We have plenty of data - the multitude of factors required for the origin and survival of life as we know it.
Many of our decisions and scientific hypotheses are not based on mathematical calculations of probability. To make that an essential condition is to obstruct progress in research.
Many philosophical, spiritual, ethical, political, aesthetic and, scientific discoveries have not appeared in peer reviewed journals.
You are imposing arbitrary limits on our interpretation of reality by restricting it to peer reviewed science and assuming that life is solely the result of purposeless processes. There is no conclusive evidence that physicalism is an adequate explanation of life, let alone everything…
Do you accept the reality of free will? If so how do explain that we have it and other mammals do not? If not how do explain we are morally responsible and they are not?
So a chimp is 2% different from a human and a mouse is 6% different from a chimp. I see no similarity between a mouse and a chimp, nor do I see even the remotest possibility of a mouse becoming a chimp, nor have I any reason to believe that by giving the mouse the 6% difference in genes that that will make a mouse a chimp.
What do you mean by becoming? As in instantly transforming or evolving? Either of which would be wrong. It means they share a common ancestor. Evolution is not linear, it’s a tree. And saying you see now similarity, that is astounding. Open them up. Most, if not all of the organs are the same, preforming the same function in mice, monkeys and humans. Bones have direct parallels. I think you might be in a small minority is seeing no similarity between species of life.
A step beyond what genetic evidence alone can suggest, yes. But we have fossils of their ancestors. You realize it takes a formerly living creature to make a fossil, right? Since this is the case, these creatures used to exist.
So if monarch butterfly migration, so is the fact that starfish push their stomachs into their prey to digest them, so are most of the behaviors of the species in tropical rain forests. Is seems like you’re using unique to imply best.
I still don’t understand how space travel has anything to do with evolution that happened millions of years before humans existed, but I think I’m going to stop trying if all you do is restate it.Does evolution randomly, chaotically lead to creatures flying through space in a spaceship. If everything was truly truly chaotic there might, just might be bacteria living on earth, but spaceships… I don’t know…
Can be speculated but has not been observed. There is no known RNA-based life extant.
Perhaps instead of mixing A and B to gain a desired result on your part, it would be better to find out how Behe would actually say it.
The book is not about God. It has not been rejected by “the scientific establishment” since there is no such entity.interestingly his book was rejected by the scientific community due to the fact that is we merely an elevated form of “argument from ignorance” (essentially, it hasn’t been proven false, therefore it is true (or the other way around, which applies to evolution), and I think we’ve come the consensus that science can’t prove God, so his theory can never be proven wrong, a major no-no in science). Still think ID is science?
So I’ll assume you agree with the rest of my comments.
Yes, I admitted I accidentally mixed two sources form when I was searching for sources. I went on to say that I’d go with id.org’s definition since they seem to be well experienced in the idea.
I was not talking about the book you suggested, I was talking about Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box. I didn’t suggest it was rejected because it was about God. I said it was rejected on an argument from ignorance. I was not based on evidence, it supported it’s theory be exposing what science did not know, for example that fact that science could not explain the evolution of bacterial flagella. There have been papers released describing this, in detail. That is why it is a argument from ignorance, the term means presenting something as true because there is no evidence against it.
I am evolving my arguing habits to pick one point instead of inefficiently arguing every single point separately and at once.
Probably a good idea. I’m just usually proud of my ideas and don’t like when they’re ignoredI am evolving my arguing habits to pick one point instead of inefficiently arguing every single point separately and at once.
Lets take a hypothetical situation. Let’s assume you’ve never seen a skyscraper or know how it works. First you see a fully constructed building. Next you see a building with windows, but inside it’s just framework, then just the open framework, and finally a partially completed framework. Would you be wrong is using logic to determine how the final building was made by looking at the 3 other buildings? Of course not.
I still don’t understand what you mean by “changing a sheep into a goat”. As in taking a sheep embryo and having it develop into a goat? And evolution does not say that things have ancestry from two different species, so I’m not really sure what you’re trying to say here. Evolution is a slow change (like what’s happening in the birds), not about two sheep mating and creating a goat.About the birds. I can go one better. People have been genetically modifying animals for thousands of years but no-one has ever changed a sheep into a goat, or a horse into a cow. There are hundreds of horse and dog varieties but none seem to have been the ancestoral species for two different types of creatures.
In the ribosome case you are not watching the ribosome form and evolve. You are looking at a finished product. As in the US skyscrapers, you may presume at first glance that they were logically built from the bottom up getting gradually more complex as time passed, i.e. evolve slowly without divine purpose; but at the same time, you are not aware that the Russians build skyscrapers from the top down, ie. divine purpose has allowed evolution the shapes it takes.Probably a good idea. I’m just usually proud of my ideas and don’t like when they’re ignored
Lets take a hypothetical situation. Let’s assume you’ve never seen a skyscraper or know how it works. First you see a fully constructed building. Next you see a building with windows, but inside it’s just framework, then just the open framework, and finally a partially completed framework. Would you be wrong is using logic to determine how the final building was made by looking at the 3 other buildings? Of course not.
I still don’t understand what you mean by “changing a sheep into a goat”. As in taking a sheep embryo and having it develop into a goat? And evolution does not say that things have ancestry from two different species, so I’m not really sure what you’re trying to say here. Evolution is a slow change (like what’s happening in the birds), not about two sheep mating and creating a goat.
If you have to pick a point, go with the second one. You’re just using poor logic in the ribosome case, but I’m extremely confused about what you are trying to suggest in the second.
But we don’t only have one ribosome. We have thousands and thousands of different genetics codes for thousands of ribosomes, each one building on the code of the last. The genetic changes (evolution) can be seen as you move though the ribosomes.
This is where you are mistaken. As I said before, that is not what the theory of evolution says. Sure, it probably happens, but it is not how organisms evolve.
It does’nt answer the question though. There are Catholic evolutionists who would not see the significance of two different ribosomes any more than the significance of two different related animals. How does difference prove random purposeless evolution as opposed to ordered purposeful evolution.
I thought organisms evolved by genetic mutation over time.
If the person was an evolutionist, Catholic or not, they wouldn’t see the genetic and physical similarities between species as insignificant. They would see it as evidence of evolution. I was arguing that the theory of intelligent design was not science. If we’ve agreed on the fact that evolution is true, and just discussing the fine details (random vs guided), we’re pretty much on the same page.
Exactly. So why did you say that since we don’t see organisms that are combinations of two other species, or that humans developing the technology to travel to space somehow disproves evolution. That was my confusion. Evolution is based on mutations, not crossing species or technology.
The fine detail of whether evolution is guided or random is hardly fine detail; after all the answer to this question has guided the policies of entire countries towards human life itself for example.
I don’t mean cross breeding different species. I mean why has a goat, for instance, not evolved into a mammoth, imagining it could, after thousands of years of intensive human genetic engineering of the goat.
This is true. I meant it in context of the discussion. The initial comment was to show that ID is not science. So if you accept evolution as science and ID as not, the purpose has been served.
So you ask why has a goat not evolved into a mammoth after thousands of years of intensive genetic engineering? Simply put, genetic engineering that sophisticated is not even around yet, let alone been happening for thousands of years. That is not to say it will never happen, however.
Yes, but they have been breeding mice for certain mice traits, not to transform them into something that isn’t a mouse. You say hundreds of years. Evolution takes millions. That’s why it hasn’t happened in hundreds, even with human influence. Besides, we engineer traits, not the entire organism. I’ll state this again: the 94% does not mean a mouse evolved into a chimp. It means they have a common ancestor. Evolution is not linear, it is a tree with many branches.
Excuse me, you’re way off base here.
My mistake. I tried to understand what the various sources of ID said, but the fallacies blew my mind and made it hard to focus. I suppose we are not at the same page.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but ID talks about large jumps, not just changes over time. This would mean there is more of a difference than just guided vs not guided. I incorrectly assumed that if we agreed on small gradual changes, we were talking about guided vs non guided evolution, not evolution verses id.