Is the Human Brain the Null Hypothesis for Darwin's Theory?

Radagast · Sep 10, 2014

Guys, this is a Christians only subforum.

FredVB · Sep 10, 2014

Darwin's Theory of Evolution itself is an example of something evolving, as he stated it, it does not fit, and has been changing since to keep fitting facts when there is always conflict with it.

High Fidelity · Sep 11, 2014

MOD HAT ON

Thread has been cleaned up.

Please remember that this forum is for Orthodox Christians only!

MOD HAT OFF

mark kennedy · Sep 11, 2014

Fred V B said:
Darwin's Theory of Evolution itself is an example of something evolving, as he stated it, it does not fit, and has been changing since to keep fitting facts when there is always conflict with it.

It's a theory of what Darwin believed was the primary means of adaptive evolution. natural selection is really the death of the less fit, it's an effect not a cause. That's how they do it, the effect is assumed so it doesn't matter what the actual cause is, as long as it's not God. It's an assumption, not an actual molecular mechanism.

Grace and peace,
Mark

FredVB · Oct 25, 2014

The common assumption, without real basis, all along with having Darwin's evolutionary theory is that there is no involvement from God to take into account for having explanation for all that we may find here now and that there are natural processes that do explain it. It could not just be natural selection, so more was constantly added, as the theory keeps needing more for sufficient explanation.

mark kennedy · Oct 25, 2014

Fred V B said:
The common assumption, without real basis, all along with having Darwin's evolutionary theory is that there is no involvement from God to take into account for having explanation for all that we may find here now and that there are natural processes that do explain it. It could not just be natural selection, so more was constantly added, as the theory keeps needing more for sufficient explanation.

Charles Darwin really had very little to say about evolution, strange as that might seem. With Uniformitarianism, James Hutton, Charles Lyell and some others extended the time line and the Darwinian natural selection literally had all the time in the world. One of the earliest criticisms of Darwinism was that he didn't give the earth enough time to cool. Darwinism has never been natural science, it's a philosophy of natural history.

At any rate, Darwinism is predicated on an a priori (without prior) assumption of exclusively naturalistic causes. It's a categorical rejection of the supernatural Darwin called miraculous interposition:

All change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (On the Origin of Species Preface to the 6th Edition, Charles Darwin)

Natural Selection was never more then on long argument against special creation:

Although much remains obscure, and will long remain obscure, I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and dispassionate judgement of which I am capable, that the view which most naturalists entertain, and which I formerly entertained — namely, that each species has been independently created — is erroneous. (On the Origin of Species, Introduction, Charles Darwin)

Between Zoology and Geology Darwin came up with this, the only illustration in the book, On the Origin of Species:

Darwinism never produced anything tangible but it was blended with Mendelian Genetics and became the premier theory of natural history. It has been useless as science, thus the need for the 'Modern Evolutionary Synthesis'

At its heart was the question of whether Mendelian genetics could be reconciled with gradual evolution by means of natural selection. A second issue was whether the broad-scale changes (macroevolution) seen by palaeontologists could be explained by changes seen in local populations (microevolution).

That's Darwinism in a nut shell. I wouldn't have such a problem with it if those who held to those views had the intellectual integrity to admit they are Darwinian. Most of the time they just argue that there is no such thing. The only real difference between Darwinism and Creationism is the time line. If you have a flood 4,000 years ago then the parents of all reptiles, birds and mammals, including man of course trace their linage back to a rather small population in the fairly recent past.

What intrigues me about this is that history might not be nearly as convoluted as the experts would have you believe. With the extended time line they can send the average person out chasing ghosts in the fog to figure out how natural and human history actually happened. If we actually knew the truth about these things it would put an awful lot of them out of their ivory towers and out on the street looking for a real job. That would include a large number of seminary professors who are complicate in this disinformation campaign over the last 150 years.

Grace and peace,
Mark

FredVB · Oct 27, 2014

It's amazing it is not seen as a philosophy as an approach, even by people seeing the book. They read it still impressed that evolution is established. So he saw evidence of change within kinds of some creatures that would be due to natural selection. We can accept that, but he knew nothing of genetic limitations, and had nothing to show his philosophy that there was no need for God for explanations and that natural processes explain everything. That was never established by anything.

mark kennedy · Oct 29, 2014

Fred V B said:
It's amazing it is not seen as a philosophy as an approach, even by people seeing the book. They read it still impressed that evolution is established. So he saw evidence of change within kinds of some creatures that would be due to natural selection. We can accept that, but he knew nothing of genetic limitations, and had nothing to show his philosophy that there was no need for God for explanations and that natural processes explain everything. That was never established by anything.

Evolution is not one thing, it's two. It's an assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means, that's Darwinian evolution. It's actually a philosophy of natural history. Then there is the genuine article of science, which defines evolution as the change of alleles (traits) in populations over time. The pretense that they are the same thing is the essence of the conflict between Darwinians and Creationists.

Part of the problem is that Creationists bought into a young earth cosmology, which may well be the case, it's just irrelevant to the doctrine of creation. The only doctrinal issue involved is the creation of life, which is inextricably linked to the Gospel. Astronomy is irrelevant, whether the earth revolves around the sun or not is irrelevant, Galileo argue that unsuccessfully.

I think I know what the problem is and it comes down to semantics. I wouldn't have so much a problem with it had they stayed out of theology.

Grace and peace,
Mark

SkyWriting · Nov 20, 2014

mark kennedy said:
My proposal is simply this, the human brain had neither the time nor the means to have evolved from that of apes.
Grace and peace,

Mark

I don't feel time is a factor. Human biology is a system with parameters. There is a lot of variation possible and apes may be one of the variations.
From the religious standpoint, Jesus didn't save any great apes else he would have had more of them in his social circles.

FredVB · Jun 30, 2015

I don't feel time is a factor. Human biology is a system with parameters. There is a lot of variation possible and apes may be one of the variations.
From the religious standpoint, Jesus didn't save any great apes else he would have had more of them in his social circles.

Is it known that there were any great apes in any of the locations where Jesus went? This isn't to say any apes are variation from humankind, but that argument doesn't seem to establish that at all.

SkyWriting · Jun 30, 2015

FredVB said:
Is it known that there were any great apes in any of the locations where Jesus went?

There are a number of opportunities for Jesus to have equated any other type of animal
with humans. Pigs are not on the A list and they are as smart as dogs.

mark kennedy · Jul 2, 2015

First of all, in the 8 references to Adam in the NT, all eight speak of him as the first parent of humanity.

Adam, (see G76) which was the son of God. (Luk 3:38)

Secondly, Darwinism has everything to do with time, it literally has all the time in the world. The earliest criticism for Darwinism was that it didn't give the earth time to cool after the Big Bang. Creation occupies the opposite end of the time scale since 6,000 years is by far the shortest time frame for life to start.

Grace and peace,
Mark

FredVB · Jul 3, 2015

There are a number of opportunities for Jesus to have equated any other type of animal
with humans. Pigs are not on the A list and they are as smart as dogs.

Animals didn't sin, it was humanity that sinned, and Jesus came for them. Even though it was to Jews, he came for all humanity. Animals were innocent.

SkyWriting · Jul 3, 2015

FredVB said:
Animals didn't sin, it was humanity that sinned, and Jesus came for them. Even though it was to Jews, he came for all humanity. Animals were innocent.

I think it's perfectly fair to say that Animals are innocent and satiating.

FredVB · Jul 5, 2015

I think it's perfectly fair to say that Animals are innocent and satiating.

Interesting to argue that. Isn't it saying you would rather eat others who are innocent to establish your superiority while you remain a sinner?

mark kennedy · Jul 6, 2015

FredVB said:
Animals didn't sin, it was humanity that sinned, and Jesus came for them. Even though it was to Jews, he came for all humanity. Animals were innocent.

I get drunk, I put my family in the car including my pet dog. I run a red light and everybody dies. I alone am guilty but everybody dies, including the dog, that is original sin.

FredVB · Jul 7, 2015

You are with that indeed with sin, but the sin of that or things like it is not what the term original sin, which isn't a term in the Bible, was constructed to designate, it rather designates the corruption in us with being of fallen humanity to sin, with that when without redemption we do not have real resistance from ourselves against sin.

The human members of your family are also of fallen humanity, they also have sins with the corruption they also have. They would not be guilty of your sin but are not innocent of sins they would have in their lives. Your pet animal is a part of this corrupted world that is present since the fall, there is evidence of this corruption throughout the creation in our world, but that animal, along with other animals which are apart from humanity, are innocent, and not guilty of sins, as it is humans which are guilty.

Chicken Little · Jul 7, 2015

"What alternative explanation would you suggest, mark? And how could it be tested?"
talking about this where is a site of christian scientist who can test out a prediction?
because I got a few and it would take me way too long to try and explain to anyone who isn't trying to find a good questions but who are arguing a false question with more false questions.
when the whole foundation is wrong how can you build from it .
we have to start over.

where are the scientists who are trying to redefine or willing to do a re foundation of all the terms.
because the questions ask and answered so far as so wrong and so off base that the terms used now are all loaded with in the boxes created by evolutionists . that you can't use their terms.
Because they can't tell you what is really going on in real life and they are only seeing what they have chosen to see.
so I need to find christian scientist who are willing to throw away the bad models and starts dealing with the mannequins.
I will tell you right now until you deal with the mannequins you aren't dealing with real genetics , the rest is all stuff they made up and no different than tea leaves and crystal balls.. . they are only arguing about the dress on the mannequins at best .

mark kennedy · Jul 9, 2015

Chicken Little said:
"What alternative explanation would you suggest, mark?

Straight up, thanks for asking. The biggest difference between Darwinism and Creationism is the time line. What I would suggest is a radical, in fact a very radical model of evolution.

And how could it be tested?"

History is notoriously untestable. Could you be more specific?

talking about this where is a site of christian scientist who can test out a prediction?

As a matter of fact, the only data suggests that mutations in human brain evolution is disastrous. Find one real exception and it's a start.

where are the scientists who are trying to redefine or willing to do a re foundation of all the terms.

There has to be a difference between a copy error during transcription and an adaptation, I am not asking for the moon here.

I will tell you right now until you deal with the mannequins you aren't dealing with real genetics , the rest is all stuff they made up and no different than tea leaves and crystal balls.. . they are only arguing about the dress on the mannequins at best .

You want to deal with real genetics? Ok fine. Look of mutations effecting brain related genes and tell me what you find.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Is the Human Brain the Null Hypothesis for Darwin's Theory?

Does the Human Brain Represent a Null Hypothesis for Darwinism

Yes, there is neither the time nor means

No, the genetic mechanism and time frame is sufficient

I don't know

Other options (elaborate at will)

comes and goes

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Natura non facit saltum

Regular Member

Natura non facit saltum

Regular Member

Natura non facit saltum

The Librarian

Regular Member

The Librarian

Natura non facit saltum

Regular Member

The Librarian

Regular Member

Natura non facit saltum

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Natura non facit saltum

Similar threads