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

[o_mlly]

I’m a lapsed Anglican. I felt it worthwhile that people know that I come from a solid Christian background.

Others may judge the “solidity” of your Christian background. But knowing that you can lapse – pass gradually into an inferior state or condition – does explain this militant faith in an irrational evolutionist mentality.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

I’m a lapsed Anglican. I felt it worthwhile that people know that I come from a solid Christian background.

Others may judge the “solidity” of your Christian background. But knowing that you can lapse – pass gradually into an inferior state or condition – does explain this militant faith in an irrational evolutionist mentality.

I prefer this definition:

‘no longer following the rules and practices of a religion or doctrine; non-practising.’

But even everyone I knew back then in my Anglican days did not have any irrational fear of science. It seems to be primarily an American thing. Rule Number One when I’m in the States: Do Not Discuss Guns, Politics Or Religion.

Mostly I fail at that but the people are generally so nice we can get by without any untoward comments. I just keep reminding myself that the guy I’m discussing sport with at the bar is possibly carrying a gun, voted for a moron and believes the world is 6,000 years old (especially south of the Mason Dixon line).

Mentally put that to one side and we can happily discuss the qualities of American Pale Ale and how come you can tackle someone without the ball in the NFL.

And this carries over to chats in a forum. Just because a handful of members make ignorant comments doesn’t tar everyone with the same brush.

 

[Aloysium]

Evolution is obviously observable.

What is observable is that reproduction occurs and that the offspring of different kinds of creatures can differ slightly anatomically, physiologically and instinctively, such that we have a wealth of variety of life on this planet able to handle different roles within the environment which together they create. That complex life forms arise from progenitors that are less so is an assumption. That these differences have to do with material differences rather than existential is another that gives more reality to those necessary constituents than one’s own being. That these material differences arose spontaneously, that the order of the over-riding system that is a living being somehow formed itself from the inherent properties of matter, which are chaotic to that order, is an even greater assumption, the randomness of the gaps that I was earlier referring to.

As you are aware I could go on and on, but I will finish with a reply to:

we have quite a few people making comments in threads like this which are argued from a position of ignorance (whoops…lack of education).

Buffalo is hardly lacking in education from what I have read. I do not agree with everything he says, but he does get his point across using his knowledge of science. Actually, following up on the papers he links, I’ve learned a lot.

One of my recent favourite quotes bears yet another repeating here:

John Archibald Wheeler: We live on an island surrounded by a sea of ignorance. As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.

Ignorance is a better word than uneducated because it is part of the human condition and may be a consequence of our desire to be gods, to contain the truth in ourselves. Mystery is the reality of existence. I have met people who are very intelligent, but “uneducated”, not to brag here, by my standards. I know educated people who are simply idiots and not because they disagree with me.

 

[Wozza]

This island of knowledge is not getting any bigger for some.

If you look at our quest for knowledge as a willingness to head off the island and see how it relates to what’s ‘out there’ then there appear to be some that will stand on the shore and shout ‘dragons be there!’ to those heading off and refuse to venture anywhere at all.

And when people come back with new knowledge, there are some (and you are foremost amongst them) who will denounce it because you think it conflicts with your beliefs. It doesn’t. But that has never stopped anyone before so why anyone should think you would be any different now is beyond me.

Perhaps I should use the term ill-educated as opposed to uneducated. People seem to have lost the ability to think critically and maybe that’s the fault of the educational process. If you want to argue against a position you would do well to know more about it then your opposite number. If something doesn’t feel right, then learn as much about it as you can to find out why.

You might change your mind. But if you don’t then you will at the very least earn the respect of those with whom you argue. Arguing from a position of ignorance will guarantee you will be forever on the shorline shouting about dragons.

Depending on my mood I am variously amused, perplexed and incredulous at a lot of the posts in threads like these. And I’ll be honest. If I were a Catholic I would be very angry indeed.

But as a bystander I think it’s nice to have it all out in the fresh air and get some exposure to the light. Maybe that’s what the forum powers-that-be were thinking as well when they allowed these discussions. It’s like taking the kids down to the shore to watch people head off exploring and pointing out the ‘dragons be there!’ crowd all out in the open now and saying: ‘Is this what you want to end up being? Is it?’

 

[buffalo]

This next paragraph must be empirically scientific:

I observe you making uneducated comments regarding evolution all the time. And you keep repeating the same mistakes. I predict that this will continue.

Mistakes. Human mutations are catastrophic.

NIH Presentation – Mutation Accumulation: Is it a Serious Health Risk?​

 

[Wozza]

One wonders what this has to do with evolution. If he could expand his thinking back to correlate his work, which deals in most cases with problems he sees covering a few years, and propose how that might have effected mutation rates over evolutionary time, then he may have something to discuss.

But as he only thinks the world is a few thousand years old, that might be difficult.

Now Sanford is not stupid. He is extremely smart. But EVERYTHING he claims about evolution and genetic entropy and the age of the planet is driven by his religious beliefs. He even states as much in the linked video when he says that his perspective on everything discussed was from a ‘religious perspective’. Say what?

These are personal opinions from someone who admits his bias. His Genetic Entropy book is simply too full of holes to be taken seriously except by people like yourself who need to be told that others share your views.

I’ll give you one classic from the book so we can see what we’re dealing with. If there is such a thing as genetic entropy then we should all be living shorter and shorter lives. With a corollary that the further back we go, the longer we should have lived. Kinda flies in the face kf everything we know about human mortality through the ages. So where does Sanford get some examples of people in the past living much longer than the present? You won’t believe this…

…the bible.

Yep, he uses Noah to back up his argument. In a book you would probably want to claim is genuine science. You just have to laugh.

 

[o_mlly]

I prefer this definition:

‘no longer following the rules and practices of a religion or doctrine; non-practising.’

Well, that definition would not make you lapsed but rather converted to the religion of evolutionism.

But even everyone I knew back then in my Anglican days did not have any irrational fear of science.

Look up “Luddite.” You’ll find them in your backyard; it’s an English thing.

… qualities of American Pale Ale

A distinct advantage here is the ale is served cold especially south of the Mason Dixon line. Do you drink your Kool-Aid warm as well?

Just because a handful of members make ignorant comments doesn’t tar everyone with the same brush.

Yes, the English are a lovely people and we ought not judge them by the few ignorant ones that troll the web.

 

[Wozza]

If you use terms like ‘religion of evolutionism’ it’s the same as if you wore a T shirt printed with ‘Not To Taken Seriously’.

And just a heads up. I’m not English and my current backyard is far from being English. Far from being Christian as well. Which makes it difficult, but not impossible, to get a beer.

 

[buffalo]

But EVERYTHING he claims about evolution and genetic entropy and the age of the planet is driven by his religious beliefs. He even states as much in the linked vid

He was an atheist like you. His research led him to God.

 

[buffalo]

So where does Sanford get some examples of people in the past living much longer than the present? You won’t believe this…

…the bible.

The Bible is historical.

 

[Aloysium]

People seem to have lost the ability to think critically

Agreed.

All you have done is insult those who have different views than your own. You have yet to respond to any argument. A regurgitation of the indoctrination to which society subjects its members is insufficient. Try to find a common ground. What if we start with the data that we might agree upon, rather than the story of evolution which it misinterprets.

Seeing that your response is tangential to the post. If you wish to give it another try, here it is:

What is observable is that reproduction occurs and that the offspring of different kinds of creatures can differ slightly anatomically, physiologically and instinctively, such that we have a wealth of variety of life on this planet able to handle different roles within the environment which together they create. That complex life forms arise from progenitors that are less so is an assumption. That these differences have to do with material differences rather than existential is another that gives more reality to those necessary constituents than one’s own being. That these material differences arose spontaneously, that the order of the over-riding system that is a living being somehow formed itself from the inherent properties of matter, which are chaotic to that order, is an even greater assumption, the randomness of the gaps that I was earlier referring to.

Or, if you would prefer, Buffolo’s link: IH Presentation – Mutation Accumulation: Is it a Serious Health Risk?

 

[edwest]

Broad brush painting.

 

[Aloysium]

If there is such a thing as genetic entropy then we should all be living shorter and shorter lives. With a corollary that the further back we go, the longer we should have lived.

This is strictly because of better nutition and public health measures. Many parts of the world have maternal and infant mortality rates that are astronomically high in comparison to those in the societies of those posting here. In North America, fewer than 1 in 4,000 women living in a typical city, will die giving birth. In sub-Saharan Africa, it’s 1 in 16. Among the NGO’s working around the world to meet these needs, the most successful are those who train local individuals on basic public health measures to reduce maternal mortality in their countries. It should also be considered that among the public health measures is a form of euthanasia which sees the early detection of birth defects which allows parents the option to abort their unborn children.

 

[buffalo]

Biological Information – New Perspectives

The proceedings include the research findings of 29 scientists who represent a diverse
spectrum of scientific disciplines, including information theory, computer science,
numerical simulation, thermodynamics, evolutionary theory, whole organism biology,
developmental biology, molecular biology, genetics, physics, biophysics, mathematics,
and linguistics. These scientists generally agreed on three crucial points:

1. Information is the key to understanding life. Within the simplest cell there
   exists an immense flow of information through a mind-boggling system of
   information networks. There is constant and multidirectional communication
   between proteins, RNAs, and DNAs, and these biological information
   networks are in many ways comparable to the internet.
2. These biological information systems appear to greatly surpass human
   information technologies. Such information systems cannot possibly operate
   until all the countless components of the system are in place - including
   hardware, software, multiple languages, storage/transmission of communicable
   prescriptive information units, error testing/correction systems, designated
   senders/receivers, etc. Such systems must be comprehensive and coherently
   integrated before they can effectively operate. .
3. The enormous amounts of information found within any cell, and the
   irreducibly complex nature of information systems, can no longer rationally be
   attributed to just the mutation/selection process. New perspectives are needed
   that might help us better understand the nature, origin, and maintenance of
   biological information.

Loading…

docs.wixstatic.com

Also linked at http://www.idvolution.org in supporting resources area.

 

[Edgar]

Others may judge the “solidity” of your Christian background.

Henry VIII was a solid heretic. No argument there.

But knowing that you can lapse – pass gradually into an inferior state or condition – does explain this militant faith in an irrational evolutionist mentality.

It explains the quasi-religious fanaticism.

 

[o_mlly]

A certain hubris attaches to the evolutionist claim that he/she has discovered a “new” specie.

“New” can mean in the sense that the particular evolutionist had not known of the creature before. No one would question that claim.

“New” can mean in the sense that the recorded history of species has not included this creature before. That claim can be validated.

“New” can mean in the sense that the creature never existed for all time. That claim cannot be validated.

Indeed, the hubris attaches to Darwin himself in claiming natural selection as the explanation to the “Origin of Species.” In the same logic as above, without full knowledge and understanding of the creature’s genome (including the too easily dismissed junk DNA) no one can claim that a “new” gene evolved. Until such knowledge is obtained, the better scientific claim would be to merely claim that a different gene has expressed itself.

 

[Edgar]

So if anyone takes anything from ‘On The Origin Of Species…’ as being the last word on the subject then they are going to look silly. And if anyone thinks that something like PE contradicts the process of evolution (as opposed to clarifying one aspect of it) then they are also going to look silly.

I agree.

But I was under the impression that a scientific theory that can’t be tested is worthless. How does one test PE?

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

So if anyone takes anything from ‘On The Origin Of Species…’ as being the last word on the subject then they are going to look silly. And if anyone thinks that something like PE contradicts the process of evolution (as opposed to clarifying one aspect of it) then they are also going to look silly.

I agree.

But I was under the impression that a scientific theory that can’t be tested is worthless. How does one test PE?

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-10427-5_9

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

If there is such a thing as genetic entropy then we should all be living shorter and shorter lives. With a corollary that the further back we go, the longer we should have lived.

This is strictly because of better nutition and public health measures.

So genetic entropy is a serious health risk but…we’re healthier and living longer. So the evidence is…well, where? Sandford never gives any. Maybe you can find some. Otherwise…well it’s just personal opinion based on, as he admits himself, a religious viewpoint.

And you want me to take this seriously?

 

[Wozza]

It explains the quasi-religious fanaticism.

Another T shirt quote.

Honestly, Ed. Where is this fanatacism? All these threads are just a few people making incorrect statements about evolution (bacteria are still bacteria, it denies God, you can’t falsify evolution, it’s only a theory, it can’t be proved etc) and others correcting them. Reasonably politely I must say.