Evolution and Darwin against Religion and God

  • Thread starter Thread starter John121
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I saw Buffalo’s website. In fact, he insisted very strenuously that I look at it.
 
edwest211 said:
I have had a discussion with a person who had more information. He is convinced that the ‘we don’t know’ explanation is nonsense. Like the Planck length.
Click to expand...
Of course its nonsense - because we don’t know. I also think that dark energy is probably nonsense, but it balances the equations and is a useful placeholder while we work out a better explanation.

We don’t know everything, but we know a lot more than we did 100 years ago, or 500 years ago. One thing we know is that the universe is really old. Is it 12 billion years? 14 billion? I don’t know. Maybe one day we will be shocked to learn it is only 6 billion. But I am very sure its not just a couple thousand.
 
You want everyone to be inclusive of your intelligent design beliefs though. Why is that any different?
 
To @buffalo and @edwest211
All theories in science are provisional. Is ID provisional?
Evolution is falsifiable. Is the designer in ID falsifiable? (Can the designer be other than God)?

Thanks.
 
Bradskii said:
I’m not sure why this is turning argumentative. I have explained my position regarding belief in God as accurately as possible. If it concerns you…then so be it.

As regards the article, you will specifically need to detail exactly what ‘any of the claims’ means. Many aspects are debatable. Some atheist scientists and some Christian scientists may well disagree on certain matters. But that would not result in them being ‘fundamentalists’.

Those of a fundamentalist stripe tend to dispute evolution per se. They might quibble over (ahem) micro evolution and claim adaption rather than evolution and demand that ‘kinds’ are a quasi scientific term. They do, it appears (hi Buff and Ed) have beliefs such as great floods and the age of the earth and the universe which can only be described in funamental terms.

And yes, evolution covers more aspects of our existence than it is reasonable for all those interested in it to reach a consensus. Such is science…
Click to expand...
No argument intended, only clarification. My concern (not worry) is that your comment presents an internal contradiction.

Catholics have fundamental beliefs but are not “fundamentalists.”

www.catholic.com

Fundamentalism

Fundamentalism is a relatively new brand of American Protestantism that has attracted a tremendous following, including many fallen away Catholics.
www.catholic.com www.catholic.com

Any of the claims of evolution arrived at by inference rather than evidence are subject to more cogent reasoning and reasonable men may disagree. Macro evolution cannot be micro evolution on steroids because the science has defined specie as the discriminator although the definition’s elasticity leaves much to be desired.
 
o_mlly said:
Macro evolution cannot be micro evolution on steroids
Click to expand...
Yes it can. As little as a single mutation can form a new species, as with my example of crayfish. There is an example of macroevolution among lacewings caused by three mutations, see Tauber and Tauber (1977).

One mutation or three mutations are hardly “on steroids”.
 
o_mlly said:
No argument intended, only clarification. My concern (not worry) is that your comment presents an internal contradiction.

Catholics have fundamental beliefs but are not “fundamentalists.”
Fundamentalism | Catholic Answers

Any of the claims of evolution arrived at by inference rather than evidence are subject to more cogent reasoning and reasonable men may disagree. Macro evolution cannot be micro evolution on steroids because the science has defined specie as the discriminator although the definition’s elasticity leaves much to be desired.
Click to expand...
I’ve no problem in anyone questioning any aspect of evolution they choose. But the fundamentalists to which I refer are those who interpret the bible literally. Six days for creation, talking serpents, a young earth, a global flood etc. They are not questioning science. They are denying any and all aspects of scientific knowledge that contradicts their fundamentalist views. And for that reason only. I mean, do you know anyone at all that maintains a young earth and denies evolution that aren’t fundamentalist Christians?

It may or may not surprise you that at least a couple of the usual suspects also deny global warming, are anti-vaxers and at least one of them think WMDs are still hidden in the sand somewhere. On the evidence so far presented, it wouldn’t surprise me if they doubt the moon landings and collect ufo sightings.

And it’s not science that has decided that speciation is the decisive factor between micro and macro evolution. Because, this is the bit that keeps getting denied, there IS no difference. It’s a non specific accumulation of small changes. Speciation can occur but that is not a recognised line which divides micro and macro.

It’s your fellow travellers who deny that speciation occurs and then class that as macro evolution as opposed to micro changes within each ‘kind’ (stop giggling at the back, please). ‘Kind’ as you know being a biblical term that fundamentalists cling to. So science effectively says: ‘Macro evolution (as you insist on defining it - i.e. speciation) does occur’.

And as rossum has timely pointed out above, even that which would be described as micro evolution by our local fundamentalists can result in speciation.

They’re on a hiding to nothing. So they resort to bending the truth, linking to Youtube for back up, continually restate claims that have already been proved to be false, link to papers and articles that are written on the basis that evolution occurs but which they think supports some obscure view and post quotes out of context.

Incidentally, as an example of the last, check the description of what one web page defines as idvolution: http://www.idvolution.org.

The quote from Penrose has nothing whatsoever to do with anything remotely related to evolution. These guys are your fellow travellers.
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
As little as a single mutation can form a new species, as with my example of crayfish. There is an example of macroevolution among lacewings caused by three mutations, see Tauber and Tauber (1977).
Click to expand...
I had @niceatheists comment in mind for my metaphor “micro evolution on steroids”.
niceatheist said:
Macroevolution is the accumulation of microevolutionary changes in a population. All evolution really is when it comes down to it is “change in the genetic makeup of a population over time.”

The great variety of species now is a product of billions of years of populations evolving incrementally.
Click to expand...
As to the crayfish, the facts are still under dispute in the scientific community.

Lyko’s team concludes the marbled crayfish likely arose from the mating of two slough crayfish from different regions of the world thrown together in an aquarium. …

Schotz isn’t totally persuaded that the genomic pile-up happened inside an aquarium, versus two slough crayfish meeting in the wild. “It is mere speculation that it originated in captivity,” he says. But the analysis of marbled crayfish DNA from across Europe and Africa, he says, ”shows that all these crayfish are clones—with identical genomes the world over.”
Click to expand...
The logic employed to claim a macro evolution event in an aquarium is questionable on two counts. 1) The first time a creature is observed is not necessarily the first time the creature existed, and 2) that these creatures have “identical genomes the world over” makes claiming that all exist as a result of a single event in 1995 difficult to support.
 
Pattylt said:
All theories in science are provisional. Is ID provisional?
Evolution is falsifiable. Is the designer in ID falsifiable? (Can the designer be other than God)?

Thanks.
Click to expand...
ID, the science is provisional

ID, the science says nothing about the designer.

ID, the philosophy would allow other designers.
 
Bradskii said:
The quote from Penrose has nothing whatsoever to do with anything remotely related to evolution. These guys are your fellow travellers.
Click to expand...
The mistake you make it to think the site is only about evolution, though much of it is. It may take a while for you to realize the reason Penrose is quoted.

I will let him speak for himself:

 
rossum said:
Yes it can. As little as a single mutation can form a new species, as with my example of crayfish. There is an example of macroevolution among lacewings caused by three mutations, see Tauber and Tauber (1977).

One mutation or three mutations are hardly “on steroids”.
Click to expand...
These are examples of showing a loss of function once had.
 
buffalo said:
ID, the science says nothing about the designer.
Click to expand...
False. ID says that the designer is intelligent, obviously. By implication the designer must also have existed at some time in the past. I am not sure if ID requires that the designer still exists today or not.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Pattylt:
All theories in science are provisional. Is ID provisional?
Evolution is falsifiable. Is the designer in ID falsifiable? (Can the designer be other than God)?

Thanks.
Click to expand...
ID, the science is provisional

ID, the science says nothing about the designer.

ID, the philosophy would allow other designers.
Click to expand...
Talking of Buffalo and here he is.

I was just talking about your web page and how the description of ‘idvolution’ contains a quote from Penrose which has nothing to donwith evolution. Any answer on why you posted it?

And here’s another. On that very same page you post a link to another quote. Did I mention taking quotes out of context earlier? Anyway, if you open the link, as well as what you have copied and pasted, it also says this (on the very same linked page):

"The Hox clock is a demonstration of the extraordinary complexity of evolution… Even the smallest change would end up leading to the emergence of a new species.”

Say that again? A new species you say? And your definition of ‘idvolution’ links to that quote.
 
rossum said:
False. ID says that the designer is intelligent, obviously. By implication the designer must also have existed at some time in the past. I am not sure if ID requires that the designer still exists today or not.
Click to expand...
I will rephrase. ID, says nothing about who the designer is.
 
buffalo said:
These are examples of showing a loss of function once had.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. They are examples of macroevolution. Evolution can result in a gain of function, a loss of function, both or neither.

There is also a gain of a new function: the ability to interbreed with the new species.
 
Bradskii said:
Say that again? A new species you say? And your definition of ‘idvolution’ links to that quote.
Click to expand...
Indeed. I encourage everyone here to read the linked reference. It demonstrates precision and accuracy.

The DNA strand acts a bit like an old-fashioned computer punchcard, delivering specific instructions as it progressively goes through the machine.

The process discovered at EPFL is shared by numerous living beings, from humans to some kinds of worms, from blue whales to insects. The structure of all these animals – the distribution of their vertebrae, limbs and other appendices along their bodies – is programmed like a sheet of player-piano music by the sequence of Hox genes along the DNA strand.

actu.epfl.ch

From whales to earthworms, the mechanism that gives shape to life

Mice don’t have tails on their backs, and their ribs don’t grow from lumbar vertebrae. And for a good reason. EPFL scientists have discovered the mechanism that determines the shape that many animals take – including humans, blue whales, and insects.
actu.epfl.ch actu.epfl.ch
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
40.png
Bradskii:
The quote from Penrose has nothing whatsoever to do with anything remotely related to evolution. These guys are your fellow travellers.
Click to expand...
The mistake you make it to think the site is only about evolution, though much of it is.
Click to expand...
Poor effort, Buff. You put it on the very page which you say defines idvolution. And the other quote, to which you conveniently link, goes on to say:

"The Hox clock is a demonstration of the extraordinary complexity of evolution… Even the smallest change would end up leading to the emergence of a new species.”

What? New species? Please explain! If you maintain new species don’t evolve, why link to a page ON YOUR OWN WEBSITE that confirms it does?
 
Last edited:
Bradskii said:
"The Hox clock is a demonstration of the extraordinary complexity of evolution… Even the smallest change would end up leading to the emergence of a new species.”

What? New species? Please explain!
Click to expand...
Ponder this for a minute. Really ponder it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top