Evolution

[Donald45]

Science recognizes no God and the theory of evolution, as presented, is self-starting and self-generating. It requires no supernatural interference to operate.

From a strictly scientific standpoint, does the physical process of, say, plant photosynthesis “require a supernatural interference to operate”?

Gaudium de veritate,

Don
+T+

 

[edwest2]

From a strictly scientific standpoint, does the physical process of, say, plant photosynthesis “require a supernatural interference to operate”?

Gaudium de veritate,

Don
+T+

Hi Donald,

There are two types of evolution. One, that supposedly happened millions of years ago and is not observable.

Then, there is genetics, which concerns things currently alive, including plants. Living things are observable and can be studied scientifically. It has been possible to isolate some genes from dead things but that is not evidence of change over time, especially the kind of change that would allow gills to become lungs.

The past, especially millions of years ago, was not observed by anyone. This leaves conjecture. When that conjecture is formed into a belief system, I need to point it out.

Again, I’d like to repeat that if I had all the parts for a bicycle floating in a liquid for a billion years, the odds for correct assembly are virtually zero. This is Probability Theory and it directly applies.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Mersenne]

Hi Donald,

There are two types of evolution. One, that supposedly happened millions of years ago and is not observable.

Then, there is genetics, which concerns things currently alive, including plants. Living things are observable and can be studied scientifically. It has been possible to isolate some genes from dead things but that is not evidence of change over time, especially the kind of change that would allow gills to become lungs.

The past, especially millions of years ago, was not observed by anyone. This leaves conjecture. When that conjecture is formed into a belief system, I need to point it out.

I suppose atoms are conjecture then. No one has ever directly observed them. In fact, no one ever directly observes anything, photons hit our eyes and send signals to our brain that build a picture of what it thinks is going on in the world, but that process is much easier to fool then most people realize, and the information our senses receive is much more limited then most people want to admit.

The reality is that evolution, even the kind that happened millions of years ago, has more evidence supporting it, direct or otherwise, than almost any other scientific theory ever. It is confirmed through an incredible number of different disciplines, and each comes to the exact same conclusions independently, to incredible detail. Morphology, geology, molecular biology, the fossil record, genetics, all reach the same conclusions about what evolved from what. There are tons of transition fossils, we’ve observed new species coming about, what we know about genetics says there is absolutely nothing stopping such large changes from happening over time. If you want more evidence you’re simply being willfully ignorant.

Again, I’d like to repeat that if I had all the parts for a bicycle floating in a liquid for a billion years, the odds for correct assembly are virtually zero. This is Probability Theory and it directly applies.

No one assumes anything remotely similar to this happened. This may be true for bicycle, but life is not a bicycle. Many many many complex organized systems spontaneously self organize. You could fill a large library full of books about it.

 

[edwest2]

I suppose atoms are conjecture then. No one has ever directly observed them. In fact, no one ever directly observes anything, photons hit our eyes and send signals to our brain that build a picture of what it thinks is going on in the world, but that process is much easier to fool then most people realize, and the information our senses receive is much more limited then most people want to admit.

The reality is that evolution, even the kind that happened millions of years ago, has more evidence supporting it, direct or otherwise, than almost any other scientific theory ever. It is confirmed through an incredible number of different disciplines, and each comes to the exact same conclusions independently, to incredible detail. Morphology, geology, molecular biology, the fossil record, genetics, all reach the same conclusions about what evolved from what. There are tons of transition fossils, we’ve observed new species coming about, what we know about genetics says there is absolutely nothing stopping such large changes from happening over time. If you want more evidence you’re simply being willfully ignorant.

No one assumes anything remotely similar to this happened. This may be true for bicycle, but life is not a bicycle. Many many many complex organized systems spontaneously self organize. You could fill a large library full of books about it.

I disagree. No one knows how the first cell formed or how it stayed alive. Are you stating life came from non-life? If so, can you prove that? Can you name one clearly transitional fossil? If so, what transitional feature did it possess?

Peace,
Ed

 

[Mersenne]

I disagree. No one knows how the first cell formed or how it stayed alive. Are you stating life came from non-life? If so, can you prove that?

What is it that I said that you are disagreeing with?

Can you name one clearly transitional fossil? If so, what transitional feature did it possess?

Transition fossils are fossils of species that are half way between one species and another. We have a number of examples of living transition species, and in fact, the difficulty in defining the difference between a transition and non-transition just shows how full of hot air the creationist position is. There is no solid boundary between species.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

There’s a very small number of examples.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedopenna

There’s a specific example with a number of so called “transition features”

Another great example comes from one of creationist’s silliest argument “what good is half an eye.” We actually have a number of examples of species in various stages of development of the eye. There are species living and dead, that simply have photo sensitive cells, species with a lens over the sensitive cells, species that have a slight ability to focus and point that lens, up to the more complex eyes we have, and even beyond. There are species that have dramatically more advanced eyes then we have, capable of seeing the polarization of light and such.

 

[edwest2]

I think it would be more accurate to say there are different kinds of eyes. Some are simple, some are more complex. I’m sure they work fine for the creatures that have them.

The coelocanth has a simple muscle around an artery that pumps blood and it is alive today. To say it is ‘primitive’ compared to a three chamber heart says nothing about the fact that it is functional and useful as designed.

Peace,
Ed