| Origins Theology Forum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums. |
 | | 
29th September 2009, 11:51 AM
|  | Veteran
25     
| | Join Date: 14th August 2006
Posts: 3,846
Blessings: 1,008,738 My Mood 
Reps: 257,463,246,207,844,928 (power: 257,463,246,207,853) | | Anyway, the a priori assumption of universal common ancestry is the first assumption of Darwinian evolution, it comes before everything else and transends all modern academic thought.
Oh geez, this tripe again. No, it is not an a priori assumption, it is a conclusion based on evidences such as ERVs, nested hierarchies, etc etc etc. Notice that Darwinian evolution applies to all life in the universe before we have even discovered it
Darwinian evolution applies to imperfect replicators. There are evolutionary computer algorithms out there that are not life but are subject to it. Since all life is imperfect replicators, all life will be subject to it. EXACTLY LIKE everything in the universe will be subject to atomic theory, gravity, thermodynamics, chemistry, electromagnetism, and so on. Are those religious a priori assumptions? So why single evolution out? This is an a priori assumption, a substantive principle that transends all atheistic materialist thought.
Show how it is but all the others I listed are not. Furthermore, it is not an atheistic materialistic thought any more than electromagnetism is, gravity is, chemistry is, etc etc etc. It is not based on positive proof or empirical testing, it need not be demonstrated or directly observed.
And before we went to the moon neither was anything else i listed above for matter outside the earth. So why isn’t that under fire? t the heart of this atheistic philosophy is an a priori rejection of supernatural explanations for biological origins
No more than electromagnetism is an a priori rejection of supernatural explanations for the origin of lighting. You see, you’re doing it as well, and it’s just as wrong and invalid when you do it too.
Evolution isn’t a religion, science isn’t a religion, and attempting to mislabel one part as a religion necessitates relabelling the rest as such, which leads to obvious logical errors, or outright denying part of science as being science, which is special pleading. Both are wrong.
Furthermore, supernatural explanations are not science. They are not testable, repeatable, evidenced by anything, distinguishable from other supernatural explanations, and they stop the progress of science FOREVER on the topic they are introduced to. Not science. Now in the offshoot psuedo-theology loosely described as TE you are only required to make a mockery of creationism, nothing else required.
Ignore points we make and cry out that the opposition requires persecution of you. That card has been played too much and we all know it’s false. You must never admit to the a priori assumption nor are you allowed to question it.
It’s not an a priori assumption, it’s a conclusion. OTOH, your a priori assumptions are not allowed to be questioned or you are called an unbeliever and blasphemer. f you raise even the most general query you are immediately expelled from the Temple of Nature as an infidel.
Ummmm... no. If you raise questions you can look to find the answers. If you try to bring something directly against all the scientific progress calls for and halt the progress of science on a point by bringing in the supernatural, then it isn’t considered science.
Metherion
__________________
I can't go back to yesterday - because I was a different person then.
If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there.
One of the secrets of life is that all that is really worth the doing is what we do for others.
--Lewis Carroll, all three. |
29th September 2009, 11:30 PM
|  | Veteran
59   
| | Join Date: 5th April 2007
Posts: 9,297
Blessings: 124,547
Reps: 44,404,246,110,554,912 (power: 44,404,246,110,568) | | Originally Posted by gluadys  Well, that is a knowledge we would need to deliberately manipulate evolution ourselves. It isn't necessary to know how evolution happens naturally.
Do you think you understand natural selection?
I often find that people who have difficulty with evolution tend to neglect natural selection and don't really understand how it works. In nature, natural selection is what takes care of the side effects of genetic change.
I think I have gone through this argument several times. In a nutshell: Natural selection is controlled by environment, and environment does not promote "forward" evolution. But the facts show that if evolution did happen, it was definitely not random and have definitely moved "forward".
Does the natural selection say more than the first sentence of the above? Why should it be hard for people to understand it? I think it is a pretty simple idea. And it should simply NOT be the key process in the theory of evolution. |
30th September 2009, 12:04 AM
|  | Legend
   
| | Join Date: 2nd March 2004 Location: Toronto
Posts: 11,850
Blessings: 61,126
Reps: 12,567,898,174,147,644 (power: 12,567,898,174,166) | | Originally Posted by juvenissun I think I have gone through this argument several times. In a nutshell: Natural selection is controlled by environment, and environment does not promote "forward" evolution. But the facts show that if evolution did happen, it was definitely not random and have definitely moved "forward".
Does the natural selection say more than the first sentence of the above? Why should it be hard for people to understand it? I think it is a pretty simple idea. And it should simply NOT be the key process in the theory of evolution.
Well, it is the key process in evolution.
I guess what I am getting at is whether you understand how natural selection contributes to changing a species. Do you understand why natural selection is related to species change rather than changes in cells or organisms?
Oh, and you are right about evolution not being random. Evolution is not random because natural selection is the key process in evolution and natural selection is not random.
__________________
"Either we've got to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy - and then admit that we just don't wanna do it." Steve Colbert |
30th September 2009, 03:46 AM
|  | Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
51   
| | Join Date: 31st March 2006 Location: Wales
Posts: 12,369
Blessings: 27,003,773 My Mood 
Reps: 1,984,022,293,840,305,920 (power: 1,984,022,293,840,324) | | In a nutshell: Natural selection is controlled by environment, and environment does not promote "forward" evolution. But the facts show that if evolution did happen, it was definitely not random and have definitely moved "forward".
What do you mean by "forward?"
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
When you come to the Ammonites, do not
harass them or provoke them. Deut 2:19
|
30th September 2009, 10:39 AM
| | Veteran
59
| | Join Date: 5th April 2007
Posts: 9,297
Blessings: 124,547
Reps: 44,404,246,110,554,912 (power: 44,404,246,110,568) | | Originally Posted by Assyrian What do you mean by "forward?"
It means it has a distinct direction of movement (change).
example: bacteria changed to animals. But animals do not change back to bacteria. Chimp changed to human, but human will not change back to chimp no matter what the natural selection can do. |
30th September 2009, 12:06 PM
| | Legend
| | Join Date: 2nd March 2004 Location: Toronto
Posts: 11,850
Blessings: 61,126
Reps: 12,567,898,174,147,644 (power: 12,567,898,174,166) | | Originally Posted by juvenissun It means it has a distinct direction of movement (change).
example: bacteria changed to animals. But animals do not change back to bacteria. Chimp changed to human, but human will not change back to chimp no matter what the natural selection can do.
No, bacteria did not change into animals.
And chimp did not change into human.
That is where you are getting the idea of common descent incorrect.
Chimp and human both trace their ancestry back to the same ancestor--but the ancestor was not a chimp and not a human either.
Bacteria had a role in the formation of eukaryotic cells and eventually one small group of eukaryotic species (out of more than 60 groups) became ancestors of animals, but the ancestors of the bacteria we know today were never ancestors of animals.
When it comes to evolution, you have to stop thinking trains and start thinking trees.
__________________
"Either we've got to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy - and then admit that we just don't wanna do it." Steve Colbert |
1st October 2009, 07:37 AM
| | Veteran
59
| | Join Date: 5th April 2007
Posts: 9,297
Blessings: 124,547
Reps: 44,404,246,110,554,912 (power: 44,404,246,110,568) | | Originally Posted by gluadys No, bacteria did not change into animals.
And chimp did not change into human.
That is where you are getting the idea of common descent incorrect.
Chimp and human both trace their ancestry back to the same ancestor--but the ancestor was not a chimp and not a human either.
Bacteria had a role in the formation of eukaryotic cells and eventually one small group of eukaryotic species (out of more than 60 groups) became ancestors of animals, but the ancestors of the bacteria we know today were never ancestors of animals.
When it comes to evolution, you have to stop thinking trains and start thinking trees.
You do not have to correct these minor points. I know they are not precise. They were used to address the main point which you neglected. |
1st October 2009, 07:59 AM
| | Veteran
59
| | Join Date: 5th April 2007
Posts: 9,297
Blessings: 124,547
Reps: 44,404,246,110,554,912 (power: 44,404,246,110,568) | | Originally Posted by gluadys No, bacteria did not change into animals.
And chimp did not change into human.
That is where you are getting the idea of common descent incorrect.
Chimp and human both trace their ancestry back to the same ancestor--but the ancestor was not a chimp and not a human either.
Bacteria had a role in the formation of eukaryotic cells and eventually one small group of eukaryotic species (out of more than 60 groups) became ancestors of animals, but the ancestors of the bacteria we know today were never ancestors of animals.
When it comes to evolution, you have to stop thinking trains and start thinking trees.
In fact, the concept of common ancestor strongly suggests that evolution has a direction. |
1st October 2009, 09:10 AM
|  | Senior Member
52 
| | Join Date: 30th June 2003 Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,505
Blessings: 1,017 My Mood 
Reps: 60,432,235,365,689,568 (power: 60,432,235,365,700) | | Originally Posted by juvenissun You do not have to correct these minor points. I know they are not precise. They were used to address the main point which you neglected.
What is the main point?
There is no overall direction to evolution. There has been on average an increase in complexity in life, but that's just a result of the fact that life started out simple; evolving in random directions from an initial condition of low complexity has to result in higher complexity. Other than that, I don't know what you're talking about. |
1st October 2009, 09:23 AM
| | Senior Member
52
| | Join Date: 30th June 2003 Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,505
Blessings: 1,017 My Mood
Reps: 60,432,235,365,689,568 (power: 60,432,235,365,700) | | Originally Posted by juvenissun In fact, the concept of common ancestor strongly suggests that evolution has a direction.
What direction does it suggest that humans, E. coli, fruit flies and bananas all share a common ancestor? | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
