond natural explanations.

Loading…

www.amazon.com

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Has anyone seen anything at all by the Usual Suspects of how they think that the process works?

OK. Rather than answer the legitimate questioned posed, one may go into a rant or launch a pretend frustration tantrum hoping that the questioners will back down. Not going to happen in this forum.

The main question, IMO, being argued is the scientific quality of the macroevolution hypothesis.

No. The main question is: How have we arrived at this point from a biological perspective. Was it evolution or creationism. Just check the op.

The overwhelming consensus is evolution. Which you and Buff (and a few others) spend a lot of time trying to reject. Without any attempt at putting forward an alternative (other than ‘God did it’).

We would really like some details if you could manage it. There is a gargantuan amount of evidence supporting evolution from within any number of different aspects of science. So give us the details of your alternative so we can compare like with like.

Incidently, you may find you are a lone voice in this thread arguing against ‘macroevolution’. See the post just north of this one where Buff defines it’s existence.

 

[Freddy]

The Stairway To Life: An Origin-Of-Life Reality Check​

Could natural processes and millions of years have produced the first life?

We know enough to know better.

The Stairway to Life: An Origin-of-Life Reality Check, by Change Tan and Rob Stadler, takes a new approach to addressing the origin of life.

By studying the simplest forms of life and laboratory efforts to synthesize life, we know that the simplest living organisms are extraordinarily complex. Al life contains highly interdependent subsystems and hierarchical layers of information that flows between the subsystems. Tan and Stadler organize this knowledge into a set of minimal requirements for life. The minimal requirements are organized via the convenient metaphor of a stairway: The Stairway to Life.

We also know enough about physics, chemistry, and thermodynamics to understand the creative capacity of natural processes. Tan and Stadler then review the capacity of natural processes to meet the requirements and ascend the Stairway, concluding that none of the required steps can be accomplished by natural processes.

The book then explores why some intelligent people believe that life started naturally. Many believe that science supports a natural origin of life, but this reasoning is shown to be circular because they have constrained the scientific process to only consider natural phenomena. When science is constrained in this manner, it no longer seeks truth; it only seeks the best naturalistic explanation. The Stairway to Life opens inquiry to follow the evidence wherever it leads – notably beyond natural explanations.

You want me to buy a book rather than give me an answer? Yeah…not going to happen.

You can string a few sentences together. We’ve had evidence.of that. So put a few together in your own words and tell us about the process you propose. With some time lines if you could. So we know what branches of science are involved.

 

[buffalo]

Incidently, you may find you are a lone voice in this thread arguing against ‘macroevolution’. See the post just north of this one where Buff defines it’s existence.

You are grossly misinterpreting what I stated. I said to @rossum if he wanted to call macro, degrading lineage splitting leading to extinction, I would be OK with it. You missed the point of this exchange. @rossum was trying to redefine macro to hoist himself up by his own petard.

Macro as commonly described does not/did not happen.

 

[buffalo]

ou want me to buy a book rather than give me an answer? Yeah…not going to happen.

You can string a few sentences together. We’ve had evidence.of that. So put a few together in your own words and tell us about the process you propose. With some time lines if you could. So we know what branches of science are involved.

You don’t have to read it then. It is for the folks who want to follow the evidence where it leads.