Has science falsified macroevolution?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Orogeny
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Charles_Darwin said:
This is fundamentally wrong. If god was reusing code he would not be bound to sets. He could reuse any of the designed code NOT just the code that fits the sets. Why would god not reused the gills code on whales?
Click to expand...
If God reused the gills code on whales, you could claim that as evidence against design as well. Whales supposedly went back into the water and re-evolved gills from code that was retained from days when they were fish.

Again, the theory is so pliable that anything can be proven. Your task is to prove that natural selection and mutations did it and that this also requires an entirely materalistic-atheistic view of the origin and development of nature.

Again, why you cut the origin of life out of your explanation is interesting also. You’re claiming an atheistic worldview, so OOL has to be a part of it, and it’s intimately connected with all of your evolutionary thought as well. Why make that arbitrary distinction between origin of life and evolution?
So we are reduced to god is a bad designer that designed it to make it look like we evolved. Thats all i was looking for, i think everyone can see that answer for what is really means.
Click to expand...
You’re replying to a commentary that was not mine and which provided more than one interpretation. So, we’re not “reduced” to that one option you chose.
No that not how code works, code it constantly debugged and streamlined to attain better performance. Then we see the famous we don’t understand god stance, well gee that answers a lot. If everyone had that attitude we would never discover anything. Dark ages anyone?
Click to expand...
This again is materialism-of-the-gaps. What doesn’t make logical or reasonable sense means either “you don’t understand the science” or else “science will eventually figure out a materialistic explanation for everything”. This goes beyond the evidence though.
Utter nonsense.
Click to expand...
Do you believe that the non-coding portions of DNA are “junk” and serve no function?
If so, I will find you the peer-reviewed papers on this topic.

We should always remember that any fact observed by darwinists, from duplication of genes to all the similarities and differences between genetic code in various species, is by far best interpreted by design, while faces incredible improbabilities when interpreted as unguided common descent. This is the truth. That’s why there is no way to ultimately define research as darwinist or ID inspired. Research, although it may be inspired by specific ideas, is just research. It looks for facts. If it is done well, and with honesty, it usually finds them. And facts only support truth. So, if design is true (as I strongly believe), for me any good research is a pro-ID research. I read pro-ID reasearch every day, although the authors are rarely aware of that.
Here we see the fundamental problem, “any good research is a pro-ID research. I read pro-ID research every day,” research should be pro nothing. Research must be carried out BEFORE you draw the conclusion.
Click to expand...
That’s exactly what he said – except you cut off the beginning of the sentence (is that “quote mining”?). He said: “**So, if design is true **(as I strongly believe), for me any good research is a pro-ID research.”

The truth about the universe remains true no matter what conclusions people come up with. There are assumptions about whether we have found the truth which are not supported by the empirical evidence thus far.
 
kalt said:
Darwinism?
Click to expand...
I found 5,200,000 references to the term via Google.

Darwinism: A theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual’s ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. Also called Darwinian theory.
 
Rogerteder said:
can you quote that statement
Click to expand...
Sure.
While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage.
Click to expand...
That can be found in paragraph 63 of the document.

Peace

Tim
 
Excellent question. The answer requires knowing the intention of the designer and what a “good design” would mean.

Actually the answer is simple, were not designed.

I think the question regarding whales, for example, is why would unintelligent evolutionary processes move fish out of the water and on to land and then move them back into the water again? How is it that whales made that kind of change after splitting from reptiles, while bats also split from reptiles and grew wings and lived in caves or trees, and developed sonar in an absurdly and radically different and complex manner – and yet the molecular evidence shows both whales and bats at the same molecular distance from comparison molecules reptiles?

Different selection pressures over 100’s of millions of years of evolution, that is not a problem at all.

The human eye is a miracle indeed, as are all eyes found in nature. Supposedly, eyes evolved independently from non-ancestors as many as 40 times. But no survival advantage can be shown for 5% of an eye (an eye does not function at all until it is fully assembled). How vision is processed by the brain and then captured in human consciousness (vision in memory or imagination) is not tied to any materialistic explanation, much less survival advantage.

Thats just plain wrong. Its hard to discuss a subject when it seems you have very little education in the subject.

I pointed out a number of problems with the idea that mutations actually caused the massive increase of information required to design one eye. Today, mutations in the eyes cause blindness or severely impared vision. At the same time, eyesight has not improved at all due to positive mutations during the history of the human race - even though there would be many survival advantages, and other organisms have better eyesight.

Again you don’t seem to have a grasp of the basics of evolution. Its seems your understanding of evolution extends to reading answering genesis.

As for something you could design, the eye does not work alone. It must be attached to a neural network that processes and interprets the image. That requires invention of intelligence itself. How does an unintelligent, unconscious natural process create that? You cite your own intelligence in designing something like an eye, but you should show what unconscious physical laws produce.

Again your utterly wrong.

For example, rocks come down the side of a mountain in an avalanche. If that produced structures as complex and functional as eyes, then you’d have a point. Instead, they produce piles of rocks. What we see in eyes, however, is a complex order and function that, by sheer common sense (which I’m glad you cited) appears designed and not the product of blind, physical laws acting on random occurences.

:confused:

That’s actually a good point. One reason the designer would design is to make it appear to some people, under some circumstances, that materialistic-evolution was the mechanism and that God does not exist. Why would God create that illusion, when the truth is He created things? Again, you pointed to common sense, so I’ll mention it again. Richard Dawkins said himself, nature looks like it was designed for a purpose - overwhelmingly. By common sense, it does not look like Darwinian evolution did it.

I’m sorry to say its obvious your not qualified to say that. Serious question have you ever had any proper education in respect to evolution or biology?

It would be nice to see people actually educated their selfs on a subject instead of spewing out the same old, refuted 100 times over, creationist strawman arguments.
 
**If God reused the gills code on whales, you could claim that as evidence against design as well. Whales supposedly went back into the water and re-evolved gills from code that was retained from days when they were fish.

Again, the theory is so pliable that anything can be proven. Your task is to prove that natural selection and mutations did it and that this also requires an entirely materalistic-atheistic view of the origin and development of nature.

Again, why you cut the origin of life out of your explanation is interesting also. You’re claiming an atheistic worldview, so OOL has to be a part of it, and it’s intimately connected with all of your evolutionary thought as well. Why make that arbitrary distinction between origin of life and evolution?**

Because Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution??
.

**This again is materialism-of-the-gaps. What doesn’t make logical or reasonable sense means either “you don’t understand the science” or else “science will eventually figure out a materialistic explanation for everything”. This goes beyond the evidence though.

Do you believe that the non-coding portions of DNA are “junk” and serve no function?
If so, I will find you the peer-reviewed papers on this topic.**

No i don’t, i want the peer reviewed paper that says “its supports I.D”

**That’s exactly what he said – except you cut off the beginning of the sentence (is that “quote mining”?). He said: "**So, if design is true (as I strongly believe), for me any good research is a pro-ID research."

It makes no difference, all research should be impartial. Its fundamental to the scientific method and my point still stands.

The truth about the universe remains true no matter what conclusions people come up with. There are assumptions about whether we have found the truth which are not supported by the empirical evidence thus far.

Not by me, the verdict as called NOT PROVEN
 
There is a very good reason people must have degrees IN THE SUBJECT from accredited universities before they are taken seriously. This thread shows why.
 
Charles_Darwin said:
**
Because Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution??
**

I can’t see that. If God created the biological universals and planned on how they would function, that would prove that evolution is guided to fulfill a purpose. That would falsify natural selection - as Darwin himself stated. If God was involved (by creating, developing or selecting), then natural selection would be mostly superfluous.

The fact is, evolutionary theory predicted that Junk DNA was non-functional. This was falsified. The falsification aligns with what ID had been saying for years.
It makes no difference, all research should be impartial. Its fundamental to the scientific method and my point still stands.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
reggieM said:
The fact is, evolutionary theory predicted that Junk DNA was non-functional. This was falsified. The falsification aligns with what ID had been saying for years.
Click to expand...
Wow i wonder why none of the top biologists on the planet are aware of this revelation. You should submit a paper for peer review, you could be worth a Nobel prize. :rolleyes:
 
reggieM said:
I found 5,200,000 references to the term via Google.
Darwinism: A theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual’s ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. Also called Darwinian theory.
Click to expand...
Do you realize how limited the term is? And how misused?
 
Charles_Darwin said:
Evolution is an unguided process, that is not my opinion, that is a fact.
Click to expand...
Actually, “evolution is an unguided process” is a statement that requires proof.

At any rate, you still haven’t shown proof that evolution theory and God are mutually exclusive. (Unless I missed an earlier response.)
 
kalt said:
Actually, “evolution is an unguided process” is a statement that requires proof.

At any rate, you still haven’t shown proof that evolution theory and God are mutually exclusive. (Unless I missed an earlier response.)
Click to expand...
Why on earth would i have to? This is illogical reasoning, do you believe everything you cant disprove.

I cant disprove an invisible green dog isn’t magically guiding evolution with its super invisible evolution guiding doggy powers. Do you think we should consider that an option to?

Every piece of evidence we have points to evolution being a totally natural process, so if you want to posit a god’s guidance the burden of proof is on you! I eagerly await your evidence.
 
Charles_Darwin said:
There is a very good reason people must have degrees IN THE SUBJECT from accredited universities before they are taken seriously. This thread shows why.
Click to expand...
Yup - you only can understand it if you have a degree from a certified evolution propaganda university. ;)🙂
 
Orogeny said:
Sure.

That can be found in paragraph 63 of the document.

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
In context this is summarizing current thinking on the subject. The document is parroting science here.
  1. According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the “Big Bang” and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.
Then we move on to the next section:
  1. Pope John Paul II stated some years ago that “new knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge”(“Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution”1996). In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis ), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. Mainly concerned with evolution as it “involves the question of man,” however, Pope John Paul’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms. The Church’s interest in evolution thus focuses particularly on “the conception of man” who, as created in the image of God, “cannot be subordinated as a pure means or instrument either to the species or to society.” As a person created in the image of God, he is capable of forming relationships of communion with other persons and with the triune God, as well as of exercising sovereignty and stewardship in the created universe. The implication of these remarks is that theories of evolution and of the origin of the universe possess particular theological interest when they touch on the doctrines of the creation ex nihilo and the creation of man in the image of God.
 

**The Principle of Recursive Genome Function **
******Abstract ****Responding to an open request, the principle of recursive genome function (PRGF) is put forward, effectively reversing two axioms of genomics as we used to know it, prior to the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements Project (ENCODE). The PRGF is based on the reversal of the interlocking but demonstrably invalid central dogma and “Junk DNA” conjectures that slowed down the advance of sound theory of genome function, as far as information science is concerned, for half a century. PRGF illustrates the utility of the class of recursive algorithms as the intrinsic mathematics of post-ENCODE genomics. A specific recursive algorithmic approach to PRGF governing the growth of the Purkinje neuron is sketched, building the structure in a hierarchical manner, starting from primary genomic information packets and in each recursion using auxiliary genomic information packets, cancelled upon perusal. The predictive power of the principle and its experimental support are indicated. It is argued that genomics is no longer an exceptional instance of the applicability of recursion throughout the sciences. **
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top