Transitional Fossils and the Theory of Evolution in relation to Genesis Accounts

[rossum]

Darwinism is a failed scientific attempt to explain the origins of species, a pseudo-scientific fable that says all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor via a process of mutations and natural selection.

Which just goes to show that you do not understand what you are criticising. Evolution is the best scientific attempt to explain the origin of species. A well established scientific theory based on evidence showing that all life on earth evolved from a small group of original ancestors via a process of mutation, natural selection, neutral drift, founder effect, sexual selection, endosymbiosis and other processes.

As I said before, Darwin’s original ideas have been greatly expanded since he wrote.

Athesits like you are forced to accept Darwinism because you really have no other choice.

Do you bother to read my posts? How many gods were there in my quote from the Saddharmapundarika above? You have a very strange idea of what an (I presume) atheist would believe. I am Buddhist, not atheist.

I do not accept “Darwinism” because “Darwinism” does not include Mendel’s work, Kimura’s work and much other work does since 1859.

 

[rossum]

Please tell me which part of it you consider to be unscientific? Which part represents a “known bias”? Be specific. Don’t be shy.

Dr. Bechly says:

Since the average longevity of a single marine invertebrate species is about 5-10 million years (Levinton 2001: 384, table 7.2), this available window of time equals only about two successive species.

This is wrong. A new species may branch off, leaving the old species still in existence. Dogs branched off from wolves yet wolves still exist. He is assuming a particular case – linear succession – while not presenting any evidence for it. The evidence of multiple species with a single larger clade shows that branching speciation is more common than linear succession. With linear succession the number of species in the enclosing clade does not increase. Branching increases the number of species.

 

[o_mlly]

A new species may branch off, leaving the old species still in existence. Dogs branched off from wolves yet wolves still exist.

Wolves can interbreed with any type of dog, and their offspring are capable of producing offspring themselves. No new species here … at least not according to the latest revised definition of “species”.

Species - Definition and Examples | Biology Dictionary

Scientists have changed their definition of a species several times throughout history.

 

[o_mlly]

I’ve told you this before - I don’t consider Genesis to be a scientific description of history.

They will ignore that fact about us. They have a playbook that requires them to follow the rules when they have no valid argument. I believe you’re experiencing a corollary to Atheist Rule #1:

The standard playbook for macroevolution advocates to repel legitimate criticism is as follows:

1. “We saw you near a church once so you must be a creationist.”
2. “You’re a science-denier.”
3. “You’re stupid.”
4. “You’re evil.”
5. “You don’t know how science works.”
6. “What’s your alternative?”

 

[rossum]

Scientists have changed their definition of a species several times throughout history.

“When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” - John Maynard Keynes

 

[o_mlly]

“When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” - John Maynard Keynes

"When I have no facts, I do not claim to know anything. What do you do, sir? - o_mlly

 

[rossum]

"When I have no facts, I do not claim to know anything. What do you do, sir? - o_mlly

When discussing evolution, that is not the case. There are plenty of facts supporting the theory of evolution.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

“What’s your alternative?”

I love this little tidbit. The claim has been consistent from your side that science is on the side of creationism. Why, then, is there no theory of creationism? You can’t just say one theory sucks and not replace it with another. That’s not how science works. If you think something falls short, it’s your duty to explain how things really happen.

 

[o_mlly]

The claim has been consistent from your side that science is on the side of creationism.

Straw man. Cite the post that I made such a claim.

You can’t just say one theory sucks and not replace it with another.

Sure you can. Ask @Patttyit, she gets it. “We just don’t know” is quite appropriate. Think “abiogenisis”. Both speciation via evolution and abiogenisis belong in the same category, i.e., speculative ideas, not yet science facts.

That’s not how science works.

No. Ask @Rossum how science works. At least one direct, verifiable and, hopefully, repeatable observation is required.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Straw man. Cite the post that I made such a claim.

I was assuming that since you, Buffalo, and Buzzard3 seem to agree on everything, you’d agree with them that evolution is not correct and creationism/intelligent design is. If that’s not correct, I apologize and wish to hear your position.

Sure you can. Ask @Patttyit, she gets it. “We just don’t know” is quite appropriate. Think “abiogenisis”. Both speciation via evolution and abiogenisis belong in the same category, i.e., speculative ideas, not yet science facts.

No, “I don’t know” is not a valid answer for replacing a scientific theory. Evolution matches the evidence that we have today. It fits the time scale, it accounts for biodiversity, and we have seen empirical demonstrations of its mechanisms. Whether or not you accept this evidence is a different matter, but it exists. So, with that in mind, if new evidence contradicts evolution, it is the duty of the one attempting to refute evolution to propose a counter theory. Failing to do so is a failure to carry out the full scientific method to its conclusion.

 

[Pattylt]

Hi! PATTYLT here…so I can be notified when I’m mentioned!

I don’t know is valid when we have no specific evidence of a process. While that does somewhat apply to abiogenesis, I have never applied it to evolution. Since speciation has been observed and studied, we know it happens, we know a variety of ways it can happen and sometimes even the amount of time it took to happen.

On abiogenesis, we have several hypothesis. As more evidence accumulates, we will refine the hypothesis until we can arrive at a theory. So we aren’t there yet and we can certainly be wrong. That doesn’t mean we are.

Where we REALLY don’t know is any speculation of conditions before the Big Bang. No one knows. Christians have a belief statement about it. So do Hindus. No evidence exists on what the conditions were before the BB occurred so it’s perfectly valid for everyone to say, I don’t know…it’s just that many Christians won’t.

 

[buffalo]

A recent conversation hosted by none other than Sean Carroll (atheist) ventured into the area of " we are not even sure that universal common descent is true, but just so we are clear it isn’t creation" (paraphrasing) Ends with - we have a lot to chew on".

Once again the science is leading to design as being the reason behind the complexity we see.

ID is the better explanation for the latest science we are able to observe. There is no going back folks. @rossum is still holding on to the modern synthesis (probably does not read the papers I post). It has failed.

 

[rossum]

ID is the better explanation for the latest science we are able to observe. There is no going back folks. @rossum is still holding on to the modern synthesis (probably does not read the papers I post). It has failed.

First, I am not “holding on” to the Modern Synthesis, that was current in the 1920s and 1930s, it has since been superseded by all the new evidence included into the current theory since then.

Second, ID grossly fails to explain the origin of the complex intelligence inherent in its proposed intelligent designer. If complex intelligence requires design then ID has an infinite regress. If complex intelligence does not require design then ID is wrong to assert that complex things, such as intelligence, must be designed. ID fails at a very basic logical level.

 

[buffalo]

First, I am not “holding on” to the Modern Synthesis, that was current in the 1920s and 1930s, it has since been superseded by all the new evidence included into the current theory since then.

I am calling you on this. Your challenge was “what is the objection” to the MS. In context, you are holding onto it.

Just in case you have updated your thinking, what version do you now subscribe to?

 

[buffalo]

Second, ID grossly fails to explain the origin of the complex intelligence inherent in its proposed intelligent designer. If complex intelligence requires design then ID has an infinite regress. If complex intelligence does not require design then ID is wrong to assert that complex things, such as intelligence, must be designed. ID fails at a very basic logical level.

Are we really going to go through the who designed the designer nonsense again?

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

ID is the better explanation for the latest science we are able to observe.

Intelligent Design supposes the existence of things outside the realm of scientific study. We can’t replicate the mechanisms of intelligent design and, as a result, it’s not a scientific theory. It’s an untestable, infinitely changeable “gotcha” hypothesis that could always be true.

That’s ignoring all the logical problems of why God created life in such an odd manner if the intended end of creation was mankind.

 

[rossum]

I am calling you on this. Your challenge was “what is the objection” to the MS. In context, you are holding onto it.

The old Modern Synthesis omits all work done since the 1940s, such as Kimura’s work on neutral drift, Margulis’ work on endosymbiosis and all the new information from DNA sequencing. A scientific theory is not static; as new facts are discovered they are incorporated into the theory.

Are we really going to go through the who designed the designer nonsense again?

The intelligent designer is intelligent, obviously. How does ID explain the origin of that intelligence?

If that intelligence was intelligently designed, then you have an infinite regress. If that intelligence was not designed, then intelligence does not require design and can arise from non-design processes.

Which one was it, buffalo?

 

[rossum]

Intelligent Design supposes the existence of things outside the realm of scientific study.

Not always. They are very careful to allow the possibility of intelligent aliens as the designers just to show that they are not following a religious agenda. They do seem to be doing less of that recently as the mask has slipped rather too many times.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

We can’t test the existence or methods of aliens, either. Not at this point, at least, so I’d still consider that unscientific.

 

[o_mlly]

Since speciation has been observed and studied …

Got it. Thought your lower case “L’” was a capital “I”.

Please define “species” and cite the observation of a speciation event that has been observed.