proving evolution as just a "theory"

[HiEv]

This reminds me of the idea that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, of matter (a nonsensical idea in my opinion).

But consciousness is demonstrably a property of the brain. If you damage a brain, you damage that brain's consciousness. If consciousness came from somewhere other than the brain, then why would damaging the brain affect memories, personality, and even the ability to perceive certain concepts?

For example, there are people who have a stroke, and then suffer hemispatial neglect, basically meaning either the left or right half of their perception ceases to exist as far as they're concerned. Because of this damage to the brain they will, for example, only eat food on the right side of their plate and will only be able to turn around clockwise. They actually find it extremely uncomfortable to see themselves on live TV, because they will see a half of their body that they otherwise don't feel exists. Not only that, but they will only be able to recall the left or right side of past events.

If consciousness isn't a product of the brain, then how would damage to the brain cause effects like this?

Something new can spring out something existing. (I think non-dualist materialists like this idea because they have only worse ideas to choose from.)

No, we like the idea because it's well supported by objective scientific evidence.

So I agree; something has to already exist before you can build things out of them.

In order for that to be true, then everything would have to exist before it existed. That doesn't make any sense to me, but maybe I'm missing something here.

Can you please clarify?

 

[Jimmy D]

Hers another.

The evolution of the horse - CMI Mobile

Another what? It's the same article you posted before. I'm under no obligation to comment on bare links, I already posted an article that showed why your's is wrong and that's enough.

I didn't ask for your (or more accurately some creationist propagandist's) opinion on why the evolution of horses isn't evident in the fossil record, despite what paleontologists think.

I'm asking for your explanation of how we can clearly observe many species of Equidae appearing in the fossil record with slight differences to preceding species chronolgically?

I suspect that you aren't answering because whatever creationist explanation you could come up with would be so full of holes it could be mistaken for a swiss cheese.

 

[Jimmy D]

here are other places I found that point out the errors in the eohippus being used as evidence.

Yes, I'm sure.

Yet you continue to try and perpetrate the fraud.

What fraud? Do you know what "fraud" means? I merely showed a small selection of the fossils that were a tiny part of the evidence in response to someone asking why I accepted evolution. How can thousands of fossils that have been discovered be fraud? It's amusing to see that you are prepared to break one of your commandments in your attempts to discredit evolution though.

It's very typical of evolutionary science to just summarily dismiss any evidence against the theory. And they have to because anything that shoes evidence against it disproves the theory therefore nothing can disprove the theory. What happens is it becomes a hand wave against anything calling it fraudulent or non scientific and especially the damaging "creationist" title which automatically dismisses whatever is said.

Sorry, did you present any evidence against the theory, I must have missed that. What was it again? If you think that there was any evidence in that article you posted please point it out, all I could see was handwaving. Besides for the last time....

I'm asking for your explanation of how we can clearly observe many species of Equidae appearing in the fossil record with slight differences to preceding species chronolgically?

 

[xianghua]

Now, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you only meant the dorsal fin, since none of the other fins of dolphins and Ichthyosaurs structurally match up at all. Not sure why you think it would even make sense for 1 fin to be the result of shared ancestry and the rest to be the result of convergent evolution.

my original claim was that a mammal trait can be the result of convergent evolution. so evolution will have no problem to explain a 300my mammal fossil by convergent evolution.

 

[xianghua]

Please, give me an example of something which was formed by convergent evolution in which both traits are exactly identical!

so if they aren't identical then they aren't the result of a common descent?

 

[Kylie]

so if they aren't identical then they aren't the result of a common descent?

If there are two species that both have the same trait - say, an ability to sense electric activity, such as might be produced by a wounded prey animal - then if this trait was the result of common descent, there will be clear indications that they both got the trait from a common ancestor. Say, the sensors are both attached to the same nerves, or the sensors are both modified versions of the same thing.

If the trait evolved separately, then we would see clear differences. Maybe in one species we would see a line of sensors along the body made from modified glands, and in the other species the sensors are concentrated on the head and are part of long feeler type things, not glands at all.

Really, how do you not understand this? I have already explained it several times. If there are two organisms that have a similar trait, be it the electro sense of my example here, or wings, or eyes or any number of other things, there will be clear differences between the way this trait is manifested if it is the result of a common ancestor or convergent evolution.

 

[Tayla]

We're mutant copy-errors made in the image & likeness of God, are we?

Jesus in the flesh was a glorified ape, was He?

Very quaint image that humans are merely glorified apes.

Jesus had DNA and his body functioned via chemical biological processes, same as yours.

In my view, we are designed. The
"mutant copy-errors" as you so quaintly refer to them are the tools used to construct modified organisms. The harsh process of natural selection is clearly in operation in this world. Animals eat each other and etc.

 

[AV1611VET]

Very quaint image that humans are merely glorified apes.

Three paragraphs of nothing, when you could have answered my post in two words.

It hurts to say YES, doesn't it?

Are/were you a scientist?

 

[Tayla]

In order for that to be true, then everything would have to exist before it existed. That doesn't make any sense to me, but maybe I'm missing something here.

Only God existed before anything existed. Everything that exists resides within God's creative eternal being. Created things exist. God is.

 

[Tayla]

But consciousness is demonstrably a property of the brain. If you damage a brain, you damage that brain's consciousness. If consciousness came from somewhere other than the brain, then why would damaging the brain affect memories, personality, and even the ability to perceive certain concepts?

Yes, consciousness is tightly coupled with brain functioning as you note. But consciousness resides in the spiritual realm as part of our soul; the subjective experience of consciousness is not physical. Yes, I am a dualist and I think Christianity supports that.

 

[Tayla]

Regarding consciousness as an emergent property of matter...

No, we like the idea because it's well supported by objective scientific evidence.

The is no evidence that the subjective experience of consciousness springs from matter. I think only the dualist view makes sense; that consciousness or mind is something new, not merely a configuration of physical material matter.

 

[tas8831]

Yes clear that an assumption and supposition is made that its evolution.

More mischaracterization.

The fusion is a conclusion:

Origin of human chromosome 2: an ancestral telomere-telomere fusion.

Our adaption is that it was common design.

"Adaption"?

Yes, you throw out a tag line, but other than tossing out a slogan to counter evolution, what logic or rationale is there for this fusion?

What possible "design" does it reflect?

 

[tas8831]

God gives us wisdom, knowledge and understanding. The Holy Spirit is our Teacher to guide us and to lead us into the truth. We do not need man to teach us.

Question begging.

 

[tas8831]

Because we exist in a physical world where interaction between objects has to be predefined or else nothing would work. Science wouldn't work.. logic wouldn't work.. nothing would work.

How would it be predefined?

 

[xianghua]

A spinning motor in a self-replicating organism that evolved it from other analogous structures is not evidence of a top-down designer

realy? lets test this claim: according to this criteria if we will find a self replicating car\robot\watch that are able to reproduce (and made from organic components) in a far planet, we cant conclude that it's the result of design?

Difference between Prokaryotic flagella and Eukaryotic flagella ~ Biology Exams 4 U

Why would an "intelligent designer" need to make so many species of beetles? Evolution can explain this, but I'd love to hear a creationist try to explain the need for that many species of beetles.

what is the connection to design detection? if we had only one or two species you may asked why there is no more species. right? also remember that a speciation isnt a new family of a beetle. so the number of species may tell us nothing about the number of different beetles. so or so: it doesnt have any connection to the question about motors and robots.

You seem overly proud of this, as though I didn't know this was exactly where you were heading.

proud in what exactly? i only want to show you why no one is able to detect "bad design" in nature. by the same logic we can claim that car has a bad design, since it have this trait:

Spare tire - Wikipedia

now, if an alien will see this he will claim for a bad design, since this is a wrong place for a tire to be place. as i said: any claim about bad design is a bad argument.

What? How exactly is life ending up with one model in one organism and different models in other organisms, some good, some bad, something you would expect under a design model, but not under evolution?

because that was evolutionists claim for many years. as dawkins put it:

“Once again, send it back, is not just bad design, it’s the design of a complete idiot.”

Richard Dawkins, (2009) The Greatest Show on Earth, Bantam Press, pp353-354.

since we now know that this trait actually improve vision, the designer isn't an idiot after all, and dawkins is wrong.

You're going to have to explain your claim that creationism somehow explains all of the many types and flaws of eyes we find in various living organisms

such as? give an example. are you referring to a disease?

Also, you assert that the nerve "may have several functions", but it doesn't and can't.

according to this source it may has several functions:

Laryngeal Nerve Anatomy: Introduction, Vagus Nerve (Cranial Nerve X), Superior Laryngeal Nerve

"The larynx serves multiple functions, including control of respiration, airway protection, coordination of swallowing, and phonation. Several nerves in the larynx control these tasks."

and:

Recurrent laryngeal nerve - Wikipedia

"The nerves also carry sensory information from the mucous membranes of the larynx below the lower surface of the vocal fold,[17]:847–9 as well as sensory, secretory and motor fibres to the cervical segments of the esophagus and the trachea."

Regarding the article, it's totally irrelevant. Science is based on known data. Sometimes we find new data. So what?

so what? so evolution doesn't predict this fossil. and yet we found it. so evolution is false, or it isnt a scientific theory.

Also, as I explained, fusion wasn't the only possible explanation, it was merely the most likely one under the evolutionary model and it turned out to be true.

it was merely the most likely explanation under the creation model too. as i explained.

The argument wasn't that we shouldn't find complex creatures in old layers, it's that we shouldn't find complex creatures with no ancestors that it could have evolved from suddenly appearing in the fossil record.

according to this any fossil cant fit with this criteria. we can also claim that some fossils are still missing. so evolution will have no problem to explain even such a situation. many fossils are still missing in the older layers. and you dont see any evolutionist claimming that evolution is false because of that.

Regardless, the fact that the ancestral animal genome was quite complex in no way satisfies the criteria I gave you. What you provided fits perfectly within the evolutionary model.

dont be so sure:

Sea anemone genome reveals ancestral eumetazoan gene repertoire and genomic organization. - PubMed - NCBI

"The sea anemone genome is complex, with a gene repertoire, exon-intron structure, and large-scale gene linkage more similar to vertebrates than to flies or nematodes"

Also, I see you utterly neglected to return the same courtesy I extended to you when I answered your question, so I'll ask again: What would disprove ID/creationism to you?

first: we still wait to see if we can test evolution at all. second: if you can show how one family of creature can evolve into another one (say a cat into dog)- it will falsified the creation model.

Pretending "the bacteria is still a bacteria" line of argument is somehow evidence against evolution

i never said that it's evidence against evolution. i said that this isnt evidence for evoltion.

Again, evolution (not the theory of evolution by natural selection, just evolution) is simply a change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. That's all it is. If you think it's something more than that, then you're simply misinformed.

evolution is also about common descent and changes in the family level. so i think that we should agree about the definition for evolution first.

 

[PsychoSarah]

my original claim was that a mammal trait can be the result of convergent evolution. so evolution will have no problem to explain a 300my mammal fossil by convergent evolution.

Why did you cut out the rest of my post? Seriously, you aren't going to even respond to the important parts?

 

[rjs330]

Oh my word, your tired boilplate rhetoric is utterly vacuous and droning on for a whole paragraph with the same platitudes and old saws doesn't make it any more substantive.

Either actually address the content of the link I posted or please don't waste your time expecting any of us to read droning, vacuous rhetoric.

Speaking of vacuous rhetoric that is what the article is. It's all supposition. Please show me peer reviewed research that shows any of it happened. Please point to any experiments or testing or observation that shows it's true. When you can then you can mention that my arguments are vacuous. Until then so is the evolution from a common ancestor.

 

[rjs330]

Yes, that is true, but remember, individuals don't evolve. Evolution is how populations change over many generations. It is not a process that individual organisms go through.



Because there have been many dead ends. Evolution tries something but it doesn't work as well as another variation, so the first group dies out. Pterosaurs dying out because they couldn't cope as well as birds, for example.



But why would we see all the hallmarks of evolution if that were the case?



First of all, evolution doesn't decide anything. It's a process, not some conscious thing.

Secondly, we are talking about a very short period of time from a geological point of view. This video of Richard Dawkins talks about a simulation of how the eye could have evolved, and it shows that it could have happened in a fairly short period of time, a quarter million generations. Given that few animals take as long as humans to being reproductively mature, each generation could be as short as a year (or even shorter), which means that eyes could evolve in 250,000 years. And that's a blink of an eye in geological time.

Not quite sure what you're saying here.



First, we do see that happening sometimes, such as the Cambrian Explosion, and we also see creatures evolving with only slight changes, such as sharks and crocodiles, which have remained basically the same for millions of years.

But that wouldn't happen all the time. Populations will evolve as the conditions they live in change. If the conditions remain the same, then once the organisms have reached a peak of fitness for those conditions, they are unlikely to change much. But if the conditions change, then a burst of evolution will likely take place.

Once again assumption and supposition. Have we ever witnessed a "burst of evolution" that sudden appearances of a large group of creatures took place? Of course not. There really is no evidence that this could take place. If evolution from a common ancestor took place where do all these various creatures come from suddenly? It supposedly takes millions of years for evolution to take place yet we don't see anywhere this occuring in the slow evolving of one thing into another on a massive scale where one thing slowly evolved into another then offspring evolves into something else and something else and so on. All we have ever seen or found is very large groups all over the planet existing at the same time and many of them complex organisms instead of simple ones. Evolution only assumes and supposes how these things happened. There is no real evidence that it did.

 

[rjs330]

Another what? It's the same article you posted before. I'm under no obligation to comment on bare links, I already posted an article that showed why your's is wrong and that's enough.

I didn't ask for your (or more accurately some creationist propagandist's) opinion on why the evolution of horses isn't evident in the fossil record, despite what paleontologists think.

I'm asking for your explanation of how we can clearly observe many species of Equidae appearing in the fossil record with slight differences to preceding species chronolgically?

I suspect that you aren't answering because whatever creationist explanation you could come up with would be so full of holes it could be mistaken for a swiss cheese.

Well it is obvious that whatever I point to that shows that the eohippus may not be the horse ancestor you follow the pattern I said you do. Summarily dismiss. It's only full of holes from an evolutionary standpoint t because you believe in evolution. It's the same thing that I do with evolution.

You and I are the same from opposite sides.

But just for arguments sake let's say that you are correct and the horse evolved from eohippus. That is no evidence that all things came from a common ancestor. I've already made it clear that evolution of a creature can take place in order to assist in the creatures survival. An adaptation. But the adaptation is no evidence of common ancestor evolution. It's more suited to God's design to allow nature to continue to exist and life to grow and continue. The sudden appearances of all the creatures on this planet is more in line with creation than evolution from a common ancestor and the supposed evolution of the horse in no evidence of common ancestry.
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/content.cfm?id=3159

 

[98cwitr]

MOD HAT ON

Thread has been cleaned. The Staff at Christian Forums would like to encourage and remind you that our site rules call you to address one another with respect. I am posting the rule for everyone's review

Flaming and Harassment
Please treat all members with respect and courtesy through civil dialogue. Refrain from insulting, inflammatory, or goading remarks. When you disagree, remember to address the content of the post and not the poster personally.
If you are flamed, do not respond in-kind. Alert staff to the situation by utilizing the report button.
Stating or implying that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christian is not allowed.
Be considerate and do not make another member's experience on this site miserable. This includes making false accusations or persistently attacking them in the open forums.
Respect another member's request to cease personal contact.


Statement of Purpose and Off-Topic
Read and abide by each forum's Statement of Purpose; Statement of Purpose threads are sticky threads located at the top of the forum's page. Not all forums have a Statement of Purpose thread. Start threads that are relevant to that forum's stated purpose. Submit replies that are relevant to the topic of discussion.

If your post is missing, it is due to a violation of the above rule or because you quoted a post containing this violation.

Again, please be kind to one another, as Christ has called us to do.

MOD HAT OFF​