Evolution and Creationism

[buffalo]

Your source has a problem: it does not explain the origin of life. It proposes that life was started by a living designer/God. That is not and cannot be an explanation of the origin of life. It assumes the existence of one form of life and uses that pre-existing life to explain the origin of other forms of life. The question of the actual origin of life is left unanswered.

Bogus. The book is showing the initial complexity of life.

 

[rossum]

Bogus. The book is showing the initial complexity of life.

Is the book’s proposed designer/God alive or non-living? If it is alive, then the origin of life is the origin of that designer/God. That topic is not, I suspect, covered since ID sources never attempt to explain the origin of their designer.

If the designer is non-living then you have to explain the origin of a complex non-living intelligence.

 

[o_mlly]

Start a new thread? What? Something maybe titled 'evolution and creationism? This is it. This is the one where those who understand evolution try to explain it to those who don’t and those who support creationism get to explain the process whereby it took place. You know, when and how etc.

Any time you are ready you can give us the details. The catechism doesn’t. We need your personal view on the matter. On the assumption that what you think happened actually did happen, we can check the veracity of your claims.

I’ve replied to OP’s questions. If you disagree, tell us your rationale. Add your reasons, as asked some time ago, for your rejection of philosophy’s first principles. After all, this is the Philosophy Forum, not the Science Forum.

 

[rossum]

By the way, repeating what has been refuted as true again and again does not move the argument forward.

You claims that there were no peer reviewed papers showing macroevolution. Such papers do exist and I referenced two of them. All you attempts to avoid the facts will fail. Macroevolution has been observed repeatedly.

Perhaps the reason I can say, “So what?” to many posts from atheists …

How is this relevant to me? I am Buddhist, not atheist and there are a lot more gods in my scriptures than in yours.

My scriptures are perfectly happy with evolution since there is nothing in evolution which contradicts my scriptures.

 

[o_mlly]

How is this relevant to me? I am Buddhist, not atheist and there are a lot more gods in my scriptures than in yours.

My scriptures are perfectly happy with evolution since there is nothing in evolution which contradicts my scriptures.

Relax, Rossum. I used your post but did not include you as an atheist.

 

[Pattylt]

In a nutshell, during the creative act God frontloaded life with the built in information to proliferate and created the archetypes.

Can you give a specific definition of kind? Are dogs one kind and wolves another and another dingoes?
If God frontloaded life to create the archetypes, could macro evolution explain the rest? Otherwise, God had to create each and every specific species many of which became extinct and many that appeared to have emerged much later than others. Please, explain this statement with science since ID supposedly uses it! Thanks.

 

[Chet1]

In a nutshell, during the creative act God frontloaded life with the built in information to proliferate and created the archetypes.

You characterize God as “the celestial watchmaker,” he just set everything in motion and walked away. That idea hoes all the way back t o ancient Egypt! They belived in a disinterested creater too.

The rational approach is the gap theory, God created everything in Genesis 1:1 and it went on for, perhaps billions of years, something happened! An asteroid struck, and genesis 1 continues the earth was a disaster! The KT event. Then verse 2, God recreated the Earth! The rest of Genesis chapters 1 through 3 continue the story, this jives with the geologic record, th we agd of mamals, (man) follows the age of dinosaurs. Whn we paleontologists look at the fossil record, we are tracing that earlier creation.

 

[buffalo]

How is this relevant to me? I am Buddhist, not atheist and there are a lot more gods in my scriptures than in yours.

Asked before and not answered. Is there one god in Buddhism that is more powerful than the others?

 

[buffalo]

Can you give a specific definition of kind ? Are dogs one kind and wolves another and another dingoes?
If God frontloaded life to create the archetypes, could macro evolution explain the rest? Otherwise, God had to create each and every specific species many of which became extinct and many that appeared to have emerged much later than others. Please, explain this statement with science since ID supposedly uses it! Thanks.

As we learn more through genetics the Linneatic system will not hold.

All dogs are from wolves. This would be an example of micro-evolution. Human breeding different types actually degrades the dog genome.

The frontloading of information into these archetypes allows all the adaptation and variation within. The fossil record supports this showing abrupt appearance, stasis and limited variation within. The archetypes offspring have also taken in additional information into their genome through HGT. We do not see big transformations but limited variation hovering about a mean, an example are the finches.

The frontloading also shows common design as in a Lego kit. A whole bunch of different unrelated objects can be built using the same basic building blocks.

So no, He did not have to create each and every species. Speciation is lineage splitting and renders the offspring less fit, so they are less adaptable to the environment, and lead to extinction. Micro-evolution accounts for this.

 

[buffalo]

You characterize God as “the celestial watchmaker,” he just set everything in motion and walked away. That idea hoes all the way back t o ancient Egypt! They belived in a disinterested creater too.

The rational approach is the gap theory, God created everything in Genesis 1:1 and it went on for, perhaps billions of years, something happened! An asteroid struck, and genesis 1 continues the earth was a disaster! The KT event. Then verse 2, God recreated the Earth! The rest of Genesis chapters 1 through 3 continue the story, this jives with the geologic record, th we agd of mamals, (man) follows the age of dinosaurs. Whn we paleontologists look at the fossil record, we are tracing that earlier creation.

No. There are two stages, the creative and then the providential. God sustains and acts in His creation as He wishes.

Although we do see abrupt appearance, stasis and limited variation within, the fossil record is very incomplete. We are trying to complete a 1,000 pc puzzle with only 10 pieces. In addition, fossils occur in sedimentary rock which is usually a rapid burial.

 

[Pattylt]

So no, He did not have to create each and every species. Speciation is lineage splitting and renders the offspring less fit, so they are less adaptable to the environment, and lead to extinction. Micro-evolution accounts for this.

So, dogs are less fit than wolves and should be going extinct? Or, is it the parent that goes extinct? What if both are still thriving? (Not just referring to dogs but any lineage splitting)

Are cattle, elk, deer caribou distinct kinds? Please, could you define kind specifically and it’s limits and explain the limits of archetype?

 

[o_mlly]

The rational approach is the gap theory, God created everything in Genesis 1:1 and it went on for, perhaps billions of years

The macroevolution hypothesis of living beings with greater functionality than ancestors, as @Buffalo has explained, is metaphysically irrational.

Very often, those working in the empirical sciences try to reformulate the definition of a science in order to exclude philosophy (and theology) from being considered sciences. However, such a motion on their part is inherently contradictory, for the formulation of the definition of a science cannot be derived by the empirical method and therefore to give a true, formal definition requires one to engage in philosophy. So either empirical scientists accept that philosophy is a science or they are left with the unseemly prospect of not having a “scientific” definition of science itself. This is said in order to make clear that to enter into a philosophical discussion about the nature of evolution is a scientific approach, albeit not an empirical one ( The Metaphysical Impossibility of Human Evolution, Fr. Chad Ripperger, PhD).

 

[buffalo]

So, dogs are less fit than wolves and should be going extinct? Or, is it the parent that goes extinct? What if both are still thriving? (Not just referring to dogs but any lineage splitting)

Are cattle, elk, deer caribou distinct kinds? Please, could you define kind specifically and it’s limits and explain the limits of archetype?

Returning breeds such as a poodle or a weiner dog would be their demise.

No, I cannot tell you the kinds until we have a better genetic map going back in time.

This as I quoted before also show the very distinct boundaries so this should help us with the research,

It is textbook biology, for example, that species with large, far-flung populations—think ants, rats, humans—will become more genetically diverse over time.

But is that true?

“The answer is no,” said Stoeckle, lead author of the study, published in the journal Human Evolution.

For the planet’s 7.6 billion people, 500 million house sparrows, or 100,000 sandpipers, genetic diversity “is about the same,” he told AFP.

The study’s most startling result, perhaps, is that nine out of 10 species on Earth today, including humans, came into being 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.

“This conclusion is very surprising, and I fought against it as hard as I could,” Thaler told AFP.

“another unexpected finding from the study—species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there’s nothing much in between."

“If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies,” said Thaler. “They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space.”

The absence of “in-between” species is something that also perplexed Darwin, he said."

Read more at: Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution

 

[rossum]

Is there one god in Buddhism that is more powerful than the others?

Define “more powerful”. Different gods have different powers. To take examples from Greek mythology, Poseidon is more powerful with water; Zeus is more powerful with thunderbolts.

 

[buffalo]

Define “more powerful”. Different gods have different powers. To take examples from Greek mythology, Poseidon is more powerful with water; Zeus is more powerful with thunderbolts.

Does a specific one rule the others?

 

[gama232]

There are different types of apples but they are all apples. Grafting is mentioned in the Bible. Today, you can cut a small branch from an apple tree and graft it on to a branch on a pear tree. You would get a pear-apple. Both are compatible in that regard. It is also true that you can have two birds that look identical, but one group can become isolated from the other by distance and later, lose the ability to interbreed.

Humans appearing 100,000 to 200,000 years ago appears reasonable. It is consistent with the fact that fossil trees are found passing through many layers of rock, showing rapid burial through what we are told are layers representing thousands of years. Such inconsistencies are never addressed.

 

[lelinator]

All dogs are from wolves. This would be an example of micro-evolution. Human breeding different types actually degrades the dog genome.

But even modern wolves are simply derivations on some now extinct predecessor. So where in the fossil record is there an example of a supposedly archetypal wolf? If you’re theory is correct, then every species alive today should have an archetypal example somewhere in the fossil record. And shouldn’t such “first of their kind” examples be extremely easy to identify…because there should be a complete and fully formed example with no preceding evolutionary cause.

To support your theory, shouldn’t the fossil record be full of archetypes, i.e…complex species which appear full and complete with no evolutionary predecessors?

Can you give us an example?

 

[buffalo]

Humans appearing 100,000 to 200,000 years ago appears reasonable. It is consistent with the fact that fossil trees are found passing through many layers of rock, showing rapid burial through what we are told are layers representing thousands of years. Such inconsistencies are never addressed.

The Doggins Cliffs have been tried to be explained away. One big problem is the polystrate fossils ere buried all at once when green and they are hollow like bamboo and could not have lasted thousands or millions of years. They were buried in one large event.

 

[buffalo]

But even modern wolves are simply derivations on some now extinct predecessor. So where in the fossil record is there an example of a supposedly archetypal wolf? If you’re theory is correct, then every species alive today should have an archetypal example somewhere in the fossil record. And shouldn’t such “ first of their kind ” examples be extremely easy to identify…because there should be a complete and fully formed example with no preceding evolutionary cause.

To support your theory, shouldn’t the fossil record be full of archetypes, i.e…complex species which appear full and complete with no evolutionary predecessors?

Can you give us an example?

Correct. Looking back we will see a convergence to an original or prototype. We will see common descent is true from these originals. Universal common descent is not what we will see.

We may never see them in the fossil record. The fossil record will forever remain incomplete since fossils are in sedimentary rock under rapid burial conditions. We should be able to find them in the genetic record.

 

[lelinator]

Correct. Looking back we will see a convergence to an original or prototype. We will see common descent is true from these originals. Universal common descent is not what we will see.

But, can you give an example? One in which you can assert that this is the very first example of this particular species.