Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

[ewohdrol]

Ummmm. That article supports exactly what I am arguing!

I think some posters are playing with semantics to support their agenda. Rather than look at the facts and discuss them they will grasp at anything that slightly supports their position. Flexible thinking is incredibly important in anstract thought. I am very happy to be challenged and will admit I am misinformed if a clear argument with facts are presented. But the waters are muddied with incorrect links, circular arguments, and anecdotal evidence.

I have some educational background in this area but am not an expert. I’d love to have a healthy educational debate but find some posters arguments are either going in circles or simply devoid of simple scientific facts. That makes it hard for me to understand your position.

With respect I will bow out.

God bless.

 

[mVitus]

but find some posters arguments are either going in circles

This is the, what number are we on? You mean to say we’ve reached a number so high that we broke the number system? Oh dearie me. Well, this the [broke-the-number-line]th time we have made an evolution circle and we have become exceedingly efficient at it.

-The Architect from The Matrix

 

[Aloysium]

I’d love to have a healthy educational debate but find some posters arguments are

Yet you left it at:

That article supports exactly what I am arguing!

. . . not providing your interpretation of what it says.
There aren’t any mind readers here.
It’s hard enough to figure out what the person is getting at when they write it down.

Would this be an example of what you would label an “incorrect link”?

As you say:

Flexible thinking is incredibly important in anstract thought.

Consider that it may all boil down to reconfiguring the scientific facts into a more comprehensive, more concise way to put them together, that approaches the reality of what is and has gone on, than evolution.

When the facts are so enmeshed with the mythos of our times, it is difficult to tease them out.

The linked article may support what you are arguing, but it at the same time support the other argument as well.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Consider that it may all boil down to reconfiguring the scientific facts into a more comprehensive, more concise way to put them together, that approaches the reality of what is and has gone on, than evolution.

It is all well and good to talk about the theoretical possibility of such a reconfiguration of the facts to present an alternative theory to evolution. But to realize that possibility, you have to actually have such an alternative theory that stands up better than evolution. When such a scientific theory appears, of course we will give it consideration. But ID as it is currently proposed is not such a theory. So go back to the drawing board come up with a real alternative to evolution and then you will be taken seriously by scientists.

 

[buffalo]

We don’t know. There is no ‘Predictive Theory of Evolution’.

Right, which means it is not empirical science;

that is not observable, repeatable or predictable.

 

[buffalo]

It is all well and good to talk about the theoretical possibility of such a reconfiguration of the facts to present an alternative theory to evolution. But to realize that possibility, you have to actually have such an alternative theory that stands up better than evolution. When such a scientific theory appears, of course we will give it consideration. But ID as it is currently proposed is not such a theory. So go back to the drawing board come up with a real alternative to evolution and then you will be taken seriously by scientists.

Hmmmm - let’s continue to be wrong…

 

[rossum]

that is not observable, repeatable or predictable.

Evolution is observable; we can observe it.

Evolution is repeatable; we can repeat the Lederberg experiment and the Luria-Delbruck experiment and get the same result each time.

Evolution can make some predictions, this from Modiano et al (2001):

These findings, together with the limited pathology of HbAC and HbCC compared to the severely disadvantaged HbSS and HbSC genotypes and the low betaS gene frequency in the geographic epicentre of betaC, support the hypothesis that, in the long term and in the absence of malaria control, HbC would replace HbS in central West Africa.

That is a testable prediction from evolutionary theory.

rossum

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Hmmmm - let’s continue to be wrong…

Let’s continue to avoid engaging in the topic.

 

[rossum]

Hmmmm - let’s continue to be wrong…

Hmmm… Newton was wrong. Why did people use Newton’s wrong theory for so long? Because it was the best theory available. Science uses the best theory available. Currently, evolution is the best theoretical explanation for the origin of species we have.

You was theories to make predictions. How do you intend to predict the actions of your posited designer. Will, or will not, your designer create a species of pegasus? Evolution can answer that question. Can ID answer the question?

rossum

 

[edwest211]

According to the Church, it is impossible to verify the theory regarding the origin of man.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

We don’t know. There is no ‘Predictive Theory of Evolution’.

Right, which means it is not empirical science;

I assume that you know that there is no Predictive Theory of gravity? Yet one can still make predictions based on the theory of gravity?

Here’s a prediction regarding evolution that we will be able to test: You will still be making dumb statements regarding the subject in a month’s time.

 

[buffalo]

gravity

Its effects can be observed, repeated and predicted.

 

[edwest211]

Always gravity, which anyone can prove at any time.

 

[Aloysium]

The biological equivalent is that there exists a diversity of living forms that procreate, develop, grow and maintain themselves and demonstrate a hierarchy of complexity, their order resting on that belonging to matter itself and at higher levels includes perceptions, feelings, drives, and action. That instinctive structure takes a leap forward to encompass the capacity to know the beautiful, the truth and the good, to be expressed in action through the free will of the person. All this is at the same level of knowledge whereby we know gravity exists and what it does.

Evolution provides the poorest explanation to what creation nails.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

And your evidence for this latent memory is? We have fully sequenced bacterial genomes, so we already know it is not held in DNA. Where is it held, and where is your evidence for this non-DNA storage of information?

Also looking at Lenski’s experiment with e-coli shows that the development to consume citrate is found in the DNA. So, somehow, not only is there an alleged latent memory but it seemingly only affects certain characteristics of how the organism operates.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

gravity

Its effects can be observed, repeated and predicted.

I see. So you disagree with any theory relating to the formation of galaxies.

‘You weren’t there when it happened’
‘You can’t drag 10,000 galaxies into the laboratory’
‘You can’t make predictions so it’s not science’
‘It’s a futile attempt by atheists to deny God’
‘All of the above’

Tick off as required.

 

[Bradskii]

Always gravity, which anyone can prove at any time.

The theory of gravity? No. You can’t.

 

[Bradskii]

The biological equivalent is that there exists a diversity of living forms that procreate, develop, grow and maintain themselves and demonstrate a hierarchy of complexity, their order resting on that belonging to matter itself and at higher levels includes perceptions, feelings, drives, and action. That instinctive structure takes a leap forward to encompass the capacity to know the beautiful, the truth and the good, to be expressed in action through the free will of the person. All this is at the same level of knowledge whereby we know gravity exists and what it does.

Evolution provides the poorest explanation to what creation nails.

I think you should spend more time considering what you write as opposed to how you write it. I would suggest style over substance. But without any substance at all the style comes across as pretentious.

 

[Aloysium]

pretentious

That’s about as strong an argument against creation as any I’ve heard that tries to support an evolutionary perspective.

Thanks for the heads up, though. An argument can fail in reality, not because it is unreasonable, but because of the manner in which it is presented. People can shut down if they feel they are being intellectually browbeaten. And, to call the person pretentious would be a defense against this, deflating them of emotional power to do so. Am I doing it again?

 

[Aloysium]

pretentious

On further reflection of this interesting human trait, I’m thinking that generally most people participating on a philosophy forum would be seen as being pretentious, engaging in airy-fairy, non-realistic sort of thinking. The only ones that would not be seen as pretentious, ironically would be the trolls who are actually only pretending to engage in the discussion.

The fact is that what is being discussed is metaphysics, the underlying order of existence, that which governs our capacity to engage in these conversations. This stretches from that which is the structure of material being to that of humanity, the unity of being that includes those lower levels of existence and is here being expressed. The fact is that what is here and now had a beginning, for each of us and for all of us in humanity. And, that would be why I consider these discussions important, as a dialogue ultimately with the Ground from which all this springs, to understand where we all come from, individually in eternity.