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

[rossum]

You and the other atheists…

Oh dear, here we go again. I am Buddhist, not atheist (just look at my avatar picture to remind yourself). There are a lot more gods in my scriptures than in yours. Numerically you are closer to being atheist than I am.

You have still failed to define the difference between “static evidence” and “dynamic evidence”. Given that you cannot define the difference then I shall ignore it. There is a great deal of evidence for evolution, and that evidence does not contradict my scriptures.

 

[o_mlly]

Oh dear, here we go again. I am Buddhist, not atheist (just look at my avatar picture to remind yourself). There are a lot more gods in my scriptures than in yours. Numerically you are closer to being atheist than I am.

Oh dear, there you go again – deflection. Your worldview of no one-Creator-God relies on the evolution theory just as do the atheists.

The difficulty that you will not address is how a random, un-directed, unguided, passive process with only one active but cyclic variable can generate progress in the complexity of life forms from simple to complex.

 

[rossum]

Oh dear, there you go again – deflection. Your worldview of no one-Creator-God relies on the evolution theory just as do the atheists.

My worldview is shaped by the Tripitaka, not by evolution. You attempt at telling me what I think has failed. You might want to reclaim your fees from the mind-reading consultant you hired.

The difficulty that you will not address is how a random, un-directed, unguided, passive process with only one active but cyclic variable can generate progress in the complexity of life forms from simple to complex.

Your description of cosmology is grossly inaccurate as to the origin of the material universe.

Of the five components of a human being in Buddhism, only one is formed by evolution – the physical body. The origins of the non-physical components are nowhere near the same as the origin taught in Christianity.

Ordinary evolutionary processes can increase complexity as measured scientifically. If you are using a different measure then you will need to tell us how to calculate your measure.

 

[o_mlly]

Please let me know by PM when you’re finished deflecting and ready to engage in conversation.

 

[Buzzard3]

First you deny that God could use evolution. Then you accept that He could.

You must be confusing me with someone else - I have never denied that God could use “evolution”. If by “evolution” you mean Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism or the Modern Synthesis, God could have used that process, but I don’t think he did, because the fossil record suggests otherwise (and no one has a clue what could have caused pieces of a reptile’s jaw bone to evolve into the inner-ear bones of a bird, for example … or how a single-circulation heart could have evolved into a double-circulation heart).

Then you deny nuclear fusion is a natural process. Then you accept that it is.

I don’t recall denying nuclear fusion is a natural process, but I do recall saying a nuclear fusion reactor (a star) could not arise from chaotic matter without God - ie, it was God who designed nature such that nuclear fusion reactors (stars) do arise from ‘chaotic’ matter.

Then you deny that you any idea on how life has progressed.

No one can know what process was responsible for the history of life on earth … which has nothing to do with theologically - scientifically speaking, that process is unknowable.

Then you say we should theologically accept the Genesis account.

I did not say “should”. My point was that how man got here is theologically irrelevant and scientifically unknowable, so that is why God presents the mystery of creation to us in the form of the Genesis account. The Genesis account is theologically correct, regardless of any scientific theory one might accept.

But then you deny that you suggested that evolution does not conflict with Christianity.

You may be referring to a certain post in which I mistakenly answered a question in the affirmation instead of in the negative - a simple and innocent mistake which I rectified and claried. My position is that a Christian can accept evolution (even thought it is a poor explanation for the history of life on earth and nutty ideas like ensouled humans breeding with non-ensouled humans may ensue).

continued in next post …

 

[Buzzard3]

Then you say it’s unknowable and then you say that it was supernatural.

That sounds right - no one can know what process was responsible for the history of life on earth, and the fossil record suggests supernatural intervention.

Then you declare it’s creationism and not evolution.

The fossil record suggests supernatural intervention, which is creationism … not Darwinism (or what you call ‘evolution’).

And then you state that ‘Darwinism’ is the best scientific evidence there is but then go on to say that ‘Darwinism’ conflicts with the evidence.

I agree that Darwinism is the best scientific explanation for the history of life on earth, but at the same time is not a good explanation because it is contradicted by the fossil record.

Please be advised that ‘best scientific explanation’ does not necessarily mean ‘good scientific explanation’. Any time science offers an ‘explanation’ for a miracle, it is 100% certain to be a poor explanation.

That about sums it up really. I’m not sure what your position actually is. And more to the point, it’s pretty obvious from just the last 200 or so posts that you don’t know what it is either.

What a sterling effort - well done! After all that spleen-venting, I hope you had a nice cup of tea and a good lie down.

If by this you mean that God started the universe rolling and didn’t provide (name removed by moderator)ut for a while, I agree.

Was the earth created while God was providing (name removed by moderator)ut, or while God was not providing (name removed by moderator)ut?

What about butterflies, flowers, lyre birds, tigers and sunsets? God (name removed by moderator)ut or no God (name removed by moderator)ut?

What about the human body that became Adam? God (name removed by moderator)ut or no God (name removed by moderator)ut?

God doesn’t start starbirth, but the reasons it occurs are due to the design of creation.

I see. So stars come into existence willy-nilly and God doesn’t care where and how many pop up? What about our sun - was it just another happy accident, or did God plan it?

I would say God planned every inch of creation and nothing came into existence that he did not will.

 

[Buzzard3]

We can know, but if you want your demanded kind of evidence, we need some special conditions. Evolution isn’t just something that happens the same way in every situation.

No, we can’t ‘know’ - we can only theorize.

See, you insist on this idea, but you never back it up.

By studying the respective designs of single- and double circulation hearts, it obvious the latter could not have evolved from the former.

Biased articles aren’t proof.

Which part of the argument in the article I provided represents a bias?

Plus, that article does nothing but speculate about the heart, not backing itself up either.

Your bias is so obvious … talk about a closed mind. You seem determined to expunge any evidence of the supernatural from creation, which strikes as quite odd for any Catholic to do.

In effect, the article in question explains how a two-stroke engine could not evolve into a jet engine - the two systems are too different.

The process is rather like compound interest. As an example, take a population of 1000 organisms; on average each organism has one descendant in the next generation. Now let a beneficial mutation appear with a 1% advantage … . For comparison I include ten other mutated organisms with a deleterious mutation, giving a 1% disadvantage.

Thanks for your post. I get the ‘compound interest’ thing, but my point is this - how can anyone possibly quantify the survival advantage of a beneficial mutation or the disadvantage of a deleterious mutation? You use the arbitrary example of a ‘1% advantage’, but in practice, surely any such figure is a guess?

If so, what is the use of an evolution computer model that contains guesses that are just pulled out of the air?

A similar approach can be applied to living organisms. God did nor say “Let there be fish,” He said, “Let the waters bring forth…”

Good example. Where are the transitionals between invertebrate chordates and fish with fully-formed back-bones? My understanding is, there are none - over 40 BTS deposits have been discovered and not one of them reveals any such transitionals. How does Darwinism explain this gap?

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Was the earth created while God was providing (name removed by moderator)ut, or while God was not providing (name removed by moderator)ut?

Not. Earth was the result of a natural process, not influenced supernaturally by God.

What about butterflies, flowers, lyre birds, tigers and sunsets? God (name removed by moderator)ut or no God (name removed by moderator)ut?

Nope. All the result of natural processes. Jury’s out on the first life forms, but I tend to think those were His doing. Everything else was not tampered with.

What about the human body that became Adam? God (name removed by moderator)ut or no God (name removed by moderator)ut?

Nope. Adam’s soul was created and bestowed on him by God, but the body itself was not.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

I see. So stars come into existence willy-nilly and God doesn’t care where and how many pop up?

God designed the universe the way He wanted. The stars that are born are all born according to His will, because He designed the laws that result in their creation.

What about our sun - was it just another happy accident, or did God plan it?

It was planned; an inevitable result of the laws of physics God set for our universe.

I would say God planned every inch of creation and nothing came into existence that he did not will.

Me too.

No, we can’t ‘know’ - we can only theorize.

We can know once we have the proper environment to replicate the experimental conditions hundreds of millions of years ago. Until then, you’re right, we can only speculate. It won’t be all speculation forever.

By studying the respective designs of single- and double circulation hearts, it obvious the latter could not have evolved from the former.

I see you missed this:

Search and ye shall find.
https://www.livescience.com/7877-understanding-heart-evolution.html

Which part of the argument in the article I provided represents a bias?

It comes from a website dedicated exclusively to ID. No opposing views allowed.

Your bias is so obvious … talk about a closed mind.

Pot, meet kettle.

You seem determined to expunge any evidence of the supernatural from creation, which strikes as quite odd for any Catholic to do.

Where did you get this idea? Creation itself is designed and sustained by a supernatural God. I just don’t make Him the reason for things He isn’t the reason for. I follow evidence and reason. I don’t make my mind up, then look for evidence to support that. I find the evidence and make my opinion based on that.

In effect, the article in question explains how a two-stroke engine could not evolve into a jet engine - the two systems are too different.

A couple split blood vessels is all it takes to change an amphibian heart into a proto-4 chamber, and then an extra chamber on the right completes it. Don’t see how it’s so inconceivable.

 

[rossum]

Thanks for your post. I get the ‘compound interest’ thing, but my point is this - how can anyone possibly quantify the survival advantage of a beneficial mutation or the disadvantage of a deleterious mutation? You use the arbitrary example of a ‘1% advantage’, but in practice, surely any such figure is a guess?

If so, what is the use of an evolution computer model that contains guesses that are just pulled out of the air?

The Black Death killed between 30% and 50% of the population when it arrived in Europe. The reproductive advantage of a mutation for resistance would have been higher than 1%. A mutation to resist Athlete’s Foot would have a much smaller advantage. The survival advantage varies between mutations. It also differs between locations. Malaria resistance has an advantage in malarial areas; it does not have an advantage in non-malarial areas, and may possibly have a deleterious effect.

Some research into the population statistics would be needed to find the actual percentage advantage.

For my very simple example I needed to use some figure. My 1% comes somewhere between resisting Bubonic Plague and resisting Athlete’s Foot.

Good example. Where are the transitionals between invertebrate chordates and fish with fully-formed back-bones? My understanding is, there are none - over 40 BTS deposits have been discovered and not one of them reveals any such transitionals. How does Darwinism explain this gap?

The fossils you want are next to the fossils of Seth and Mrs. Seth. You demand every possible fossil, while producing none of your own. Not all fossils have been found yet, just as the fossils of Seth and his wife have not been found yet.

Living chordates such as tunicates and amphioxus do not have bones and hence do not fossilise well. Conodonts had hard pseudo-teeth, which were probably the first stage in the development of a hard skeleton. Their ‘teeth’ are so common as to be useable as index fossils. Body fossils are much rarer.

 

[o_mlly]

The theory of evolution is a beautiful theory destroyed by facts, lack of facts and internal incoherence. Proponents merely hand wave these problems away, e.g., the Sisyphean problem, being the latest.

 

[rossum]

So, please explain why Sisyphean evolution is a problem. It is evolution and it happens. It does not result in speciation, but there is a great deal of evolution that does not result in speciation.

 

[Techno2000]

I love how all these magical climate changes come along and can cherry pick out one organism and wonderfully transform them into a completely new species. But the fact is a climate change is going to affect the whole ecosystem that it’s connected to, not just one organism would be affected.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

I love how all these magical climate changes come along and can cherry pick out one organism and wonderfully transform them into a completely new species.

Where did you get this idea? Changing climates affect every species. Some species are more able to adapt in their current forms, while others have more drastic changes, but everything is forced to change with climate.

 

[Techno2000]

If a cold climate change similar to Canada came to the Amazon jungle would the plants and animals be able to morph into a suitable species and survive?

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Depends on how gradual it was. Change within a few generations? There’d probably be really high extinction rates. Within hundreds or thousands? There’d probably be a low rate.

 

[buffalo]

there is a great deal of evolution that does not result in speciation.

Adaptation aka micro-evolution

 

[buffalo]

Depends on how gradual it was. Change within a few generations? There’d probably be really high extinction rates. Within hundreds or thousands? There’d probably be a low rate.

Cell directed mutations happen very quickly.

 

[rossum]

Adaptation aka micro-evolution

Yes, evolution by a different name.

 

[Techno2000]

Depends on how gradual it was. Change within a few generations? There’d probably be really high extinction rates. Within hundreds or thousands? There’d probably be a low rate.

Let’s take the piranha for example. Every single plant and animal that’s supported this fish in the food chain is going to have to start producing cold climate fit offspring. What are the odds of all these random mutations coming together in perfect harmony?