Gaps in Evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter SoulBeaver
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
As for an additional point on your video - for just about everyone of the scientific achievements they can be applied in an evil manner.
The five major religions of the world, in order of their appearance on the scene, are Hinduism, traditional Chinese folk religion, Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam. These five religions have approximately 4.85 billion adherents, representing an estimated 71.3 percent of the world’s population in 2007, and they have been around for a collective 11,600 years. During the vast majority of those 116 centuries, the world has not been in any danger of extinction from weapons of any kind, nor has the human race been in serious danger of dying out from pollution, global warming, overpopulation, or anything else. Despite 116 centuries filled with hundreds, if not thousands, of diverse religions, all competing for mindshare, resources, and dominance, the species has not merely survived, it has thrived. There is no aspect of Hindu teaching that has produced a means of potentially extinguishing Mankind. The occasional eleventh-century rampages by the Sohei of Mount Hiei notwithstanding, Buddhism provides no method of destroying the planet, while Christians have been waiting patiently for the world to end for nearly 2,000 years now without doing much to immanentize the eschaton except for occasionally footing the bill for Jews making aliyah. Islam, for all the danger it supposedly presents, has not produced a significant military technology since Damascene steel was developed in the twelfth century and even that is of nebulous connection to the religion itself.

Modern science has only been around for the last 350 years, if we date the scientific method back to the man known as the Father of Science, Galileo Galilei …In the last sixty years, science has produced a veritable witches’ brew of potential dangers to the human race, ranging from atom-shattering explosive devices to lethal genetic modifications, designer diseases, large quantities of radioactive waste and even, supposedly, the accidental production of mini black holes and strangelets through particle collider experiments.4

So, in only 3 percent of the time that religion has been on the scene, science has managed to produce multiple threats to continued human existence. Moreover, the quantity and lethal quality of those threats appear to be accelerating, as the bulk of them have appeared in the most recent sixth of the scientific era … it is Science, not Faith, that is the factor in the equation that presents a deadly danger to Mankind.

This is true of both the military and non-military threats to humanity. While the jury is still out on the precise nature of the threat caused by global warming, there can be no doubt that the scientific method is at least in part responsible for it, along with the threats supposedly posed by overpopulation, pollution, and genetic engineering. Religion simply cannot be held accountable for any of those things, not even overpopulation. What could be more absurd than to claim that the Bahá’í are in some way responsible for any damage to humanity caused by CERN’s Large Hadron Collider? Not even the most militant New Atheist would dare to set himself up for public ridicule that way. And yet, making religious faith the significant variable in the Extinction Equation is no less ludicrous.

However, the guilt of scientody does not mean that the profession of science can be held entirely blameless. The fact that it was the method that made the development of these threats possible does not indicate that their development via the method was inevitable. It was scientists who freely made the choice to develop these theories and, in many cases, the weapons, sometimes in innocence, like Alfred Nobel7 being stunned to learn that his blasting cap and smokeless explosives would cause him to be remembered as “the merchant of death,” and sometimes in full cognizance of their moral culpability, as in the case of Albert Einstein’s8 1939 letter to President Roosevelt written in the hopes of encouraging F.D.R. to build an atomic bomb.

It is not the combination of religion and science, then, but rather the combination of scientists and the scientific method that has created this panoply of mortal dangers to Mankind.
The Irrational Atheist - Vox Day p. 44
 
So you refuse to give me your reasoning for rejecting evolution?
I will post something for you shortly – perhaps something like my top 50 reasons for rejecting evolutionary theory. It will take a while to compile – but I’ll get it done.
 
I will post something for you shortly – perhaps something like my top 50 reasons for rejecting evolutionary theory. It will take a while to compile – but I’ll get it done.
Sounds fun, 50 myths and half truths to dispel!
 
“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies – in a final sense – a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children… This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the threatening cloud of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.”

From the address of President Eisenhower to the American Society of Newspaper Editors in April 1953, and taken from the book Storm Warning by Billy Graham.

Peace,
Ed
 
So let us move on to the reasons why I hold that the mind is grounded in the physical brain - and it’s very simple. First of all it is clear that that the brain is necessary for the operation of the mind. No demonstration of a mind working independently of a physical brain has even been made. Furthermore, things that affect the brain - trauma, drugs, hormones, disease, etc, fundamentally affect the operation of the mind (and everything that makes us what we are - personality, intelligence, consciousness, discernment, free will). Secondly, there is absolutely no reason to think that the brain is not sufficient for the operation of the mind. Your examples of arguments to show that the mind must have an non-physical basis are wrong, and I know of no other good arguments in support of the notion that the brain is an insufficient basis for the mind.

To summarise: the brain is indisputably necessary for the existence of the mind; and there is no reason to think that it is not sufficient.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
Hi Alec,

I do agree with your statement: “First of all it is clear that that the brain is necessary for the operation of the mind.” Not only is the brain necessary for the operation of the mind but for every part of the body. Awake Brain Surgery is an excellent example of the importance of each part of the brain. Considering just the one category of medical technology, we stand in awe at the sufficiency of the brain. What is rather interesting is that our own brains can conceive of other brains going further and further in understanding how our own brains operate in the presence of tumors/disease.

In addition, you hold that the mind is grounded in the physical brain… and you point out that things that affect the brain - trauma, drugs, hormones, disease, etc, fundamentally affect the operation of the mind (and everything that makes us what we are - personality, intelligence, consciousness, discernment, free will).

All of this sounds to me, like a description of the mind and brain being different yet intimately united. Is the mind calling the shots and the brain and body responding?
Since we agree that the physical brain is necessary for the operation of the mind, does the operating mind exist separately from the now-known physical parts of the brain which operate bodily movements?

Blessings,
granny

All human beings are worthy of profound respect.
 
Sounds fun, 50 myths and half truths to dispel!
I think it’s more like “50 criticisms to dismiss”.

You are already certain about what I’m going to say before I’ve said anything – and thus, biased in defense of evolution.

I’ve seen enough “dispelling” of arguments against evolution in my many discussions here and on other webboards. Given your comment above, it’s very easy for me to predict what you’ll say, since you’ve judged my views already.

We have an evolutionist here on CAF who claims that there are “no flaws in the theory of evolution”. This means, even when evolutionary scientists admit problems, and refute their own prior claims and offer speculations based on nothing but ignorance – all of this is just “the way science works” and none can be considered a flaw or problem in any way.

It’s clear that you take the same, very common, attitude towards evolution. Its a sacred doctrine which cannot be criticized at all. Contradictions, illogic and outright frauds are dismissed as being “all a part of science”.

With that in mind, I can’t see any common ground upon which to build a discussion. You maintain dogmatic certainty about evolution – as most Darwinists do. When it comes to your Catholic Faith, however, you dissent against the teachings of the Church – unwilling to give Catholic doctrine the same trust that you give to evolutionary theorists.

That’s pretty much the way the game is played. I’ve been there too many times already and I can’t see where you’ll be able to add anything to my knowledge.

If I want Darwinist rhetoric I can read Pharyingula or Talk Origins any day.
So, to re-answer your prior question – yes, I do refuse to discuss this issue with you since it’s clear that you’re not open to or interested in my views on this topic.
 
I think it’s more like “50 criticisms to dismiss”.

You are already certain about what I’m going to say before I’ve said anything – and thus, biased in defense of evolution.

I’ve seen enough “dispelling” of arguments against evolution in my many discussions here and on other webboards. Given your comment above, it’s very easy for me to predict what you’ll say, since you’ve judged my views already.

We have an evolutionist here on CAF who claims that there are “no flaws in the theory of evolution”. This means, even when evolutionary scientists admit problems, and refute their own prior claims and offer speculations based on nothing but ignorance – all of this is just “the way science works” and none can be considered a flaw or problem in any way.

It’s clear that you take the same, very common, attitude towards evolution. Its a sacred doctrine which cannot be criticized at all. Contradictions, illogic and outright frauds are dismissed as being “all a part of science”.

With that in mind, I can’t see any common ground upon which to build a discussion. You maintain dogmatic certainty about evolution – as most Darwinists do. When it comes to your Catholic Faith, however, you dissent against the teachings of the Church – unwilling to give Catholic doctrine the same trust that you give to evolutionary theorists.

That’s pretty much the way the game is played. I’ve been there too many times already and I can’t see where you’ll be able to add anything to my knowledge.

If I want Darwinist rhetoric I can read Pharyingula or Talk Origins any day.
So, to re-answer your prior question – yes, I do refuse to discuss this issue with you since it’s clear that you’re not open to or interested in my views on this topic.
If you believe your arguments are scientifically valid, why does it matter what I’m predisposed to? If I reject a valid argument, wouldn’t that reveal my blindness?
 
… a work in progress …
  1. Ambiguity
evolutionary theory is extraordinarily pliable. Evolutionary theory adapts to data like fog adapts to landscape. It is really just a smorgasbord of countless possible naturalistic explanations that theorists effortlessly adapt to the data. – Walter James ReMine, The Biotic Message
  1. Lack of trust in the evolutionary-science community
Frauds, cover-ups, double-talk
Jerry Coyne admits that evolutionists lie to get funding
Exaggerated claims, outright errors, “facts” which are not, bias, agenda-driven
70+% of evolutionists are atheistic or agnostic
  1. The Missing Link
  2. Stasis
  3. Saltations
  4. Insects
  5. Evolution of carnivorous plants
  6. Origin of DNA
  7. Substitution of Micro-evolution for proofs of Macro-evolution (Molecules to man proven by finch beak adaptations)
  8. The Tree of Life
  9. Just So Stories
  10. Charles Darwin’s personal agenda
  11. The uselessness of evolutionary theory
  12. Complexity versus Time
  13. Exclusion of Origin of Life from Evolution
  14. Darwin’s Failed Predictions
  15. The Ontological Leap
  16. Language, music, free-will, imagination, mathematics, rational thought, truth
  17. The size of the human brain and capability of consciousness is far more than is necessary for survival
  18. Irreducibly complex systems
  19. Lack of mathematical precision
  20. Evolutionary psychology
  21. Chemical and cosmic evolution
  22. Social Darwinism
  23. Slow, gradual changes and the fossil record
  24. Unicellular to multicellular life
  25. Massive complexity already exists in the simplest organism (refuting simple-to-complex)
  26. Convergent evolution
  27. Animal instincts
  28. Origin of sexual reproduction - (jump from asexual to male-female)
  29. Teleology
  30. The tautology of natural selection
  31. Mutations and necessary innovations
  32. Evolution as defined in textbooks claims man is an accident
  33. Nature gives the overwhelming appearance of having been designed – Richard Dawkins
  34. Eyes evolving independently in non-ancestral organisms
  35. Biological universals which should not exist
  36. No source for increase in genetic information in cells
  37. Defensive, hostile, posturing against criticisms
  38. This essay
  39. Mutations cause a loss of functionality and loss of features
  40. Wings (birds, bats, insects)
  41. The Species Problem
 
If you believe your arguments are scientifically valid, why does it matter what I’m predisposed to?
Because it’s a waste of time to try to discuss matters with such a person.
If I reject a valid argument, wouldn’t that reveal my blindness?
If your blindness is revealed, it’s of no benefit at all to me. Again, I can argue with atheists and Darwinists all day long on many sites on the web.

This is Catholic site – and uniquely oriented to evangelization and apologetics.
If you’re interested in scientific debates – why not find some scientists on a site oriented towards biology and debate with them?
 
Because it’s a waste of time to try to discuss matters with such a person.
Want pointless? Try debating someone who will, with a mountain of evidence in front of them, say well you can’t KNOW for sure that you’re right. That’s where the creation vs. evolution debate stands.
If your blindness is revealed, it’s of no benefit at all to me. Again, I can argue with atheists and Darwinists all day long on many sites on the web.
You don’t want to better your fellow man by dispelling the big bad myth of evolution?
This is Catholic site – and uniquely oriented to evangelization and apologetics.
If you’re interested in scientific debates – why not find some scientists on a site oriented towards biology and debate with them?
I’m not the one who made the thread.

I’m about to hop off and stay off for the next 24 hours or so- I’ll take a closer look at your list when I get back. Obviously I might need some clarification on certain points. (i.e. “insects”)
 
You don’t want to better your fellow man by dispelling the big bad myth of evolution?
Again, I’m not a scientist.
If my fellow man will not take an interest in the numerous books and essays criticising evolution from those who are expert or credentialed in the field, I can be very sure how they will respond to my views (which are a synthesis of what I’ve read – not of original research or lab-work).
I’ve read hundreds of pro-evolutionary posts on this site and others so I’m very familiar with the typical responses.
 
I will post something for you shortly – perhaps something like my top 50 reasons for rejecting evolutionary theory. It will take a while to compile – but I’ll get it done.
Hi Reggi,

I’m curious about your number 29. “Convergent evolution” in your list on post 985. The following definition is from www.evolution.berkeley.com “Process in which two distinct lineages evolve a similar characteristic independently of one another. This often occurs because both lineages face similar environmental challenges and selective pressures.”

Would you mind posting your favorite link about the aspects of convergent evolution?
Thank you.

Blessings,
granny

All human life owes life to the Creator.
 
I’d like to make a few comments here about your claims regarding the mind
I assume you mean “the Mind cannot arise from a strictly physical ground, ie the brain”. It is obvious that the mind itself is not physical (almost by definition, otherwise we wouldn’t have the mind-body problem), just as pain is not a physical entity itself although it arises from physical or material processes - the question is whether the mind is grounded in the physical world - is it an epiphenomenon of physical processes? Alec
evolutionpages.com
Being a bear of little brain, I need to ask you what do you mean by the mind-body problem above?

Also, when speaking about the mind as an epiphenomenon of physical processes --is that the same as saying: Evolution takes place in living organisms; therefore, all parts of living organisms have evolved.

Blessings,
granny

The quest is worthy of the adventures of the journey.
 
If your going to write these all out i can save you some time by getting rid of a few of them…

3. The Missing Link There are plenty of transitional fossils.
  1. Stasis
  2. Saltations
  3. Insects
  4. Evolution of carnivorous plants
9. Origin of DNA Not evolution.
  1. Substitution of Micro-evolution for proofs of Macro-evolution (Molecules to man proven by finch beak adaptations)
  2. The Tree of Life
  3. Just So Stories
  4. Charles Darwin’s personal agenda
    **
  5. The uselessness of evolutionary theory** Nonsense, but even if it were true, it has no bearing on the theory.
  6. Complexity versus Time
16. Exclusion of Origin of Life from Evolution becuase the origin of life IS NOT EVOLUTION. A theory descirbes a set of facts. The origin of life IS NOT contained within the set.

17. Darwin’s Failed Predictions Not sure what predictions you mean, but evolution is not the same as it was 150 years ago. Stick to what we know today, there are lots of things darwin did not know.
  1. The Ontological Leap
19. Language, music, free-will, imagination, mathematics, rational thought, truth Nothing to do with evolution.

20. The size of the human brain and capability of consciousness is far more than is necessary for survival Evoltuon is about the successfulness reproduction. I.E if the genes make bodys that reproduce more successfully then go on to propagate.

21. Irreducibly complex systems Had been debunked countless times.
  1. Lack of mathematical precision
  2. Evolutionary psychology
24. Chemical and cosmic evolution Nothing to do with evolution.

25. Social Darwinism Nothing to do with evolution.
  1. Slow, gradual changes and the fossil record
  2. Unicellular to multicellular life
28. Massive complexity already exists in the simplest organism (refuting simple-to-complex) There is no such thing as simple organisms. Todays bacteria are evolutionary masters that are the product of 4 billion years of evolution.
  1. Convergent evolution
  2. Animal instincts
  3. Origin of sexual reproduction - (jump from asexual to male-female)
  4. Teleology
  5. The tautology of natural selection
  6. Mutations and necessary innovations
    **
  7. Evolution as defined in textbooks claims man is an accident** Not any textbook i have. I would suggest you stop reading kent hovind’s text books.
36. Nature gives the overwhelming appearance of having been designed – Richard Dawkins Quote mine.

37. Eyes evolving independently in non-ancestral organisms PAX6 suggests the eye can be traced back to a common ancestor.

38. Biological universals which should not exist Nothing to do with evolution.

39. No source for increase in genetic information in cells Addition - mutation

40. Defensive, hostile, posturing against criticisms Only someone that did not understand the scientific method could suggest that.
  1. This essay
42. Mutations cause a loss of functionality and loss of features Most mutations do nothing.
  1. Wings (birds, bats, insects)
  2. The Species Problem
I’m looking forward to what you have to say when you expand the above, and i hope i have saved you some typing.
 
I am confident that my mind, which is an epiphenomenon of my physical brain which has evolved, can discern truth about reality because that is the function that it has evolved to have - a brain that did not reasonably accurately represent reality - that acted randomly or capriciously or totally inaccurately would not allow its possessor to survive long enough to reproduce. In other words, I have confidence that my brain/mind represents and interprets reality reasonably accurately, not because it is some sort of magical Platonic entity with supernatural powers, but because my experience is that it works.

Alec
evolutionpages.com
I have confidence in your brain too.🙂

Regarding the statement: “I have confidence that my brain/mind represents and interprets reality reasonably accurately, not because it is some sort of magical Platonic entity with supernatural powers, but because my experience is that it works.”

Is that the same as saying: The physical brain in an animal is sentient regardless of species?

Blessings,
granny,

All living organisms are valuable.
 
Well, two brains represent physical entities similarly - we agree on what is red, what is hot, what is cold, what is bigger or further away than what. It is, after all, the function of brains (and minds) to represent reality with some degree of accuracy - if they didn’t we’d all be dead the first time we tried to cross the street.) Why are abstract concepts different, especially since there is good evidence that abstract thinking is an extension of concrete thinking conducted in a similar mode (see, for example, Steven Pinker’s The Stuff of Thought)?
Alec
evolutionpages.com
This is my final question–for the moment.😃

Actually, it is more of a comment regarding a possible difference of abstract thinking. Growing up in the pre-computer era, I consider that one aspect of abstract thinking is that it often results in some kind of action. 👍

Blessings,
granny

The quest is worth of the adventures of the journey.
 
If your going to write these all out i can save you some time by getting rid of a few of them…

19. Language, music, free-will, imagination, mathematics, rational thought, truth Nothing to do with evolution.
Hi Charles,

You may have to reconsider putting number 19 back on the list. If all those things exist, apparently, where did they come from if not from evolution?

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred from the moment of conception.
 
Hi Charles,

You may have to reconsider putting number 19 back on the list. If all those things exist, apparently, where did they come from if not from evolution?

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred from the moment of conception.
They were created by our evolved brains. Just like the ability to build cars and skyscrapers
 
They were created by our evolved brains. Just like the ability to build cars and skyscrapers
So why are the skyscrapers of evolved ants so small? And why do evolved monkeys swing from branches when driving an air-conditioned car would feel better?

By the way, what did you mean by “ability”? Ants have the ability to house themselves. Monkeys have the ability to look for cooler places to sit.
 
So why are the skyscrapers of evolved ants so small? And why do evolved monkeys swing from branches when driving an air-conditioned car would feel better?

By the way, what did you mean by “ability”? Ants have the ability to house themselves. Monkeys have the ability to look for cooler places to sit.
…because they have less advanced brains. If you want something 100% unique- no animal can craft an object with moving parts
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top