Questions about evolution and origins

  • Thread starter Thread starter amaxiner
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Me? Rash? I don’t do rash. And the truth obviously needs to be repeated here a lot. As in, a lot.
 
Last edited:
edwest211 said:
Evolution provides no guidance.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Evolution does not provide guidance. The surrounding environment provides the guidance. Random mutations send evolution down a lot of different paths. Natural selection stops the variants going down the less good paths and encourages the variants going down the better paths.

The environment sets the guidelines and natural selection keeps the population within those guidelines.
 
Wozza said:
Yeah. Creationism? That’ll be the third door down on the left. Theology department.
Click to expand...
Yeah. Evolutionism? That will be the third door down on the left. Philosophy department.

Empirical science only in the science classroom. Empirically repeatable gene knockout experiments showing that NS and RM break or blunt genes and result in devolution is one example. Observable, repeatable and predictable.
 
Last edited:
edwest211 said:
This is speculation. The science only answer is incomplete.
Click to expand...
The science only answer is complete with respect to the material world – that is what science studies.

The science only answer is incomplete with respect to the spiritual world – it has no way to deal with Vishnu or Amaterasu.

In the specific case of evolution, science can describe how the material human body arose. It cannot describe how a human soul arose. To quote Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis:
  1. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter – for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.
Click to expand...
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Wozza:
Massive fail.
Click to expand...
Since you do not understand the difference between ID, the science and ID…
Click to expand...
ID the science is Creationism. Remember the book? And Creationism is a fundamentalist theological philosophy. Third door down. Can’t miss it.
 
buffalo said:
Nope. ID the science does not tell us about the designer, only that the artifact is designed.
Click to expand...
ID the science tells us that a designer exists, but has no independent scientific evidence for any such designer existing at the applicable time.

ID the science claims the existence of a designing intelligence but has no explanation for the origin of the complexity inherent in that claimed intelligent entity.
 
Fiction. Intelligent Design is the answer to the design of the cell which scientists are taking apart and studying right now because evolution cannot offer them anything.
 
edwest211 said:
Fiction.
Click to expand...
Fiction? Really? I claimed that ID had no independent scientific evidence of their designer. If that is fiction, then you need to show independent (i.e not extrapolated from the complexity of living organisms) of the existence of your designer.

Put up or shut up ed. If ID has this evidence then show it.
 
Existence of a designer? That is your problem with ID? Living things are designed. Period. Richard Dawkins has a philosophical, unscientific view. He can say living things only look designed. So, what actually works? Living things are very complex and science does not know a lot about about how all the parts work. What controls molecular switches? How is it that something in formerly Junk DNA can cause disease in DNA that codes for proteins? How is that the dismissed due to bias by biologists Junk DNA is showing more and more function as more and more scientists investigate it? That they would be further along if someone had not decided that Junk DNA was genetic leftovers from our supposedly very long development.

Respectfully, design is going nowhere. For scientists who do science, it doesn’t matter who designed living things. It does matter that they figure it out as soon as possible to end long-term suffering and stop deadly diseases. That’s what’s at stake for science, not: Who is the designer?
 
edwest211 said:
Living things are designed. Period.
Click to expand...
Your statement here is a personal opinion with zero supporting evidence. I am happy to accept design where there is supporting evidence. There is such evidence that some plants were designed by Monsanto; that evidence for design I accept. Your general statement is unsupported personal opinion and I reject it.

There is ample evidence that evolution can make changes in DNA. There is evidence that humans can make changes in DNA. Where is your equivalent evidence of a deity making even a single base pair change in DNA?

This is science ed; you need scientific evidence to support what you say.
Respectfully, design is going nowhere.
Click to expand...
I have to agree with you here. None of the goals set out in the Wedge Strategy by the Discovery Institute have been achieved. ID is basically spinning its wheels and preaching to the choir. It has made far less scientific impact that it wanted to.

So far this year the ID research journal BIO-complexity has published no papers at all. Zero ID research published in eight months. How many scientific research papers on evolution have been published so far this year?

As you say, ID is going nowhere. It has got stuck in a dead end.
 
rossum said:
Fiction? Really? I claimed that ID had no independent scientific evidence of their designer. If that is fiction, then you need to show independent (i.e not extrapolated from the complexity of living organisms) of the existence of your designer.

Put up or shut up ed. If ID has this evidence then show it.
Click to expand...
Uh no. ID does not have to show the designer, just the design.
 
Ignoring obvious design is ignoring obvious design. It doesn’t matter to working scientists who the designer is, they just need to find out how complex living things work in greater detail.

I was driving through farm country and saw rows of plants with combination letter and number codes on signs. Science can modify to a point. After that, not.
 
Last edited:
More bad news for evos.

Synteny-based analyses indicate that sequence divergence is not the dominant source of orphan genes​

www.biorxiv.org

Synteny-based analyses indicate that sequence divergence is not the dominant source of orphan genes

The origin of “orphan” genes, species-specific sequences that lack detectable homologues, has remained mysterious since the dawn of the genomic era. There are two dominant explanations for orphan genes: complete sequence divergence from ancestral genes, such that homologues are not readily...
www.biorxiv.org www.biorxiv.org
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top