Evolution and Creationism

[Freddy]

Freddy:

If you want to promote creationism …

Poor Fred. Couldn’t even read the abstract of the book. Ripperger doesn’t even mention “creation” until late in the piece.

You need to follow the conversation. The comment re creationism wasn’t related to the book. It was about the Kolbe centre. The folllowing post was about the book.

No matter. An easy mistake to make. Pity the sarcasm was wasted though.

 

[o_mlly]

The comment re creationism wasn’t related to the book. It was about the Kolbe centre.

Yeah, I got that. The fallacy of guilt by association. We’ve covered that already.

 

[rossum]

Rule number ? : When they ask for evidence of macroevolution just keep giving them more microevolution stuff.

What you don’t have is evidence of macroevolution.

Please read the title of Father Ripperger’s piece. It reads: “The Metaphysical Impossibility of Human Evolution”. It mentions evolution; it does not mention macroevolution. I replied to what Father Ripperger wrote, not to what you mistakenly thought he wrote. He talked about “human evolution”. I showed evidence that humans evolve. Your criticism is misdirected.

Translation: “I have no refuting agruments …”

I do, but that would take us into arguments on Accident and Substance. Buddhism denies the existence of Substance:

The emptiness of emptiness is the fact that not even emptiness exists ultimately, that it is also dependent, conventional, nominal, and in the end it is just the everydayness of the everyday. Penetrating to the depths of being, we find ourselves back on the surface of things and so discover that there is nothing, after all, beneath those deceptive surfaces. Moreover, what is deceptive about them is simply the fact that we assume ontological depth lurking just beneath.

– Jay Garfield

Translation: “I’m a believer in something else … based on panentheism. It’s all a matter of faith to me.”

You are not a Buddhist. Are you seriously trying to tell me what Buddhists believe? Would you like me to explain to you what Christians believe? No, I didn’t think so.

Why would it?

Because science has an explanation for the origin of rabbits. If the Kolbe Center wants to replace science then it also has to have an explanation for the origin of rabbits. Something that you, at least, do not have.

 

[o_mlly]

Please read the title of Father Ripperger’s piece. It reads: “The Metaphysical Impossibility of Human Evolution”. It mentions evolution; it does not mention macroevolution. I replied to what Father Ripperger wrote, not to what you mistakenly thought he wrote. He talked about “human evolution”. I showed evidence that humans evolve. Your criticism is misdirected.

No, the criticism is spot on. In his article, Ripperger does not discriminate between micro and macro but argues against evolution in toto. But in his arguments, one can quickly and easily see that what we call macroevolution is his main point:

Since one species does not have the existence of the essence in itself to be able to confer it to another species, it cannot be the cause of another species/essence. There are two aspects to this consideration.

I do, but that would take us into arguments on Accident and Substance. Buddhism denies the existence of Substance:

If you deny what western philosophy claims as self-evident then there is no path forward.

You are not a Buddhist. Are you seriously trying to tell me what Buddhists believe?

Please re-read what I posted. If Buddhism is not a belief (faith based) system then correct me. I did not tell you what you believe, only that it is based on faith.

Because science has an explanation for the origin of rabbits.

Rabbits evolved from bacteria? The reasoning is false. The evidence is null.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

The comment re creationism wasn’t related to the book. It was about the Kolbe centre.

Yeah, I got that. The fallacy of guilt by association.

Hey, you posted the link to Kolbe. Nobody else. You’re the one that wants us to trust what they say. You can’t tell me to read a creationist site to get the info on what you believe and then complain that I say that I now understand what you believe.

You did what was asked. The colours are now nailed to the mast.

 

[o_mlly]

Hey, you posted the link to Kolbe. Nobody else. You’re the one that wants us to trust what they say.

I posted a link that published an article summarizing a book written in 2012. You are acting quite desperately trying to defame the article based on its venue (Rule #1 again).

You don’t have to trust it, you do have to argue with it. Which apparently you are not capable of as your irrational posts continue to demonstrate. Try reading the article before lurching for the atheist’s playbook.

“Hey, Google books has Ripperger’s book on its site. So, Google too is a creationists website!”

 

[rossum]

In his article, Ripperger does not discriminate between micro and macro but argues against evolution in toto.

Exactly. I showed examples of microevolution in humans. Hence, any supposed refutation of evolution in toto must be incorrect, because a part of evolution – microevolution – has been shown to happen in humans.

If you deny what western philosophy claims as self-evident then there is no path forward.

If you deny what eastern philosophy claims as self-evident then there is no path forward. We would be arguing from different premises.

Rabbits evolved from bacteria? The reasoning is false. The evidence is null.

The evidence is available. The reasoning is supported by the evidence, unlike Father Ripperger’s reasoning.

 

[o_mlly]

Exactly. I showed examples of microevolution in humans. Hence, any supposed refutation of evolution in toto must be incorrect, because a part of evolution – microevolution – has been shown to happen in humans.

Good heavens, Darwin did not discover that simple observation. No reasonable person argues that creatures do not adapt to their environment (microevolution). Men have been breeding animals for millennia. (Did you know that the Egyptian mummified cats look just like the cats of today.) Darwinian evolution means origin of species (the name of his book, right?). Ripperger does not argue against adaptation but against speciation as shown in my citation.

The evidence is available. The reasoning is supported by the evidence, unlike Father Ripperger’s reasoning.

No, the evidence is not available and it is not Fr. Ripperger’s reasoning but the reasoning of western civilization since Aristotle.

As to the incoherence of the Buddhist philosophy from a western perspective:

The nature of things is to have no nature; it is their non-nature that is their nature. For they have only one nature: no-nature (Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna).

As an example of the abhorrence of denying the principle of non-contradiction, a high orthodoxy in the West for more than 2,000 years, we have Avicenna, the father of Medieval Aristotelianism, declaring:

Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned.

Yes, no path forward.
.

 

[rossum]

No reasonable person argues that creatures do not adapt to their environment (microevolution).

In a previous post you told me that Father Ripperger had disproved evolution “in toto”. Now you are telling me that “no reasonable person” argues against microevolution. The logical consequence of those two statements is that Father Ripperger is not a reasonable person.

Either you are discrediting your own source as not reasonable, or you are not thinking carefully enough about what you are posting and how it links in with your previous posts. I am inclined to think that Father Ripperger is reasonable. At least he appears not to contradict himself on a quick read.

No, the evidence is not available

Your source is grossly misinforming you. The evidence is available and there is a great deal of it. Why do you trust a source that lies to you? Do you deny the existence of Archaeopteryx fossils? They are evidence. Do you deny the existence of Tiktaalik fossils? They are evidence. Evidence exists and is available.

As to the incoherence of the Buddhist philosophy from a western perspective:

That subject is better dealt with in the non-Catholic religions forum I think.

 

[Techno2000]

(Did you know that the Egyptian mummified cats look just like the cats of today.)

And, insects trapped in so-called millions of years old amber look just like the insects we have today.

 

[o_mlly]

In a previous post you told me that Father Ripperger had disproved evolution “ in toto ”. Now you are telling me that “no reasonable person” argues against microevolution. The logical consequence of those two statements is that Father Ripperger is not a reasonable person.

No, it does not follow. I cited how the word evolution as used by the author but you choose to ignore it. I repeat it with my emphases in hopes you may better digest it: "Without a doubt, this principle is the most violated among evolutionary theorists. Since one species does not have the existence of the essence in itself to be able to confer it to another species, it cannot be the cause of another species/essence." (Note, the author does not write “macroevolutionary theorists”.)

Your source is grossly misinforming you. The evidence is available and there is a great deal of it. Why do you trust a source that lies to you? Do you deny the existence of Archaeopteryx fossils? They are evidence. Do you deny the existence of Tiktaalik fossils? They are evidence. Evidence exists and is available.

Resorting to polemics? Your fossils above do not evidence macroevolution. Argue that they do; merely claiming so does not work in this forum.

Your annually reported evidences of macroevolution, 1) the marbled crayfish was refuted at Geneticists unravel secrets of super-invasive crayfish

Lyko speculates …

The species might even have emerged in the wild. “The fact that natural marbled-crayfish populations have not been found in the wild does not mean that they do not exist,” he says.

and https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/356170v2.full

However, the marbled crayfish could also have originated somewhere in the native range of P. fallax by spontaneous autotriploidy. An individual of this mutant population could unintentionally have been brought to Germany, where parthenogenesis was detected.

and 2) lacewings at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1985.tb00441.x

The fact that the two species interbreed fairly freely in the laboratory makes this approach possible.

The potential to interbreed has been demonstrated in the lab …

I’m sure you’ll recall your definition of species but since memory is apparently a problem (it has been a long thread), I repost:

… biology defines a species as members of a population that actually or potentially interbreeds in nature

That subject is better dealt with in the non-Catholic religions forum I think.

I agree.

 

[rossum]

No, it does not follow.

Here is your earlier post:

In his article, Ripperger does not discriminate between micro and macro but argues against evolution in toto.

Here is your later post:

No reasonable person argues that creatures do not adapt to their environment (microevolution).

Your attempt at evasion of the logical consequence of your statements are useless. You have made a very obvious error in not thinking of your earlier statement before posting the later statement. Rather than admit your error you attempt to dodge and evade. That is not a good look, especially in science. Scientists do sometimes make errors, and when their errors are pointed out they are expected to admit them. For example, where some “faster than light” neutrinos were detected by the OPERA team, the researchers responsible located their errors and corrected them.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Hey, you posted the link to Kolbe. Nobody else. You’re the one that wants us to trust what they say.

I posted a link that published an article summarizing a book written in 2012.

You posted a link to an article and you expect us to accept what the guy says. The article was written by a creationist and it was published on the web page of a creationst site.

Ripperger has also been involved in other matters concerning the Kolbe Centre for the Study of Creationism. One being the DVD set ‘Foundations Restored’ which is their go-to handy source for all those who wish to learn about creationism - a true bargain at $99.99! Buy now while stocks last!

Here’s some info from the intro:

‘The Catholic church has consistently taught that God created all things for manking at the beginning of time, less than ten thousand years ago.’

I note that they don’t want to tie it down too tightly. ‘Less than’ 10,000 years to give them some wiggle room. And some reviews for you:

“How good is this? I’ve long had problems accepting the “6,000 year” biblical history. I don’t, anymore.”

“It is such a relief, after all these years of ‘de-volution’ to know that what we were taught by the nuns so many years ago: that the book of Genesis is a true account of creation, is actually true.”

And one of the experts they used to produce this creationist nonsense? None other than the author of your linked article… Fr. Chad Ripperger. Nice picture of him on the dvd web site.
https://foundationsrestored.com/

As I said, you’ve nailed your colours to the mast.

 

[Trifleton]

We pretty much know evolution is true. It is very well supported.

But there are at least 4 transitions which evolution does not, and cannot, account for:

The transition from non-life to living organisms. Remember, abiogenesis and evolution are very different things. There is currently no good theory of abiogenesis and no good evidence; at best there is only a series of speculations, some more interesting than others. I am convinced the conceptual problems with abiogenesis are too great, however; it seems life is an irreducible perfection that goes beyond transitive causation and includes immanent causality, metabolism, etc.

The transition from non-reproducing to reproducing organisms. Evolution seems to presuppose reproduction to work as an explanation, and it can also be argued that reproduction is an irreducible perfection.

The next two I am much more confident that evolution cannot even possibly explain:

The transition from non-conscious beings to conscious beings. The famous hard problem of consciousness.

And the transition from non-rational beings to rational beings capable of engaging in reason, grasping universal and determinate concepts, etc.

I believe a very strong case can be made that Divine Intervention was required for these four stages.

As far as Adam and Eve goes, I strongly recommend the work of dr. Joshua Swamidass.

 

[Freddy]

We pretty much know evolution is true. It is very well supported.

But there are at least 4 transitions which evolution does not, and cannot, account for:

As you say, evolution is not concerned with abiogenesis so we should skip that.

As to moving from life to reproduction, reproduction is one of the generally accepted criteria for life. So we can’t move from one onwards to the other. If you have life, then you must have reproduction.

From non consciousness to consciousness, and likewise from there to what you describe as rational behaviour, is just a matter of degree. If half of all living things were not conscious and the other half were, then you’d have a point. But they’re not so you don’t. There’s a gradual increase in what we might descibe as consciousness throughout all life. From bacteria through insects to us - it’s not a light switch that is either on or off (pretty much with life itself come to mention it).

The same with rationality. It’s not the case that you have it or you don’t. So if we can see this gradual increase in both in nature then I see no problem in accepting that it evolved gradually.

To use an example, follow your line of descent waaaay back. We can assume you are rational now. But was your great great etc g’father (who was some kind of ape) as rational as you? Was there a point in your line of descent when rationality was just switched on? No. It evolved.

 

[o_mlly]

You have made a very obvious error …

Grabbing at straws to save face?

The title of the article is, The Metaphysical Impossibility of Human Evolution.

The title is not, The Metaphysical Impossibility of Human MacroEvolution.

Nor is the title , The Metaphysical possibility of Human MicroEvolution.

The title does not discriminate evolution as macro or micro. In the text the author, in complete agreement with my many posts, states and clarifies the difference:

This variation within a species is sometimes called microevolution. Hence, we see that microevolution is possible, while macroevolution is not.

You say that your Buddhist philosophy allows you to avoid the self-evident first principles of western philosophy. However, you do not explain how one can both ascribe to Buddhist philosophy and evolution theory. I do not claim to know Buddhist philosophy but it appears the philosophy does not affirm the necessary presumption for all science: nature is intelligible and displays a regularity such that the causes of observed effects can be known. Rather the article below shows the philosophy denies the principle of contradiction and the excluded middle. ?

This has led some to wonder whether the Buddha does not employ a deviant logic. Such suspicions are strengthened by those cases where the options are not two but four, cases of the so-called tetralemma ( catuṣkoṭi ). For instance, when the Buddha is questioned about the post-mortem status of the enlightened person or arhat (e.g., at M I.483–8) the possibilities are listed as: (1) the arhat continues to exist after death, (2) does not exist after death, (3) both exists and does not exist after death, and (4) neither exists nor does not exist after death. When the Buddha rejects both (1) and (2) we get a repetition of ‘neither the same nor different’. But when he goes on to entertain, and then reject, (3) and (4) the logical difficulties are compounded. Since each of (3) and (4) appears to be formally contradictory, to entertain either is to entertain the possibility that a contradiction might be true. And their denial seems tantamount to affirmation of excluded middle, which is prima facie incompatible with the denial of both (1) and (2). Buddha (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

You claim to believe both Buddhist philosophy and evolution theory. How is that possible?

 

[o_mlly]

You posted a link to an article and you expect us to accept what the guy says.

Fred, you’re too easy – almost taking all the fun out of replying to your inane posts. Well, almost all the fun.

Did you read the article? It appears not. The article is not an op-ed piece. It’s a detailed argument. Now, you can argue with its claims, if you can. Try doing that. It would lift you up as a credible contributor to the thread instead of affirming your S4 ranking.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

You posted a link to an article and you expect us to accept what the guy says.

Fred, you’re too easy – almost taking all the fun out of replying to your inane posts. Well, almost all the fun.

Did you read the article? It appears not. The article is not an op-ed piece. It’s a detailed argument. Now, you can argue with its claims, if you can. Try doing that. It would lift you up as a credible contributor to the thread instead of affirming your S4 ranking.

Yeah. It’s a detailed argument for creationism. For a planet that’s ‘less than 10,000 years old’.

Now you may be different, but me…I tend to talk to people (and read what they’ve written) with whom I have some basis for an argument. That is, whatever they say might contradict what I believe but may be true so I want to know why they think what they think.

Consequently I don’t join forums where they discuss aliens living amongst us or flat earth theorists. And you’ll find that I don’t discuss (or haven’t for quite sometime) people on this forum who would like to discuss, for example, Noah’s arc. It would be a waste of my time discussing flight characteristics of alien spacecraft or what’s wrong with orbital mechanics from a flat earth perspective. Neither am I interested in discussing the benefits of gopher wood for building boats.

Now if Ripperger was making a case for divine creation at the point of the big bang (I’ll actually be responding to IWantGod on another thread in a few minutes on that exact matter), then I might read what he had to write in case it was something I hadn’t come across before. But he ain’t. His planet is a few thousand years old…

Consequently there is absolutely nothing his views have in common with mine. Literally nothing. The very basis for the way he views the world is so far removed from mine that it would be a waste of my time reading whatever he might have to say. I class it with alien landings and flat earther’s. And, I have to say, you are now in the same boat.

I’ll still read what you write if it’s in a thread in which I am interested. But granting your views on evolution any validity whatsoever, now I know you are a creationist, isn’t going to happen. That obviously applies to Ripperger as well.

 

[rossum]

The title of the article is, The Metaphysical Impossibility of Human Evolution .

Indeed it was. I showed that humans evolved by giving examples of humans evolving, such as lactase persistence. That is just one of many examples of humans evolving, so Father Ripperger’s conclusion is incorrect. Evolution includes both micro- and macro- so a demonstration of microevolution in humans refutes the article.

I do not claim to know Buddhist philosophy

Then you would do well to avoid discussion of the subject.

• Is a chessboard black? No it is not.
• Is a chessboard white? No it is not.
• Is a chessboard both black and white? Yes it is.
• Is a chessboard neither black nor white? No it is not.

Now apply those same four question to the wind instead of a chessboard.

 

[o_mlly]

Yeah. It’s a detailed argument for creationism …

Still haven’t read the article, I see.

I’ll summarize your 321 word post that explains why Ripperger got it wrong in just 3, “I got nothin’”.

And its rational corollary, “I’m outa here”. So long.