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

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

You have just posted something written by an anonymous author,

St Matthew wrote it

Before 37AD Matthew was written in Hebrew and Greek

Of course we all understand the first Gospels were conveyed orally before writing. Matthew’s Gospel was in India by 54AD.

Luke wrote his before 41AD.

I don’t mind responding to a comment which is associated, however loosley, with the OP but if you want to discuss this specifically then please start another thread.

 

[edwest]

A new way to do science in real time.

Loading…

www.sciencedaily.com

 

[Aloysium]

So much thought, knowledge and experimentation goes into this research, in the hope of inventing a molecule that does what moulds have done since their appearance on earth. We have some knowledge of how bacterial cell walls are constructed from the interaction of the genome with other cellular processes, and we still can’t do it. Fortunate the microscopic fungi, which are said to have serendipitously acquired the skill, existing, but not capable of realizing even that basic fact, let alone how bacteria work. How we can be so duped, and not have laughed when the ToE was presented to us, at least is a testament to our trust and humble adherence to authority. Unfortunately again, from its beginning in the Garden, trying to do this, to become gods, reaching for truth, without God, all we do is fall deeper into illusion.

 

[Edgar]

You do know that you are saying that the ToE is a better explanation than ID?

No, I don’t know that. ID is a far better explanation than ToE - because it implies the involvement of a divine Creator. However, ToE is a better scientific explanation that ID - because the rules of science doesn’t allow for a divine Creator.

Bioinformatics

Please provide a specific example of how bioinformatics needs the science of Charles Darwin.

Oh, and what happened to the question about what scientific use creationism is to us? Did you forget or are you just ignoring it?

Er, hang on; let me get this straight … you want me to provide a scientific use for a religious belief?

‘The heart has its own pacemaker independent of the brain . As long as it has oxygen, it continues to beat."

In your evolutionary wonderland, what made the first heart start beating? Oh wait, was it a “random mutation”? So a dormant heart evolved and then one fine day an organism was born with a “random mutation” that suddenly made the heart started beating? What “random mutation” could do this?

 

[Edgar]

‘Earthworms can have five, 10 or zero hearts, depending on how you define “heart.” They have five pairs of aortic arches that run along the length of its body (or 10 single arches, if you count each pair as two separate structures). That said, a human heart, for instance, has multiple chambers, while aortic arches have only one; if you define a heart as having multiple chambers, then an earthworm would have zero hearts.’

Your “earthworm” argument has at least two problems:

1. You first need to establish an evolutionary link between an earthworm and the first organism that had a chambered heart (which, as far I know, was a fish). If so such link can be established, your argument doesn’t have a leg to stand on.
2. Using a extant organism (To wit: an earthworm) to argue in favour of a hypothetical organism that existed hundreds of millions of years ago and whose inner organs you can only guess at, doesn’t make for a convincing argument.

Hearts start off as very simple structures. And then…um…how do I put this…evolve. If the structure moves blood around the organism then you can describe it as a heart at every stage as it…um…evolves.

This comments contains a couple of characterisitcs of evolutionary biology that make it so great:

1. Over-simplification, bordering on delusion;
2. Vagueness, amounting to nothing but an assumption with no explanatory power at all.

There are no partially formed bits and pieces.

Oh, so an earthworm’s “hearts” system suddenly appeared out of nowhere as a complete unit? Wow, that’s some “random mutation”, I must say! Please be advised that such a claim makes no scientific sense.
Like any biological system found in living organisms, the humble earthworm’s “heart” system most probably involves immense functional complexity. Indeed, the article you supplied says this about the earthworm’s “hearts” system: “While earthworms may seem simple … they have complex inner organs including five pairs of heart-like structures called aortic arches, which they use to pump oxygenated blood to the rest of their bodies.”

 

[Edgar]

ToE has too many holes and sounds even more fairy-tale like than “grandpa the sky”

Ya got that right.

For me ToE is more like a philosophical concept than a scientific theory, it is not falsifiable

I wouldn’t agree that its not falsifiable. If fossils of human beings and rabbits and wolves and pussy cats and modern horses and cows were found in the Pre-Cambrian, surely this would go a long way to falsifying the theory.

I don’t understand why people are so raging when someone criticizes ToE

It’s typical response from anyone who’s been brainwashed by a totalitarian cult - and Evolutionism qualifies as a totalitarian cult.
Furthermore, the devil doesn’t take too kindly to anyone who opposes his nefarious plans, lies and junk-science.

Of course there is Theistic Evolution… and EVOLUTION DOES NOT DISPROVE GOD! This is just an atheistic agenda…

Imo, theisitc evolution is a symptom of the powerful spirit of moderisim that exists within the Church, which in turn has its roots in the atheism engendered by the Enlightenment.

 

[Bradskii]

ID is a far better explanation than ToE - because it implies the involvement of a divine Creator.

Bradskii:

Bioinformatics

Please provide a specific example of how bioinformatics needs the science of Charles Darwin.

Oh, and what happened to the question about what scientific use creationism is to us? Did you forget or are you just ignoring it?

Er, hang on; let me get this straight … you want me to provide a scientific use for a religious belief?

‘The heart has its own pacemaker independent of the brain . As long as it has oxygen, it continues to beat."

In your evolutionary wonderland, what made the first heart start beating? Oh wait, was it a “random mutation”? So a dormant heart evolved and then one fine day an organism was born with a “random mutation” that suddenly made the heart started beating?

In order:

You specifically said that the ToE was the best scientific explanation. ID is a scientific theory, as the Design Institute is only so keen to tell us:

'Intelligent design (ID) is a scientific theory…
(http://www.stephencmeyer.org/news/2010/07/is_intelligent_design_science.html)

So my bad in using the term creationism when asking for scientific uses. I had studiously avoided the term exactly because of your valid argument. We need to compare like with like. So unless you can comeup with a use for ID, then its only use appars to be to…prove ID.

For Biometrics, read this: Bioinformatics for Evolutionary Biologists - A Problems Approach | Bernhard Haubold | Springer

And in regards to the heart, I really don’t believe you are suggesting that hearts evolved and then, by chance, some function of the brain evolved to somehow start it beating. It’s like being amazed that we have two legs AND that the brain somehow evolved to ake use of them to walk. It’s like being amazed that we have exactly the correct amount of skin to cover our bodies.

If you don’t understand evolution, then you are never going to understand even the simplest of structures and how it interlinks with the rest of an organism. That’s not something I have any chance of explaining to you (even if I could). If you reject the ToE in principle, then no-one is going to be able to convince you of ndividual aspects of it. It would be as if you rejected the possibility of alien life and then asking how the life support worked on their spaceship.

And we ‘oversimplify’ explanations simply because we need to get the concept over. In brief. As succintly as possible. In easy to understand terms. If you reject the concept itself, it is a waste of both your time and my time going into further details.

So to immediately ignore my own statement…is it possible for you to imagine that if an organism has a vascular system then if a very minor mutation causes a fold in a part of the system this would act, very inefficiently, as a one way valve. And then…

Actually, no. You can’t imagine it. Go back to being astonished by facts like both are legs just happen to be the same length. Surely designed!

 

[Aloysium]

ToE is a better scientific explanation that ID - because the rules of science doesn’t allow for a divine Creator

The rules of science rest on empirical evidence. In the same way that empirically, we cannot prove our own existence, we cannot prove that of God. We begin with the assumption that there exists a structure to the universe, and that we can come to know it. Science involves observations and manipulations of events to understand the relationships which join them together. We try to weave these threads into a picture that makes them understandable and technically useful.

At the basis, either the universe itself is rational, or the source of that order is other to it, bringing it into existence.

A monist perspective, which I would think likely most biologist possess, would see life as a natural force, that acts in addition to those we study in physics. Just as gravity will inevitably cause an object to fall, there would be an ordering principle in the universe that results in living forms, which grow in complexity over successive generations, with all living forms sharing, for all intents and purposes, a common descent. Pretty much all science fiction is based on such an assumption.

Deists and it would appear, some Christians, believe an external all-powerful deity created that order.

Another view would hold that, since everything that is now, derives its existence from a transcendent, eternal Source, as this moment is brought into existence as part of everything else, so too, would a first of any kind of being - atoms, bacteria, plants, and we, ourselves. Living forms would be brought together, whole, utilizing the information of pre-existing creatures in the formation of the new. It makes no difference whether a placental animal hatched from an egg or came to be in a swirl of energy, the same sort of ordering takes place.

The ToE is not a better scientific explanation, but rather philosophical one, that is simplistic and far-fetched at best, if not irrational.

 

[Bradskii]

Edgar:

ToE is a better scientific explanation that ID - because the rules of science doesn’t allow for a divine Creator

The rules of science rest on empirical evidence.

Ed is correct (don’t be too surprised - I’ll be agreeing with Buffalo shortly).The ToE is science purely and simply. It doesn’t allow, because it is a scientific theory, for any divine (name removed by moderator)ut. Now that is not a difficult concept to understand.

The ToE is not a better scientific explanation, but rather philosophical one, that is simplistic and far-fetched at best, if not irrational.

If you want to discuss science and philosophy, then you now have to accept that Buffalo is also correct when he says that there is ID the science and ID the philosophy. He puts it that way because the DI doesn’t want people to conflate ID - the science, with creationism - the philosophy. The problem for the DI is that you can’t have one with the other. A fact that they dishonestly try to hide.

The philosophical viewpoint which you constantly belabour is not the ToE - it cannot be a philosophical view because it is only based on science, but materialism.

If you want to claim that the ToE leads some people to a materialistic viewpoint that denies God (although it is really a chicken and egg position), then please feel free to do so. You won’t get an argument from me. But it is the materialistic view which is the philosophical view. NOT the ToE.

So when anyone claims that the ToE denies God, there are making a fundamental mistake in confusing science and philosophy.

 

[buffalo]

Was there a flood? Yes. Was it a very large flood? Yes. Was it worldwide? No. Genetic evidence from almost all land tetrapods shows that they have not had a simultaneous narrow genetic bottleneck, as would be required by the Flood story, since the origin of man.

By all means draw what moral you want from the story, but the evidence shows that the flood was not worldwide.

Must have looked like this:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[buffalo]

Ed is correct (don’t be too surprised - I’ll be agreeing with Buffalo shortly).The ToE is science purely and simply. It doesn’t allow, because it is a scientific theory, for any divine (name removed by moderator)ut. Now that is not a difficult concept to understand.

Therefore by not allowing a divine cause it is so limited. Why should anyone limit their search for knowledge so severely.

 

[buffalo]

He puts it that way because the DI doesn’t want people to conflate ID - the science, with creationism - the philosophy.

I put it that way because I understand IDvolution.org is a philosophical position, but it is also supported by even the limited findings of modern science.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Ed is correct (don’t be too surprised - I’ll be agreeing with Buffalo shortly).The ToE is science purely and simply. It doesn’t allow, because it is a scientific theory, for any divine (name removed by moderator)ut. Now that is not a difficult concept to understand.

Therefore by not allowing a divine cause it is so limited. Why should anyone limit there search for knowledge so severely.

Don’t you read your own posts? You apparently believe that one understanding of ID is that it is scientific only. The D refers to a designer but takes no position of what that might be. Why is it so limited? Because you cannot call it science and discuss the divine. These are your rules, for heavens sake! Likewise with evolution. It is a scientific theory which takes no position on any divine cause.

Creation is the philosophical arm of ID which assumes a creator. The opposite position is materialism which assumes no creator. Is that clear?

We have the scientific positions: ID and the ToE. And we have the philosophical positions: Creationism and materialism. Is that clear?

You can believe that God is involved in ID OR evolution if you so wish. But if you are a creationist, then God is most definitely involved and if you are a materialist He definitely isn’t. Is that clear?

Your problem, and others such as Ed and Al, is that you are either confused about the diferences between these positions or do not wish to accept them. I’m going the second option because of your fundamentalist beliefs.

 

[rossum]

Must have looked like this:

Why not? Your God is a) omnipotent and b) not deceptive.

If God can part the Red Sea, then He can also limit a flood as your picture shows.

Since He is not deceptive we can trust genetic evidence from America and Australia that neither was affected by an all-encompassing flood in the last 200,000 years.

Your turn.

 

[buffalo]

Creation is the philosophical arm of ID which assumes a creator.

It does not assume a creator. Human reasoning leads one to God.

 

[buffalo]

Your problem, and others such as Ed and Al,

No. Methodological naturalism removed the formal and final causes from its investigation. leaving only the material and efficient causes.

One can make no conclusions from this without crossing into philosophy.

 

[buffalo]

Why not? Your God is a) omnipotent and b) not deceptive.

God is almighty, not omnipotent. There are things He cannot do, being deceptive is one as you rightly point out.

No, we cannot trust genetic evidence completely as we are finding the genetic clock needs some calibration.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Your problem, and others such as Ed and Al,

No. Methodological naturalism removed the formal and final causes from its investigation. leaving only the material and efficient causes.

One can make no conclusions from this without crossing into philosophy.

What on earth are you saying ‘crossing over into philosophy’? Formal and final causes are part of Thomistic philosophy. They are philosophical positions, NOT scientific ones.

Again, I am totally bemused that I have to point this out to you.

Bradskii:

Creation is the philosophical arm of ID which assumes a creator.

It does not assume a creator. Human reasoning leads one to God.

Good grief. To bolster your point you have to actually state that creationism does not assume a God. I’m flumoxed. When oh when did I ever think that I would have to post a definition of creationism (from the Oxford Dictionary):

Definition of creationism - the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation.

 

[buffalo]

What on earth are you saying ‘crossing over into philosophy’? Formal and final causes are part of Thomistic philosophy. They are philosophical positions, NOT scientific ones.

Again, I am totally bemused that I have to point this out to you.

Methodological naturalism excluded it. It was not so in the beginning.

 

[buffalo]

I’m flumoxed.

Yes, I can see that.