E
edwest211
Guest
Evolution is true? How so?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
B
buffalo
Guest
Adaptation is true and happening all the time.
It is pretty clear now where all this is heading. Design is emerging as the much better explanation. (as it was before Darwin)
It is pretty clear now where all this is heading. Design is emerging as the much better explanation. (as it was before Darwin)
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
Puzzles and mysteries in the origins of language
Language evolved in no species other than humans, suggesting a deep-going obstacle to its evolution. Could it be that language simply cannot evolve in a Darwinian world? Reviewing the insights of Noam Chomsky, Amotz Zahavi and Dan Sperber, this article shows how and why each apparently depicts language’s emergence as theoretically impossible. Chomsky shuns evolutionary arguments, asserting simply that language was instantaneously installed. Zahavi argues that language entails reliance on low cost conventional signals whose evolutionary emergence would contradict basic Darwinian theory. Sperber argues that a symbolic expression is, literally, a falsehood, adding to the difficulty of explaining how – in a Darwinan world – systematic reliance on language could ever have evolved. It is concluded that language exists, but for reasons which no currently accepted theoretical paradigm can explain.
So who installed it? (can’t go there)
“In the beginning was the word” (information)…
Language evolved in no species other than humans, suggesting a deep-going obstacle to its evolution. Could it be that language simply cannot evolve in a Darwinian world? Reviewing the insights of Noam Chomsky, Amotz Zahavi and Dan Sperber, this article shows how and why each apparently depicts language’s emergence as theoretically impossible. Chomsky shuns evolutionary arguments, asserting simply that language was instantaneously installed. Zahavi argues that language entails reliance on low cost conventional signals whose evolutionary emergence would contradict basic Darwinian theory. Sperber argues that a symbolic expression is, literally, a falsehood, adding to the difficulty of explaining how – in a Darwinan world – systematic reliance on language could ever have evolved. It is concluded that language exists, but for reasons which no currently accepted theoretical paradigm can explain.
Loading…
www.sciencedirect.com
So who installed it? (can’t go there)
“In the beginning was the word” (information)…
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
It’s definitely the better explanation. One person even wrote that God couldn’t know what Adam would look like. So, with evolution, one wrong turn, and we could all be lizard men. But as dumb luck would have it, we look the way we do.
E
edwest211
Guest
B
buffalo
Guest
Humanus stupidus no more. Neandertals were smart. Another failed evo narrative.
Maybe Adam and Eve were smart too. (of course Catholics know they had infused knowledge. It would be fascinating just how much God infused that we have lost)
Maybe Adam and Eve were smart too. (of course Catholics know they had infused knowledge. It would be fascinating just how much God infused that we have lost)
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
Common design explains it better.
E
edwest211
Guest
The same buildings blocks need only minor tweaking to come up with a basic body plan. Land animals: head, four limbs, an upper and lower torso. Using 3D modeling software, only a small number of (name removed by moderator)uts are needed. It’s simple.
B
buffalo
Guest
We now know that life has 500 or so conserved core components of which various body plans can be built.
A
anon65111186
Guest
This is exactly the merry go round I’m talking about.Science has come along and more will surface. The Darwinian gig is up. Stay focused on the programming of life and the complex machinery that makes life run.
The Church will remain silent.
Dogmatically coming to a conclusion before the facts have even happened yet. Your prediction is opinion. You don’t have any more knowledge than the next guy about what will happen. Acting as if you dogmatically know the future is nonsense and a little on the fortune telling side of things. Likewise you have to back up that “Darwinism is over” or the like with good evidence and arguments, which I have failed to see, and have asked for clarifications and actual convincing reasons, and got silence from the anti-evolutionists on this never ending thread, and thus the merry go round.
The Church has not been silent, as I have shown, and so they definitely will not continue to be silent either way, because there would have to be backtracking on the CCC, as well as encyclicals and a number of statements by Popes and commissions etc. That the Church would remain silent is unarguable.
I have asked for the end all be all, one main reason evolution is untrue, and have really gotten the weakest or no response. The two main arguments offered were incompatibility with scripture or the faith (fail), and uselessness (major fail, subjective).
These do not hold water, and such a claim that does not hold water is supported by the “silence” of the Church in outright condemnation. If it were incompatible outright, the Church would say so. So if it were as you say “up” it would have to come out and say forget what we said, it’s all to be condemned, which would not be silence by any means.
Anyhow, like I said, I’m getting off this merry go round, because you guys against evolution just have no solid argument, interesting trivia, but nothing that would change a reasonable person’s mind.
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
At work, I’ve seen 3D renders that could be rotated in any direction. Now place any 3D land mammal skeleton on that screen. Along with a 3D human skeleton for comparison. The ability to lengthen, shorten, add arm membranes and so on would show that otherwise unrelated land mammals are only a finite number of code rearrangements away from each other. No evolution required. No accidents as such.
Built-in adaptive elements would be triggered in certain environments but would not be expressed in other environments. No millions of years of, just maybe, getting it all correctly fine-tuned for that animal type. Just draw on that core library.
Built-in adaptive elements would be triggered in certain environments but would not be expressed in other environments. No millions of years of, just maybe, getting it all correctly fine-tuned for that animal type. Just draw on that core library.
K
Kei
Guest
Speaking of chickens, my granddad had fighting roosters. Cock fighting was outlawed when I was a kid, but he still had them on his property. They had lots of animals. I liked to watch the fish in the koi pond. One of the animals was this black horse, and I remember watching it chase down and gobble up a little chicken. I was surprised because I thought horses were herbivores. But, what do you know? There he was, eating the chicken live.
But anyway, what seems odd is if the actions get passed down but the creature becomes less able to defend itself. Ah, nostalgia. But, it reminds me that we too grow less pure and mixed in our evils and goods as we grow, though we are more adapted to the world. Perhaps because of the latter.
But anyway, what seems odd is if the actions get passed down but the creature becomes less able to defend itself. Ah, nostalgia. But, it reminds me that we too grow less pure and mixed in our evils and goods as we grow, though we are more adapted to the world. Perhaps because of the latter.
B
benjamin1973
Guest
What you have there is a hypothesis. Now, you can go about the science of collecting (or refuting) that hypothesis.
What you do not do is come up with a plausible hypothesis, and say, “Well. . . I’ve solved that. Next issue”
What you do not do is come up with a plausible hypothesis, and say, “Well. . . I’ve solved that. Next issue”
B
buffalo
Guest
What would be the knockout punch for you?
E
edwest211
Guest
Here’s some more cave art.
http://www.globalindonesianvoices.c...ing-in-the-world-found-in-sulawesi-indonesia/
http://www.globalindonesianvoices.c...ing-in-the-world-found-in-sulawesi-indonesia/
M
mVitus
Guest
What exactly is your purpose in talking about Neanderthals? It’s always fascinating learn about them, but I don’t see how it supports your stance against evolution.
A
anon65111186
Guest
That’s the question you or anyone against evolution has yet to answer, what is the one reason it is wrong that is the end all be all?What would be the knockout punch for you?
Well, it certainly is not vague incompatibility which even the Church doesn’t recognize, nor subjective uselessness despite most scientists using it.
K
Kei
Guest
I’ve seen some creationist claim that the skulls of neanderthals are actually what we would expect should aging take place to normal humans, and that they were our ancestors, who lived long lives like written in the Bible and attested in many tales of various peoples.
They certainly were strong, smart (their head sizes were in general large; while head size doesn’t determine intelligence there is a correlation between the two), seemed to have religion, had art, musical instruments likely, etc. I’d definitely say they were people.
They certainly were strong, smart (their head sizes were in general large; while head size doesn’t determine intelligence there is a correlation between the two), seemed to have religion, had art, musical instruments likely, etc. I’d definitely say they were people.
R
rossum
Guest
And we know that our current theory has errors in it, hence scientists searching for a theory of Quantum Gravity.Gravity - observable, repeatable, predictable
Evolution can be observed every tie a new baby is born or an old person dies: the overall genome of the human population changes.Evolution - not observable, definitely not repeatable, and definitely not predictable
Some of evolution can be repeated, such as in the Lederberg Experiment or in the Luria-Delbrück Experiment. Other parts cannot, just as the Big Bang cannot be repeated in cosmology. Do you reject the Big Bang?
Evolution can make some predictions, for example in Modiano et al (2001) Haemoglobin C protects against clinical Plasmodium falciparum malaria we see the prediction:
Your sources are lying to you again, buffalo.These findings, together with the limited pathology of HbAC and HbCC compared to the severely disadvantaged HbSS and HbSC genotypes and the low betaS gene frequency in the geographic epicentre of betaC, support the hypothesis that, in the long term and in the absence of malaria control, HbC would replace HbS in central West Africa.
rossum
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
I sympathise with timothyvail, so I wonder if I could look at the question from a different perspective. Instead of spending our time arguing for or against evolution as the method by which God creates, can we look more closely at the alternative? If not evolution, then what? Edwest211, Aloysium, Techno2000 or buffalo, if I understand you correctly, reject evolution, and think that when God created ‘kinds’, he did so without those kinds having forebears. Is that correct? I would like to know a few more details before inquiring more deeply. Take elephants. Do you think that when God created elephants - either in the week of creation or whenever, depending on whether you’re an YEC or a OEC - they just popped onto the grass of a forest clearing? If not, then what did happen? And how many? And in what form? Roughly?
In my understanding of creationism, poor though it be, there seems to be absolutely nothing more that creationists offer except the word ‘created’. They do not know how, where, when, in what form and numbers, or indeed anything at all further than the word itself. They have no evidence other than human tradition, and no inclination to find out. They repudiate any rational inquiry.
In the posts above, there is mention of whales and birds, and how they cannot have evolved. If that were so, then can somebody explain exactly (or even vaguely) what happened, in such a way that does not contradict the evidence of the world we see around us today. Come on, all you creationists! Take a break from criticising what you think I believe, and tell me what you believe instead!
In my understanding of creationism, poor though it be, there seems to be absolutely nothing more that creationists offer except the word ‘created’. They do not know how, where, when, in what form and numbers, or indeed anything at all further than the word itself. They have no evidence other than human tradition, and no inclination to find out. They repudiate any rational inquiry.
In the posts above, there is mention of whales and birds, and how they cannot have evolved. If that were so, then can somebody explain exactly (or even vaguely) what happened, in such a way that does not contradict the evidence of the world we see around us today. Come on, all you creationists! Take a break from criticising what you think I believe, and tell me what you believe instead!
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.