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

[buffalo]

Gravity is not empirically proven? Yet it is observable, repeatable and predictable. It is an established law.

 

[buffalo]

However, you claimed that the Intelligent Designer could not design a Darwinian system; that was how you told us to falsify ID.

After all these posts I had to specifically say darwinian macro-evolution. Really. You know darn well what I was referring to. (The question is not whether the designing agent could do something, it is if he did it the way macro evo proponents claimed.)

Once again - undesigned darwinian macro-evolution evidence would falsify design. Duh. The task of evo proponents now that they are fairly well convinced that organisms show the hallmarks of design, is to show natural selection is a naturally occurring intelligent agent. I previously stated there is a 5 million dollar prize for this.

Once you call upon an alien or God as the source of the intelligent agent of natural selection you are conceding macro evolution is designed with purpose.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

@buffalo seems to be taking his time with a response to how we falsify ID. C’mon buddy. Front up.

Read the posts…

You’ve already had explained to you that you can’t falsify one theory by showing that another is true. As rossum has also pointed out, evolution being true does not make ID false. Isn’t this obvious to you? Seems not.

To falsify ID you must show us something that ID claims that cannot be true. The Cambrian rabbit is the example for evolution. Finding one would falsify the theory. What is yours for ID?

And oh yeah, please don’t mention proof and theory in the same sentence again.

Still waiting.

 

[rossum]

Gravity is not empirically proven? Yet it is observable, repeatable and predictable. It is an established law.

Gravity is a fact: “Things fall down.”

Separate from the fact there is a (current) theory of gravity which explains the facts: “Things fall down because…” As more facts are discovered we have to alter the theory to fit the new facts.

Once, Newton’s theory of gravity fitted the facts. Then, as measurements got more accurate, a problem emerged with the orbit of Mercury. The theory had to change to fit the facts. Einstein developed the theory of General Relativity which was better at explaining the facts than Newton. Specifically it explained the orbit of Mercury as well as other observations.

Further study has shown problems with General Relativity – it does not explain some facts we observe at quantum scales. Hence scientists are developing a new theory of Quantum Gravity to replace General Relativity.

Facts exist; theories have to follow facts. This is very basic science.

 

[rossum]

The task of evo proponents now that they are fairly well convinced that organisms show the hallmarks of design,

Are you really so blind? Only the ID people are looking for design at such a low level. Theistic evolutionists see design on a much grander scale. You are looking through a microscope when you should be looking through a telescope.

 

[Wozza]

rossum:

However, you claimed that the Intelligent Designer could not design a Darwinian system; that was how you told us to falsify ID.

Once again - undesigned darwinian macro-evolution evidence would falsify design.

No it wouldn’t. ID could easily be incorporated into macro-evolution. Notwithstanding that it’s a nonsensical statement to start with. Effectively: ‘If you can show that it wasn’t designed, then…umm…that would show that it…umm…wasn’t designed.’

You gotta larf.

No Buffalo. You have to falsify ID. Not show that evolution is a viable theory. Which, as we keep pointing out, wouldn’t work in any case.

By the way, are you suggesting that ID proponents include the lack of evolutionary driven macroeveolution to be a ‘proof’ that ID is true? I think not. Even your well cut and pasted chum Behe thinks not:

"Michael Behe takes a similar approach in The Edge of Evolution where he says evolution at the species level is feasible.

He allows that evolution at the genera, family, or order level could be possible. But as he argues in the book, evolution at the class level or above is “beyond the edge of evolution.” So if macroevolution includes evolution at the genera, family, or order level, Behe concludes that what some consider “macroevolution” might be possible". “Macroevolution” and Its Discontents | Evolution News

A new species would do for macroevolition. Let alone a new genus. But Behe goes past that, past even family and even past order!

Not sure where that leaves you. You are now arguing directly in opposition to the leading proponent of ID. But take your time. Something to falsify ID if you can.

 

[Aloysium]

But I’m speaking within nature. I appreciate the supernatural creation of the human soul and accompanying aspects. But I’m wondering how this touches the natural. Are reason and self-awareness purely supernatural (drawing their qualities from outside of the universe) or do our advanced brains have something to do with it? If the former, we might as well be donkeys. If the later, we can expect other creatures are capable of evolving past where we are now.

Put another way, we have faith that God created the universe. But practically speaking, the universe was built up and operates through natural laws. Likewise, we have faith that God created the soul. But how does that work in the natural?

Or put another way: Religion is Why and What. Science is How.

Issues develop when one introduces a dichotomy. This is clear with body-mind, and the same applies here, categorizing understandings as being supernatural vs natural. Perhaps a better way to frame this is to consider the material and the immaterial, since mind and body are natural phenomena. What is clear is that all creation comes into being from one supernatural Divine Source. It is happening right here and now, actually, as is every moment and every place, from the beginnings of the universe to its end. The laws that we invent to describe the workings of the material universe, tell us how events are interrelated and how we, as causal agents, operating with a free will, can alter the flow of things. The “building up” of the universe occurred in steps, beginning with light, progressing in a set of steps, until the creation of the person. It is all about relationality from the perfect Ground of being, Love itself, to atoms, bacteria, multicellular organisms, plants and animals, to us, who possess capacities that stretch beyond mere instinct, and include knowledge, wisdom, a free will, allowing for our being able to commune with and give ourselves for the good of the other, and thereby know God.

 

[buffalo]

undesigned darwinian macro-evolution evidence

That would be natural occurring as I pointed out.

 

[buffalo]

No Buffalo. You have to falsify ID. Not show that evolution is a viable theory. Which, as we keep pointing out, wouldn’t work in any case.

Your claim is that if natural selection was found to be an intelligent agent that occurred naturally, it would not falsify ID in that case?

 

[buffalo]

He allows that evolution at the genera, family, or order level could be possible. But as he argues in the book, evolution at the class level or above is “beyond the edge of evolution.” So if macroevolution includes evolution at the genera, family, or order level, Behe concludes that what some consider “macroevolution” might be possible". “Macroevolution” and Its Discontents | Evolution News

What is your definition of macro-evolution. Above the family? etc… Does it have any limits in your mind?

 

[rossum]

What is your definition of macro-evolution. Above the family? etc… Does it have any limits in your mind?

Macro-evolution is at species level and above. Surely you have learned that by now?

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

He allows that evolution at the genera, family, or order level could be possible. But as he argues in the book, evolution at the class level or above is “beyond the edge of evolution.” So if macroevolution includes evolution at the genera, family, or order level, Behe concludes that what some consider “macroevolution” might be possible". “Macroevolution” and Its Discontents | Evolution News

What is your definition of macro-evolution. Above the family? etc… Does it have any limits in your mind?

See the post directly above.

It seems that you have a problem here. Those who know know a gargantuan amount more about ID (and science) than do you, who are the leaders in the push for the acceptance of ID, who spend their lives attempting to convince everyone that ID is true…don’t only think that macro evolution is credible. They don’t even limit it to species. They don’t even limit it to genus. They don’t even stop at family. It goes all the way to Order!

That simply blows your assertion that macroevolution via evolutionary processes would disprove ID so far out of the water that you you may not achieve splashdown.

You already backed down from ‘evolution’ to ‘macroevolution’. And now that has been shown to be completely risible, where can you go from here?

I wait with baited breath.

 

[buffalo]

Macro-evolution is at species level and above.

What level does it stop? Wozza says order, do you agree Rossum?

 

[Aloysium]

Animals are very capable of raising their young so why wouldn’t a non rational but possessing a soul animal be capable of raising Adam?

I suppose this in support of a widely-held current world-view/assumption, which holds that Adam by necessity had to have been conceived in a womb. I don’t know, but it seems very convoluted, when God can just make him an adult, and teach him, being our first Parent.

We know Jesus died for our sins, which began with the original sin. He was resurrected, and we live in hope that we too will, at the end of time. Or, will we then have to go through an evolutionary process?

 

[Wozza]

rossum:

Macro-evolution is at species level and above.

What level does it stop? Wozza says order, do you agree Rossum?

What a dumb question. ‘Where does it stop?’ Once past species it doesn’t stop. You think it always was just species. You have been found out. By those who you claim are the experts in the field of ID.

Give it up, Buffalo.

 

[buffalo]

What a dumb question. ‘Where does it stop?’ Once past species it doesn’t stop. You think it always was just species. You have been found out. By those who you claim are the experts in the field of ID.

Just to be clear - your claim is molecules to man?

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

What a dumb question. ‘Where does it stop?’ Once past species it doesn’t stop. You think it always was just species. You have been found out. By those who you claim are the experts in the field of ID.

Just to be clear - your claim is molecules to man?

It was a dumb question. You have been found out. Your own ID experts have left you hanging. They don’t even support what you claim.

 

[buffalo]

It was a dumb question. You have been found out. Your own ID experts have left you hanging. They don’t even support what you claim.

I asked if that was YOUR claim? Won’t answer? It is a yes or no.

 

[rossum]

What level does it stop? Wozza says order, do you agree Rossum?

Where did Wozza say that? Besides I have already answered the question above.

You have still not provided a valid scientific falsification for ID.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

It was a dumb question. You have been found out. Your own ID experts have left you hanging. They don’t even support what you claim.

I asked if that was YOUR claim? Won’t answer? It is a yes or no.

Don’t be nonsensical. Again, you have been found pushing arguments that even your own side don’t support. You stand alone with views that are yours alone.

All you can now do is deflect. You have no other options. Off you go.