B
buffalo
Guest
The great lights were created later. It is very distinctive.
- Status
U
Usagi
Guest
Techno2000, do you really still not grasp the actual claims of evolutionary biology?
I’m not even asking you to believe or accept them. Just know what it is you don’t agree with. Based on your repeated questions, you don’t even know how natural selection is claimed to work.
Do we agree that parents pass on traits to their offspring? I presume that is noncontroversial.
Do we further agree that, despite inheriting traits from the parents, offspring are not identical to their parents or siblings?
Does it seem reasonable that, in some cases, the differences between siblings (and cousins, and so forth) result in drastic or subtle differences between them in terms of reproductive success? (That could mean that some literally die before reaching reproductive age or pass on a severely detrimental trait to their offspring, or it could mean that some simply have more kids — or more kids that themselves survive to have kids. It could even mean that some are more or less attractive to potential sexual partners.)
And by that mechanism, does it seem reasonable that certain heritable traits could become more or less common over time in the population at large?
If we are agreed up to that point, then we agree that evolution occurs. In biology, that is the actual definition of evolution — the change in the frequency of certain alleles (versions of a gene, which often corresponds to a change in the frequency of corresponding heritable traits) over time.
Now, if you want to question whether that is truly the mechanism by which all life on earth differentiated from common ancestors, be my guest, but note certain things and please, take them into account when asking further questions:
I’m not even asking you to believe or accept them. Just know what it is you don’t agree with. Based on your repeated questions, you don’t even know how natural selection is claimed to work.
Do we agree that parents pass on traits to their offspring? I presume that is noncontroversial.
Do we further agree that, despite inheriting traits from the parents, offspring are not identical to their parents or siblings?
Does it seem reasonable that, in some cases, the differences between siblings (and cousins, and so forth) result in drastic or subtle differences between them in terms of reproductive success? (That could mean that some literally die before reaching reproductive age or pass on a severely detrimental trait to their offspring, or it could mean that some simply have more kids — or more kids that themselves survive to have kids. It could even mean that some are more or less attractive to potential sexual partners.)
And by that mechanism, does it seem reasonable that certain heritable traits could become more or less common over time in the population at large?
If we are agreed up to that point, then we agree that evolution occurs. In biology, that is the actual definition of evolution — the change in the frequency of certain alleles (versions of a gene, which often corresponds to a change in the frequency of corresponding heritable traits) over time.
Now, if you want to question whether that is truly the mechanism by which all life on earth differentiated from common ancestors, be my guest, but note certain things and please, take them into account when asking further questions:
- Neither the organisms nor their genes have to “know” or “want” anything. The flowers don’t know they’re attracting bees — some of them just do, and if that helps the more bee-attracting flowers reproduce better than the rest (because bees feed on their nectar and incidentally spread their pollen around), then in future generations there will be a greater and greater proportion of bee-attracting flowers.
- No single organism “evolves” into anything, nor does any single organism need to produce offspring that are radically different from itself. Anyone who is talking about evolution is talking about large populations of creatures and changes in the frequency of certain traits over generations.
- As others have said, each individual organism has to be able to survive and reproduce on its own. A “transitional” organism isn’t going to be a one-off, half-and-half monster between two other things. It’s going to be a functional creature, able to survive in its environment and reproduce with a population of similar creatures. “Transitional” is a label applied by us in retrospect.
- Environmental pressures/changes don’t need to cause new traits to appear. They can, however, lead to a change in which traits favor reproductive success and therefore which traits become increasingly common in future generations.
I
Ioana
Guest
Well once again I don’t know very well and am not claiming a particular position but I guess I will hazard a guess as to what the explanation would be.
The fragrance is caused by nectar. Nectar is the thing in flowers that bees feed off. Whilst they do this they drop pollen off accidentally. Now, if the nectar is strong smelling the bees will know of its existence from further away and are more likely to go and get it (because they know it exists from a further distance). That smell must be attractive to bees because if it were repulsive… well that would just be stupid and unhelpful. Why do humans happen to like the same fragrance as bees? I guess we would call that coincidence. I’ve also been told in biology class that big colorful petals attract bees as well. Why that is though… I can’t tell. Do bees have a sense of art?
The fragrance is caused by nectar. Nectar is the thing in flowers that bees feed off. Whilst they do this they drop pollen off accidentally. Now, if the nectar is strong smelling the bees will know of its existence from further away and are more likely to go and get it (because they know it exists from a further distance). That smell must be attractive to bees because if it were repulsive… well that would just be stupid and unhelpful. Why do humans happen to like the same fragrance as bees? I guess we would call that coincidence. I’ve also been told in biology class that big colorful petals attract bees as well. Why that is though… I can’t tell. Do bees have a sense of art?
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
If that is true, you would have done better to ask for an explanation, rather than just waited, hoping wisdom would simply arrive uninvited. Still, if it’s any help I’ll have a look at three aspects.
- Origins. Atheistic considerations of the origin of matter and energy all depend on some mathematical considerations of the nature of the “nothing” from which matter and energy emerged and developed. This denies the complete ‘nothingness’ of nothing. By any rational consideration, the ‘laws’ by which the universe develops appear to be a-temporal, and effective rather than merely descriptive. Observation suggests that they are unchanging. A more comprehensive characterisation of the universal, timeless, omnipotent, effective “thing” which rationality demands, such as whether it has personality, or purpose, are more matters of philosophy than science, but theistic evolutionists recognise God.
- Development. The development of the universe proceeds along more or less predictable lines, following the rational execution of the ‘laws’ of the universal, timeless, omnipotent, effective “thing” referred to above, but there is nothing in reason that suggests that it must do. There is no mathematical reason why the configuration of the universe at any particular nanosecond should be followed by a coherently similar configuration in the following millisecond. Just as an old cartoon film was composed image by image, each one separately drawn, so every sequential ‘state’ of the universe is everywhere and in every minute component, separately, spontaneously, immediately created. Again, why this should be so is a philosophical, not a scientific question, but again, theistic evolutionists recognise the work of God here.
- Randomness. There appear to be many aspects of the universe which are truly random, in that an occurrence cannot, even in principle, be predicted from any consideration of previous events. The decay of an individual radioactive atom is one such, and some aspects of the collapse of quantum superpositions may be another. Nevertheless, the ‘laws’ of probability seem to function accurately. These laws predict, for example, that after 6000 throws of a dice, approximately 1000 will turn up a six. Although this seems obvious, and indeed is observed, there is no rational reason why it should be. I am reminded of the opening scene of Tom Stoppard’s play Rosencranz and Guildenstern are Dead, in which the two eponymous characters ponder the significance of their tossing 85 heads in a row.
Now, about those fruit-trees? Any further thoughts?
A
Aloysium
Guest
While the physical dimension of an organism’s being is not what knows or wants anything, each living thing “knows” within its relationship with what is other to it. Flowers attract bees by their fragrance, their colour and their electric charge. Once a flower has been visited by a bee, it’s charge changes, making it less appealing to other bees, who would find no nectar and bypass it in the future. The symbiotic relationship between bees and flowers is an example of how life is interwoven within itself, how it all comes together, forming a whole with distinct parts, each individual being possessing the specific qualities that define its kind. This soul, the organism in itself, encompasses the physical morphology within a union that includes instinctive perceptions, “understandings” and activities.
Nothing evolves into anything else. Grouping large populations of creatures in terms of their similarities, one may note changes in the frequency of certain traits over generations. That said, the kind of animal each is, the sort of soul that brings its material and psychological aspects together does not change, as we see in the different of types of cat - lions, tigers, lynx, cougars, jaguars, leopards, house cats, and so on, having different sizes, proportions and tempraments. While the information is passed on generationally within a particular sort of animal, the emergence of a new soul, the configuration of matter and instinct, existing as a unity participating in its environment, does not emanate from a previous being, but is rooted in the Source of all being, brought into existence by Existence itself.
While the universe is maintained, that is to say, brought into existence in every moment and every place, there is no new creation, but a transformation of what was made in time, progressing to its destiny. As sin leads to death, having damaged our relationship with the Divine Act of Giving, Life itself, in Christ we find ourselves on a journey back to our destiny of eternal Communion within the Trinity.
Nothing evolves into anything else. Grouping large populations of creatures in terms of their similarities, one may note changes in the frequency of certain traits over generations. That said, the kind of animal each is, the sort of soul that brings its material and psychological aspects together does not change, as we see in the different of types of cat - lions, tigers, lynx, cougars, jaguars, leopards, house cats, and so on, having different sizes, proportions and tempraments. While the information is passed on generationally within a particular sort of animal, the emergence of a new soul, the configuration of matter and instinct, existing as a unity participating in its environment, does not emanate from a previous being, but is rooted in the Source of all being, brought into existence by Existence itself.
While the universe is maintained, that is to say, brought into existence in every moment and every place, there is no new creation, but a transformation of what was made in time, progressing to its destiny. As sin leads to death, having damaged our relationship with the Divine Act of Giving, Life itself, in Christ we find ourselves on a journey back to our destiny of eternal Communion within the Trinity.
Last edited:
A
Aloysium
Guest
Each individual organism has been made to survive and reproduce within the world as an expression of a kind of living being. Between different kinds, there are no transitional organisms. The various creatures that preceded our temporal existence in the world are not transitional organisms within a continuous line of ancestral descent from original bacteria. They are not less sophisticated forms of ourselves, but necessary to the building of a suitable world. The same sort of information, in the form of their molecular design, that allowed for their participation in the formation of the environment would be utilized in time to shape our own bodies, when we were created as a new form of being.
Environmental pressures may cause new traits to appear as part of an organism’s built-in capacity to adapt to change. What goes on in the environment around us can also directly cause physical change, which serendipitously may result in a trait that favours reproductive success within a population, such as Sickle Cell anemia, thereby causing such traits to become increasingly common in future generations. However, as we are aware when we put on sun block at the beach, thyroid protection at the dentist’s, use gloves when we use acetone as a cleaner, and as a society try to reduce exposure to, if not eradicate such viral infections as Hepatitis C, we know that random effects that disrupt the functioning of our bodies, especially those involved in procreation, are bad. An individual living organism incorporates aspects of its environment into itself. No amount of glitches, like the random addition or the taking away of words from this post, will produce something greater. Only that which gives order can bring the chaos into something coherent.
Environmental pressures may cause new traits to appear as part of an organism’s built-in capacity to adapt to change. What goes on in the environment around us can also directly cause physical change, which serendipitously may result in a trait that favours reproductive success within a population, such as Sickle Cell anemia, thereby causing such traits to become increasingly common in future generations. However, as we are aware when we put on sun block at the beach, thyroid protection at the dentist’s, use gloves when we use acetone as a cleaner, and as a society try to reduce exposure to, if not eradicate such viral infections as Hepatitis C, we know that random effects that disrupt the functioning of our bodies, especially those involved in procreation, are bad. An individual living organism incorporates aspects of its environment into itself. No amount of glitches, like the random addition or the taking away of words from this post, will produce something greater. Only that which gives order can bring the chaos into something coherent.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
New book
Heretic: One Scientist’s Journey from Darwin to Design
What happens when an up-and-coming European bioscientist flips from Darwin disciple to Darwin defector? Sparks fly. Just ask biotechnologist Matti Leisola. It all started when a student loaned the Finnish scientist a book criticizing evolutionary theory. Leisola reacted angrily, and set out to defend evolution, but found his efforts raised more questions than they answered. He soon morphed into a full-on Darwin skeptic, even as he was on his way to becoming a leading bio-engineer.
Heretic is the story of Leisola’s adventures making waves–and many friends and enemies–at major research labs and universities across Europe. Tracing his investigative path, the book draws on Leisola’s expertise in molecular biology to show how the evidence points more strongly than ever to the original biotechnologist–a designing intelligence whose skill and reach dwarf those of even our finest bioengineers, and leave blind evolution in the dust.
" As a young student, I used to laugh at those who, as I thought, placed God in the gaps of our scientific knowledge. This God-of-the-gaps criticism is often leveled against Christians and other religious believers, against all those who insist there is clear evidence of design in nature. To my way of thinking, such people lacked the patience and level-headedness that I possessed. It was so clear to me: Instead of plugging away to discover the natural mechanism for this or that mystery about the natural world, these pro-design people threw up their hands and used the God-did-it explanation as a cover for ignorance.
This criticism of intelligent design proponents struck me as reasonable, so I didn’t listen to their arguments. But eventually I came to realize that this criticism cuts both ways, since a functional atheist also can reach for pat explanations in the face of mystery. It’s just that for him, the pat explanation will never be God. That is, you do not need God in your explanatory toolkit in order to short-circuit careful scientific investigation and reasoning. I realized that I myself had been all too willing to stuff vague materialistic explanations into the gaps of our scientific knowledge….
Also, their argument for entertaining only material explanations in the sciences just assumes that everything we find in nature has a purely material cause. But what if that assumption is wrong? What if there are features of the natural world — the laws and constants of nature itself, for instance — that really are the work of a creative intelligence?
Scientists are supposed to investigate mysteries with an open mind, not assume an explanation from the outset. I came to see that the best pproach is to evaluate which explanation among the live options is more logical and fits the facts better."
amazon.com
Heretic: One Scientist’s Journey from Darwin to Design
Matti Leisola, Jonathan Witt
What happens when an up-and-coming European bioscientist flips from Darwin disciple to Darwin defector? Sparks fly. Just ask biotechnologist Matti Leisola. It all started when a student loaned the Fin …
Heretic: One Scientist’s Journey from Darwin to Design
What happens when an up-and-coming European bioscientist flips from Darwin disciple to Darwin defector? Sparks fly. Just ask biotechnologist Matti Leisola. It all started when a student loaned the Finnish scientist a book criticizing evolutionary theory. Leisola reacted angrily, and set out to defend evolution, but found his efforts raised more questions than they answered. He soon morphed into a full-on Darwin skeptic, even as he was on his way to becoming a leading bio-engineer.
Heretic is the story of Leisola’s adventures making waves–and many friends and enemies–at major research labs and universities across Europe. Tracing his investigative path, the book draws on Leisola’s expertise in molecular biology to show how the evidence points more strongly than ever to the original biotechnologist–a designing intelligence whose skill and reach dwarf those of even our finest bioengineers, and leave blind evolution in the dust.
" As a young student, I used to laugh at those who, as I thought, placed God in the gaps of our scientific knowledge. This God-of-the-gaps criticism is often leveled against Christians and other religious believers, against all those who insist there is clear evidence of design in nature. To my way of thinking, such people lacked the patience and level-headedness that I possessed. It was so clear to me: Instead of plugging away to discover the natural mechanism for this or that mystery about the natural world, these pro-design people threw up their hands and used the God-did-it explanation as a cover for ignorance.
This criticism of intelligent design proponents struck me as reasonable, so I didn’t listen to their arguments. But eventually I came to realize that this criticism cuts both ways, since a functional atheist also can reach for pat explanations in the face of mystery. It’s just that for him, the pat explanation will never be God. That is, you do not need God in your explanatory toolkit in order to short-circuit careful scientific investigation and reasoning. I realized that I myself had been all too willing to stuff vague materialistic explanations into the gaps of our scientific knowledge….
Also, their argument for entertaining only material explanations in the sciences just assumes that everything we find in nature has a purely material cause. But what if that assumption is wrong? What if there are features of the natural world — the laws and constants of nature itself, for instance — that really are the work of a creative intelligence?
Scientists are supposed to investigate mysteries with an open mind, not assume an explanation from the outset. I came to see that the best pproach is to evaluate which explanation among the live options is more logical and fits the facts better."
amazon.com
Heretic: One Scientist’s Journey from Darwin to Design
Matti Leisola, Jonathan Witt
What happens when an up-and-coming European bioscientist flips from Darwin disciple to Darwin defector? Sparks fly. Just ask biotechnologist Matti Leisola. It all started when a student loaned the Fin …
T
Techno2000
Guest
So, what is causing “Die out” of this creature?
T
Techno2000
Guest
That is a cynical joke that some people don’t understand.
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Hee hee! I think you’ve got a set of cards with all these questions on, and you just fling one down at random now and again to see if we’ll grab one. Not me. You can go back and find what I said last time if you’re interested.
E
edwest211
Guest
Did the nectar come first or the bees? How do bees know how to build a honeycomb?
U
Usagi
Guest
Well, since by its being called “transitional” we know another population replaced it, presumably the environment it was in continued to favor the trait it had more of, and eventually creatures like it were no longer as reproductively successful as those born with even more of the trait. So just as transitional population B replaced original population A, so later population C replaced B. (Since feathered dinosaurs seem to be a popular topic with you, let’s say A was featherless, B had little bumps that helped some with insulation compared to A, and C had feathers that helped even more.) In reality there would be several “B” groups along the way rather than only a two-step transition, but that’s the general idea.
Again, nothing is deliberately seeking these animals to kill them off. The individual animals die when they die, of various causes. But in aggregate, the end of the bell curve that has the most insulated skin is more successful and becomes more common, and the same for the end of that bell curve and so on over generations, until the descendants don’t look a whole lot like the ancestors we started with.
Again, nothing is deliberately seeking these animals to kill them off. The individual animals die when they die, of various causes. But in aggregate, the end of the bell curve that has the most insulated skin is more successful and becomes more common, and the same for the end of that bell curve and so on over generations, until the descendants don’t look a whole lot like the ancestors we started with.
U
Usagi
Guest
Yet you keep asking it as though it is meaningful, which makes it sound like you haven’t learned anything.
“How do they know they need to develop in that direction?” They don’t. Some traits survive better in a given environment than others, and because traits are hereditary they become more common. That’s it.
“How do they know they need to develop in that direction?” They don’t. Some traits survive better in a given environment than others, and because traits are hereditary they become more common. That’s it.
T
Techno2000
Guest
Absolutely none of this can be seen in real life, your scenario is pure speculation.
Last edited:
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Ah! The speculation thing again. You’re only doing this because Usagi is new to the discussion. You know perfectly well what Evolution is. Why not give Edwest a nudge for us? He’s gone all shy about Genesis. You both know it doesn’t really fit what you yourselves know about the world; that’s why you’re so bad at defending it. At least Richca and Aloysium put together some good theology.
Last edited:
U
Usagi
Guest
Traits becoming more or less common in a population over time because the environment favors the reproductive success of individuals with some traits over others cannot be seen in real life? That is your serious contention?
What part of my earlier set of points that I thought we could all agree really happen in real life do you not agree with?
What part of my earlier set of points that I thought we could all agree really happen in real life do you not agree with?
Last edited:
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
No, it’s not. It’s his frivolous contention to get us all excited.
T
Techno2000
Guest
What animal or plant today is not successful at reproducing?
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Rhinoceros.
Gorilla.
Panda.
Plus all the other endangered and vulnerable species.
Gorilla.
Panda.
Plus all the other endangered and vulnerable species.
U
Usagi
Guest
If I recall, we had an inevitable extinction happen just the other day (death of the last known male white rhino).
So, yeah, there are entire species that are drastically failing to keep up their numbers right now.
And all we need for my example isn’t a die-off, but just a small relative advantage in reproductive success.
So, yeah, there are entire species that are drastically failing to keep up their numbers right now.
And all we need for my example isn’t a die-off, but just a small relative advantage in reproductive success.
- Status