Has science falsified macroevolution?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Orogeny
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
kalt said:
But science doesn’t answer, Why? Science tells us that species evolve. It doesn’t tell us why.
Click to expand...
The ‘why’ that you seek, is based upon the assumption that a human-like intelligence has *desired *to use natural selection, not only as a device to cause the existence of variety of life that we see on this planet, but for some sort of reason beyond their mere existence.

When science asks both *how *species came to exist in their present state, and *why *such species exist in their present state, its answer is the same: Darwinian evolution by way of the mechanism of natural selection. The ‘why’ question that you ask, is meaningless unless a person should desire to believe that there is an anthropomorphic will which dominates evolutionary proceedings. Nonetheless, such evolution does not by default insinuate an anthropomorphic will.

I will also ask you a sort of ‘why’ question, based itself on the assumption that *natural selection *is a device created, not by the mere chance of alignment of genetic code and the world in which it exists, but by the will of a human-like intelligence.

We see that a particular predator, let us choose a cheetah, has come to exist as a result of *willed *natural selection, with certain conditions and traits that make it more adept at catching and ensnaring prey.

We see that a particular animal which can be seen as prey, let us say a gazelle, has come to exist as a result of *willed *natural selection, with certain conditions and traits that make it adept at running away from and avoiding predators.

Assuming the notion of such a willed natural selection, why did the being whose intelligence caused it, decide that it was necessary that some animals should chase after other animals who run away, so that both might play games of survival, so that both might create future generations? What is the great purpose of this will, that simple, unwilled natural selection cannot describe? How does assuming an anthropomorphic will causing natural selection, add to its value, in the case of these two animals?
 
InNomineDomini said:
The ‘why’ question that you ask, is meaningless unless a person should desire to believe that there is an anthropomorphic will which dominates evolutionary proceedings.
Click to expand...
You’re replying to someone who accepts Neo-Darwinian theory so I guess the answer will be that your question is not relevant. The ‘why’ is not answered by citing natural selection because the why is with regards to the origin of natural selection itself. In that view, God is the creator of laws – like that of natural selection, so the anthropomorphic will merely created the first conditions and then let them proceed in the way rocks roll down a hill and get to the bottom without evidence of needing supernatural help in doing so.

But for my kind of view, which is more of what you’re arguing against, the so-called evolution of the cheetah is evidence of design in nature, not random mutation (which is the only means available for the cheetah to have its body change enough to increase speed that greatly).

In this case, natural selection decided to focus just on mutations that increased the cheetah’s speed. And supposedly at the same time, the gazelles’ mutations focused on the same attribute. So continually, in a straight path of progression - both animals got faster and amazingly, neither side won the battle. They both win some and lose some.

But according to the evolutionary scheme, there were counless (almost infinite) ways that the gazelle, for example, could out-do the cheetah. It could grow thick skin, or horns, or escape in water or get bigger or become camoflaged so it couldn’t be found, or develop a taste in its skin that the cheetah didn’t like any more …

Mutations could produce any or all of those things. But the evolutionary story claims that mutations only caused both animals to run faster. And the mutations focused just on that feature alone.

That is a very precise, directed result. That is not what should be expected from random mutations and natural selection. There should be a huge variety of styles of gazelles.

As Michael Behe puts it “in a blind process, there can be no intentional building on a single trait, continually improving a discreet feature.” Whatever works for the moment, will be selected. Gazelles that survive and reproduce could develop any variety of strategies to avoid cheetah attacks. They could develop different feeding strategies (feeding when cheetahs are not around), or better hiding strategies or thicker skin. They wouldn’t just choose to get faster as the only means of evolving to compete.
 
InNomineDomini said:
I will also ask you a sort of ‘why’ question, based itself on the assumption that *natural selection *is a device created, not by the mere chance of alignment of genetic code and the world in which it exists, but by the will of a human-like intelligence.

We see that a particular predator, let us choose a cheetah, has come to exist as a result of *willed *natural selection, with certain conditions and traits that make it more adept at catching and ensnaring prey.

We see that a particular animal which can be seen as prey, let us say a gazelle, has come to exist as a result of *willed *natural selection, with certain conditions and traits that make it adept at running away from and avoiding predators.

Assuming the notion of such a willed natural selection, why did the being whose intelligence caused it, decide that it was necessary that some animals should chase after other animals who run away, so that both might play games of survival, so that both might create future generations? What is the great purpose of this will, that simple, unwilled natural selection cannot describe? How does assuming an anthropomorphic will causing natural selection, add to its value, in the case of these two animals?
Click to expand...
It also begs the question, if god has decided which animal is going to eat the other why does he make the animals run.
 
reggieM said:
You’re replying to someone who accepts Neo-Darwinian theory so I guess the answer will be that your question is not relevant. The ‘why’ is not answered by citing natural selection because the why is with regards to the origin of natural selection itself. In that view, God is the creator of laws – like that of natural selection, so the anthropomorphic will merely created the first conditions and then let them proceed in the way rocks roll down a hill and get to the bottom without evidence of needing supernatural help in doing so.

But for my kind of view, which is more of what you’re arguing against, the so-called evolution of the cheetah is evidence of design in nature, not random mutation (which is the only means available for the cheetah to have its body change enough to increase speed that greatly).

In this case, natural selection decided to focus just on mutations that increased the cheetah’s speed. And supposedly at the same time, the gazelles’ mutations focused on the same attribute. So continually, in a straight path of progression - both animals got faster and amazingly, neither side won the battle. They both win some and lose some.

But according to the evolutionary scheme, there were counless (almost infinite) ways that the gazelle, for example, could out-do the cheetah. It could grow thick skin, or horns, or escape in water or get bigger or become camoflaged so it couldn’t be found, or develop a taste in its skin that the cheetah didn’t like any more …

Mutations could produce any or all of those things. But the evolutionary story claims that mutations only caused both animals to run faster. And the mutations focused just on that feature alone.

That is a very precise, directed result. That is not what should be expected from random mutations and natural selection. There should be a huge variety of styles of gazelles.

As Michael Behe puts it “in a blind process, there can be no intentional building on a single trait, continually improving a discreet feature.” Whatever works for the moment, will be selected. Gazelles that survive and reproduce could develop any variety of strategies to avoid cheetah attacks. They could develop different feeding strategies (feeding when cheetahs are not around), or better hiding strategies or thicker skin. They wouldn’t just choose to get faster as the only means of evolving to compete.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry but you have an incorrect understanding of evolution.

Try these…

youtube.com/watch?v=R_RXX7pntr8

youtube.com/watch?v=7w57_P9DZJ4

not evolution but worth a watch…

youtube.com/watch?v=v8nYTJf62sE
 
Charles_Darwin said:
It also begs the question, if god has decided which animal is going to eat the other why does he make the animals run.
Click to expand...
It’s important for you to understand the nature of God in order for you to say that you don’t believe in Him.
 
reggieM said:
It’s important for you to understand the nature of God in order for you to say that you don’t believe in Him.
Click to expand...
No, what is important is evidence, and there is NONE. Therefore i reject your claim.
 
Charles_Darwin said:
Na, think i’ll stick around and try to help the scientifically challenged.
Click to expand...
I’m sure us stupid Catholics and believers of other religions have got it all wrong and need you to condescend down here on our level to help us out. Poor us, we’re scientifically challenged…
 
Charles_Darwin said:
It may not, that is when the cooperative society comes in. That is why we have laws everyone must obey.

I notice you didnt answer any of my questions :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
If morality is subjective, then the laws are also subjective. (Think slavery and Nazi Germany). It seems that man’s laws based on subjective morality aren’t fit for man.
Must a man obey unjust laws? Or maybe we should ask, should he obey unjust laws?

Actually, you didn’t answer the questions I asked you, and instead asked me to answer them.

Would you like to take a stab at one now?

You said that your guiding principle is empathy/avoidance of suffering. Do you have more than you absolutely need to survive? According to your world view (thank-you Ignatius J. Reilly), do you have the right to all of that excess when others in the world have no clean water to drink and don’t have enough to eat?
 
InNomineDomini said:
The ‘why’ that you seek, is based upon the assumption that a human-like intelligence has *desired *to use natural selection, not only as a device to cause the existence of variety of life that we see on this planet, but for some sort of reason beyond their mere existence.

When science asks both *how *species came to exist in their present state, and *why *such species exist in their present state, its answer is the same: Darwinian evolution by way of the mechanism of natural selection. The ‘why’ question that you ask, is meaningless unless a person should desire to believe that there is an anthropomorphic will which dominates evolutionary proceedings. Nonetheless, such evolution does not by default insinuate an anthropomorphic will.

I will also ask you a sort of ‘why’ question, based itself on the assumption that *natural selection *is a device created, not by the mere chance of alignment of genetic code and the world in which it exists, but by the will of a human-like intelligence.

We see that a particular predator, let us choose a cheetah, has come to exist as a result of *willed *natural selection, with certain conditions and traits that make it more adept at catching and ensnaring prey.

We see that a particular animal which can be seen as prey, let us say a gazelle, has come to exist as a result of *willed *natural selection, with certain conditions and traits that make it adept at running away from and avoiding predators.

Assuming the notion of such a willed natural selection, why did the being whose intelligence caused it, decide that it was necessary that some animals should chase after other animals who run away, so that both might play games of survival, so that both might create future generations? What is the great purpose of this will, that simple, unwilled natural selection cannot describe? How does assuming an anthropomorphic will causing natural selection, add to its value, in the case of these two animals?
Click to expand...
Evolution theory doesn’t ask why. People like to say that species evolved “camo”, for example, because it helps them hide. But, as those who deny God like to say, evolution is not directed. There can’t be a why if there isn’t a goal.

In reality, the members of a species that happened to have fur or skin that worked like camo had a higher reproduction rate. There is no why involved. They didn’t evolve skin of a certain color so they could hide. They’re hard to see in their environment because their skin closely matches their surroundings.

We didn’t evolve opposable thumbs so we could thread a needle. We can thread a needle because we have opposable thumbs.

There was no goal in evolving the opposable thumb, camo fur, long lean legs, broad noses, or webbed feet, according to those who say that evolution is not directed. You can’t ask why something evolved the way it did, because there was goal to start with.
 
Charles_Darwin said:
It may not, that is when the cooperative society comes in. That is why we have laws everyone must obey.
Click to expand...
But sometimes laws are unjust or cause suffering. So you’re still left in a conundrum. There really is no absolute moral code if what you’re saying is correct, and therefore your statement that atheism doesn’t lead to immorality is false. I’m sure Hitler had “empathy” for people and things he cherished, but obviously he was a mass-murderer, so using feelings of empathy as a moral guide is blatantly absurd.
 
Matariel said:
There really is no absolute moral code if what you’re saying is correct, and therefore your statement that atheism doesn’t lead to immorality is false. I’m sure Hitler had “empathy” for people and things he cherished, but obviously he was a mass-murderer, so using feelings of empathy as a moral guide is blatantly absurd.
Click to expand...
Firstly hitler was NOT an atheist, but that is irellevant.

Your right, there is no absolute moral code. Morals evolve. As for my “statement”, i can’t even be bothered replying to such nonsense. Here this will saved me alot of typing and maybe educate you a little…

youtube.com/watch?v=94f2h-5TvbM

As you can see all the FACTS show atheists are MORE moral than the religious.
 
Charles_Darwin said:
Firstly hitler was NOT an atheist, but that is irelevant.
Click to expand...
I never said he was.
Your right, there is no absolute moral code. Morals evolve.
Click to expand...
Then I was correct.
As you can see all the FACTS show atheists are MORE moral than the religious.
Click to expand...
I have a hard time believing such. It also changes whether you consider agnostics and deists as part of “religious” or not. In truth, the Catholic Church, which built Western civilization, advanced human rights, women’s rights, wartime justice, philosophy, and science more than atheists and other non-believers ever have. And that’s a fact.

Even besides the Catholic Church, the impact of religion in general has been mostly positive. Because atheists have no absolute morals (as you yourself admitted) and because they are generally intolerant towards believers of any religion, and because their weltanschauung leads to nihilism, atheists over and over again have proven to be less than stellar moral examples, especially compared to faithful people of various religions (not “cultural” believers).
 
Matariel said:
In truth, the Catholic Church, which built Western civilization, advanced human rights, women’s rights, wartime justice, philosophy, and science more than atheists and other non-believers ever have. And that’s a fact.
Click to expand...
You have GOT to be joking. Technology is what has advanced western civilization. Technology produced by SCIENCE. Please explain to me ONE thing a belief in the supernatural and myth has done for science. Science IS agnoistic. Agnostic’s are atheists.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top