Evolution and Creationism

[buffalo]

But, can you give an example?

We are not there yet. The genes of this archetype would be pristine. There would be no presence of HGT or deleterious mutations. The code would map as far back as we could go. We cannot go back further than what we can actually measure, so beyond that they would be modeled. Unless we find the archetype to be very recent. If so, this would be the original archetype of that line of descent.

 

[gama232]

As you know, the Tree of Life model shows life beginning in the water and then, somehow, deciding to give the land a try. I mean, would you try dry land when all of your food is in the water? Your family? And those lungs just appeared out of nowhere? It’s not reasonable to believe that.

 

[lelinator]

The genes of this archetype would be pristine.

But why is it that the fossil record doesn’t seem to contain examples of such archetypes? Why isn’t there a “first” or “nearly first” example of a wolf?

Instead what the fossil record seems to contain is a continuous evolution of types, rather than one distinct archetype. If there ever were such archetypes evolution seems to have done a masterful job of hiding them.

 

[buffalo]

But why is it that the fossil record doesn’t seem to contain examples of such archetypes? Why isn’t there a “ first ” or “ nearly first ” example of a wolf?

Instead what the fossil record seems to contain is a continuous evolution of types, rather than one distinct archetype. If there ever were such archetypes evolution seems to have done a masterful job of hiding them.

The fossil record is and always be incomplete. Fossils only form under certain conditions.

Here is a video showing how genetic tracing works and what we found about the human line - around 30 minutes in.

Dr. Robert Carter - Meet Your Ancestors: Adam & Eve​

 

[lelinator]

The fossil record is and always be incomplete. Fossils only form under certain conditions.

But that would seem to make the argument for evolution even stronger. Because even considering the improbability of fossilization, a seemingly clear and continuous line can be drawn from today’s existing species to similar, yet distinct species that existed at some point in the past. These evolutionary lines seem to have no clear archetypal beginning, yet are complete enough to suggest an apparent evolutionary progression from one species to another with no discernible starting point.

So attempting to explain the lack of archetypal fossil evidence by appealing to the difficulty in fossilization, would only seem to make the evolutionary explanation even more compelling, because it seems to hold up in spite of the difficulty in preserving an extensive fossil record.

Both explanations would face the same challenge, so arguing that it should affect one, and not the other, wouldn’t seem to be very convincing.

 

[buffalo]

But that would seem to make the argument for evolution even stronger. Because even considering the improbability of fossilization, a seemingly clear and continuous line can be drawn from today’s existing species to similar, yet distinct species that existed at some point in the past. These evolutionary lines seem to have no clear archetypal beginning, yet are complete enough to suggest an apparent evolutionary progression from one species to another with no discernible starting point.

So attempting to explain the lack of archetypal fossil evidence by appealing to the difficulty in fossilization, would only seem to make the evolutionary explanation even more compelling, because it seems to hold up in spite of the difficulty in preserving an extensive fossil record.

No. We are getting better and more complete information from the genetic record.

 

[rossum]

Does a specific one rule the others?

Does a specific human rule all the other humans? It is an error to attempt to fit Buddhist theology into an Abrahamic strait-jacket.

 

[buffalo]

Does a specific human rule all the other humans? It is an error to attempt to fit Buddhist theology into an Abrahamic strait-jacket.

So they are all equal?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Yes we do. I said, we’ll use yours: 'a degrading lineage splitting leading to extinction…’

Hold on - you agree with this part too?

• does it create new and novel features (lowest complexity to higher complexity) despite genetic entropy and deleterious mutations and non-creative natural selection?

Your answer is no.

Buff, I cannot be clearer on this. You have given a definition of ‘macroevolution’ and I agree with it. You were asked for a definition and gave one and then even fine tuned it so as to clarify it so that there was no doubt in anyone’s mind what you meant.

I agree with it. I concur. I accept it. I assent. It gets my tick of approval.

So now we both agree on a definition of macroevolution. And using that definition we can agree that it has ocurred. These are your words we are using. Your definition. You have been quoted directly. It’s there for all to see.

Now, having agreed to that, can you give us some idea of the process as you understand it actually happened? Timelines and such?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

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.

What you have done, and always have done, is try to deny evolution without at any point giving your explanation as to how the process happened. So now you are being asked what your answer is.

You have never given it so here’s your opportunity. Rather than this one sided discussion where people attempt to explain what evolution is and you attempt to pick holes in it, here’s the chance to put forward your side of the story.

If not evolution then…?

Or do we get the crickets again?

 

[Pattylt]

So, @buffalo, the fossil record doesn’t show any pure archetypes and you are looking at the genetic record for it…but haven’t found it yet thus having basically no evidence for your hypothesis. Then you reject evolutions actual evidence because it isn’t what you want to find. I’m sure once you find it you’ll be thrilled and can point fingers at our foolishness.

Until then, you have an hypothesis with no evidence. Perhaps I’ll wait a bit before accepting IDvolution…it seems to be going nowhere so far.

 

[Freddy]

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.

That’s your definition of ‘macroevolution’: 'a degrading lineage splitting leading to extinction…’ which is a direct quote. Let’s not confuse Patty by mixing up the two.

Any chance of that timeline yet?

 

[rossum]

So they are all equal?

Gods are reincarnated humans. Humans are reincarnated gods. No, not all gods are equal any more than all humans are equal.

Apply your questions to humans, and that is the answer for Buddhist gods as well.

 

[o_mlly]

What you always have done …
You have never given …

Sounds a bit desperate like the typical adolescent argument gives when they have no real argument. Is your worldview at risk here? Mine is not.

So, rather than reply to another one of your straw man posts, I remind you of your own direction as to the issue at hand:

The main question is … check the op.

OK. I did. I answered @DictatorCzar’s questions . You did not. So, take your own advice and answers the OP’s specific questions as I directed you to several posts ago. Your selective kibitzing privileges are removed until you do so.

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.

Or do we get the crickets again?

Thanks for pointing the silent cricket problem out.

The “cross dressing” crickets in the Hawaii Islands baffle evolutionary scientists. Once again @buffalo is vindicated. The study shows that natural selection only reduces functions and does not create new genes. The probable outcome for these crickets silenced by natural selection is extinction.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/061201_quietcrickets

If natural selection always optimized populations, we might expect wing-rubbing behavior to be reduced in populations with lots of silent males. But when biologists studied the crickets, that’s not what they found. Males furiously scraped just the same, whether or not their wings produced any noise. This example highlights the limits of natural selection: it does not act instantaneously and it cannot act at all unless genetic variation for a more or less advantageous trait is present in the population.

 

[o_mlly]

Gods are reincarnated humans. …

Embodied gods? Can we get some DNA?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

What you always have done …
You have never given …

Sounds a bit desperate like the typical adolescent argument gives when they have no real argument. Is your worldview at risk here? Mine is not.

So, rather than reply to another one of your straw man posts, I remind you of your own direction as to the issue at hand:

The main question is … check the op.

OK. I did. I answered @DictatorCzar’s questions . You did not. So, take your own advice and answers the OP’s specific questions as I directed you to several posts ago.

The op is concerned as to whether there will be an answer to the question: Evolution or creationism.

I’ve been doing my level best to explain the reason why evolution is accepted as the only viable process whereby we have reached this point in time.

You obviously reject evolution. So is it an either/or question as far as you are concerned? We have absolutely no idea. Because you never proffer an alternative. Not even creationism. Do you have nothing to offer at all? Will it all be a negative (name removed by moderator)ut as it was at the end of the last post?

 

[o_mlly]

You obviously reject evolution.

You obviously do not read my posts. Another strawman. Use the quote facility to back up your claim or withdraw it.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

You obviously reject evolution.

You obviously do not read my posts. Another strawman. Use the quote facility to back up your claim or withdraw it.

Oh, please. You reject any attempt by anyone who tries to explain any meaningful understanding of the process:

There has never been a positive mutation witnessed by anyone, which is needed for macroevolution to occur.

A rejection of ‘macroevolution’ means the theory is virually non existant. You are left with nothing but minor changes at the species level (although Buff accepts this as actually being evidence of macroevolution) and renders the concept of a common ancestor meaningless.

Which again leads to the question: How on earth do you think the process works? Give us some details. Proffer a timeline. State your position.

 

[rossum]

Embodied gods? Can we get some DNA?

Try DNA sequencing the dried blood on the Turin Shroud. Aren’t there some Crown of Thorns relics around in various churches? You might be able to get DNA from blood on them as well.

 

[lelinator]

Sounds a bit desperate like the typical adolescent argument gives when they have no real argument. Is your worldview at risk here? Mine is not.

I’m with @Freddy on this one. You haven’t really told us what your alternative theory is. @buffalo has at least given us a broad outline of a theory, in that there were at some point in the past a set of archetypal examples of the species that exist today, but those archetypal examples have long since gone extinct. However this theory leads to a couple of puzzling questions. I.E…where’s the fossil evidence for these archetypal examples, and perhaps even more puzzling, where are the archetypal examples themselves? Because why would they have gone extinct if all mutations thereof are deleterious to survival, and lead inevitably to extinction?

Reason would seem to suggest that if the archetypal examples were truly the most fit, then they should still be around today.

So @buffalo’s theory…at least to me…has a couple of obvious holes. But perhaps your theory is better. We just can’t tell, because we don’t know what it is.