How to choose between creation and evolution.

[mark kennedy]

I don't think that Darwin was arguing against anything. He observed patterns among living things and came up with an explanation for those patterns. That's it. I don't see that as an argument against anything. I see it as a positive step only. It may be inconsistent with other explanations of the natural world, but I don't think that Darwin was actively positioning the ToE as an argument against them. This is a difference of motivation.

Clearly he was arguing against special creation.

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. I am fully convinced that species are not immutable; but that those belonging to what are called the same genera are lineal descendants of some other and generally extinct species, in the same manner as the acknowledged varieties of any one species are the descendants of that species. Furthermore, I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the main but not exclusive means of modification. (The Origin of Species Introduction by Charles Darwin)​

He defined his premise in the Preface and the Introduction.

What do you mean by 'disinterested in that philosophy of natural history?

Darwinism as a philosophy of natural history.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Clearly he was arguing against special creation.

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. I am fully convinced that species are not immutable; but that those belonging to what are called the same genera are lineal descendants of some other and generally extinct species, in the same manner as the acknowledged varieties of any one species are the descendants of that species. Furthermore, I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the main but not exclusive means of modification. (The Origin of Species Introduction by Charles Darwin)​

He defined his premise in the Preface and the Introduction.

The above paragraph argues against creationism. However, I was responding to a general comment without further explanation (as you've provided above.) I interpreted that as meaning that Darwin's overriding motivation was to disprove creation. I see the above paragraph as important, yes, but a consequence of his work rather than motivation for it.

Note: I'm not suggesting that you said that Darwin's motivation was disproving creation; I just interpreted what you said as saying that. Quite likely erroneously.

Darwinism as a philosophy of natural history.

I'm not sure what you mean. Can you give me a source as googling didn't give me anything clearly about Darwinism as a philosophy of natural history. E.g. there's Darwinism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) , but, I'm not sure if that's what you mean.

 

[mark kennedy]

The above paragraph argues against creationism. However, I was responding to a general comment without further explanation (as you've provided above.) I interpreted that as meaning that Darwin's overriding motivation was to disprove creation. I see the above paragraph as important, yes, but a consequence of his work rather than motivation for it.

Note: I'm not suggesting that you said that Darwin's motivation was disproving creation; I just interpreted what you said as saying that. Quite likely erroneously.

Not making a major point, just something I know about the argument Darwin is arguing against. He never really argued against Biblical creation, only the version of creation that was popular at the time. He also mentions in his autobiography that he enjoyed Natural Theology and hated math in college. In the end he found math very useful and couldn't do anything with natural theology.

I'm not sure what you mean. Can you give me a source as googling didn't give me anything clearly about Darwinism as a philosophy of natural history. E.g. there's Darwinism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) , but, I'm not sure if that's what you mean.

Darwin spent little time on evolution, mentioned it only a few times in On the Origin of Species. He was pretty much making a positive argument for natural selection and how species emerge from existing species. When you stretch it back to the chimpanzee/human split your well into the framework of natural history. Darwin's work is largely philosophical and his central focus is natural history.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Well if you look at what Darwin is actually arguing against, it's called special creation. I honestly don't think he was concerned with the Genesis account, something known as catastrophicism where the earth is destroyed and species created repeatedly.

Darwinian evolution can be used as an argument against special creation, but I don't know of any evidence that Darwin was explicitly trying to make that argument; he knew special creation was clearly an unsatisfactory explanation for his extensive observations, and it was those observations led him to the ToE, as for Wallace.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Darwin spent little time on evolution, mentioned it only a few times in On the Origin of Species. He was pretty much making a positive argument for natural selection and how species emerge from existing species. When you stretch it back to the chimpanzee/human split your well into the framework of natural history. Darwin's work is largely philosophical and his central focus is natural history.

And that makes a difference to the theory of evolution... how exactly?

 

[xianghua]

Because it's nothing like a watch. That's like saying that a worm looks like a twig, so why not call it a twig. And the 'watch' you propose is far more unlike a watch than a twig is unlike a worm.

realy? so this isnt a watch if it has a self repliciating system?:

(image from https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0667/0685/products/004-1_x500.jpg?v=1513373337)

 

[xianghua]

Discussed here: Suboptimal Optics: Vision Problems as Scars of Evolutionary History

from your paper: "The most obvious design flaw of the retina is that the cellular layers are backwards"-

now, creation can predict that this is actually a good design. and guess what? this is actually what we find:

https://phys.org/news/2014-07-fiber-optic-pipes-retina-simple.html

"Having the photoreceptors at the back of the retina is not a design constraint, it is a design feature. The idea that the vertebrate eye, like a traditional front-illuminated camera, might have been improved somehow if it had only been able to orient its wiring behind the photoreceptor layer, like a cephalopod, is folly"

or:

Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 158102 (2010) - Retinal Glial Cells Enhance Human Vision Acuity

"The retina is revealed as an optimal structure designed for improving the sharpness of images"

or:

Evolution gave flawed eye better vision

"IT LOOKS wrong, but the strange, “backwards” structure of the vertebrate retina actually improves vision"

 

[xianghua]

For the similarities found in life to be present if there were multiple independent ancestors requires convergent evolution at the molecular level

true. but when we consider a designer we dont need to involve convergent evolution but a convergent design. so the similarity we find in nature is the result of convergent design. this is why their number is wrong since they talking about natural event (evolution) vs another natural event (convergent evolution).

 

[xianghua]

It wouldn't.

so this isnt a watch if it has a self replicating system according to your criteria.

(image from https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0667/0685/products/004-1_x500.jpg?v=1513373337)

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

realy? so this isnt a watch if it has a self repliciating system?:

(image from https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0667/0685/products/004-1_x500.jpg?v=1513373337)

What you showed a picture of IS a watch, since it shows obviously manufactured parts: leather, plastic, metal, radium.
What you are suggesting would not be a watch. It would be LIKE a watch, but it wouldn't BE a watch.

 

[rjs330]

I'm sorry, but this simply is a lie. There is enormous amounts of support for common ancestry and trying to hand wave it away with magic words like "interpretations" does not address the evidence or make it go away.

View attachment 223377



Again, this is simply a lie. There are 10s of thousands of transitional fossils representing hundreds of lineages. You also don't appear to understand what a transitional fossil means. All fossils are "fully formed". No one who knows what they're talking about thinks we should find a half-whatever. What we do find are beings that have the characteristics of two different taxa. Sometimes we even find enough of them to line them up and see the smooth transition over time. Anyone who looks at this series of skulls and denies they are transition is deluded or dishonest.
View attachment 223380

The series of skulls is not evidence of transitional fossils. They are humans. It's not a transition from something they weren't into something else. You know as well as I that human fossils are exceedingly rare. They don't encompass the world and all time periods. What exactly are the fossils transitioning into? They are human. They aren't lizards or monkeys or insects or anything else.

What was the original creature? What did it first evolve into and how do you know? You and others have NEVER been able to show an evolution of one creature into something else. I fully understand that creatures can evolve. But they remain the same creature. Such as dogs and cats and lizards etc.

You have no transitional fossils of something evolving into something else. You can't ibserve it, test it or reproduce it.

 

[Speedwell]

The series of skulls is not evidence of transitional fossils. They are humans. It's not a transition from something they weren't into something else. You know as well as I that human fossils are exceedingly rare. They don't encompass the world and all time periods. What exactly are the fossils transitioning into? They are human. They aren't lizards or monkeys or insects or anything else.

What was the original creature? What did it first evolve into and how do you know? You and others have NEVER been able to show an evolution of one creature into something else. I fully understand that creatures can evolve. But they remain the same creature. Such as dogs and cats and lizards etc.

You have no transitional fossils of something evolving into something else. You can't ibserve it, test it or reproduce it.

Nope. All we've got is fragments of fossil chains showing apparent development over time. But they are consistent with the theory.

Evolutionary paleontology is rather analogous to putting together a jigsaw puzzle for which the box-top picture has been lost. You can tell pretty much what the picture is before you get all the pieces in place, but long before that you will be able to tell what it isn't. In this case what it isn't is a picture of special creation.

 

[pitabread]

The series of skulls is not evidence of transitional fossils. They are humans.

This is a human?

Uh, okay.... You heard it here first folks, chimps are now considered "human" by creationists.

(It's also worth nothing that when it comes to fossil hominids, creationists differ quite significantly on which are human or not. Which is to be expected when dealing with fossils with no precise delineation. Exactly what one would expect of transitional forms.)

 

[Abraxos]

This is a human?

Uh, okay.... You heard it here first folks, chimps are now considered "human" by creationists.

(It's also worth nothing that when it comes to fossil hominids, creationists differ quite significantly on which are human or not. Which is to be expected when dealing with fossils with no precise delineation. Exactly what one would expect of transitional forms.)

 

[rjs330]

Nope. All we've got is fragments of fossil chains showing apparent development over time. But they are consistent with the theory.

Evolutionary paleontology is rather analogous to putting together a jigsaw puzzle for which the box-top picture has been lost. You can tell pretty much what the picture is before you get all the pieces in place, but long before that you will be able to tell what it isn't. In this case what it isn't is a picture of special creation.

It isn't? How do you know that? All we have is human fossils. We don't have fossils that we're one thing that were not human evolving into humans. We have human skulls (and VERY few) indeed which are somehow supposed to show all life same from the same thing or at minimum show transition. Transition of what? Human into human? Thats not the transition evolutionists are claiming. Evolutionists claim one thing (whatever that was) transitioned into everything there is. Yet there is no evidence of that ever occurring. No fossils to show for it. We do have is common design. That's all we really can show. It can be tested, reproduced and observed.

 

[rjs330]

This is a human?

Uh, okay.... You heard it here first folks, chimps are now considered "human" by creationists.

(It's also worth nothing that when it comes to fossil hominids, creationists differ quite significantly on which are human or not. Which is to be expected when dealing with fossils with no precise delineation. Exactly what one would expect of transitional forms.)

Huh? Were do you get that crazy notion from my post? Youre just being silly.

 

[Speedwell]

It isn't? How do you know that? All we have is human fossils. We don't have fossils that we're one thing that were not human evolving into humans. We have human skulls (and VERY few) indeed which are somehow supposed to show all life same from the same thing or at minimum show transition. Transition of what? Human into human? Thats not the transition evolutionists are claiming. Evolutionists claim one thing (whatever that was) transitioned into everything there is. Yet there is no evidence of that ever occurring. No fossils to show for it. We do have is common design. That's all we really can show. It can be tested, reproduced and observed.

Are you referring to evolution in general or to human evolution? You are going to have to be more specific than just "one creature into something else." Take, for example, the series from eohippus to the modern horse, which is reasonably complete. Does that constitute transition from "one kind of creature into somthing else?"

 

[pitabread]

Huh? Were do you get that crazy notion from my post? Youre just being silly.

Take a closer look at the series of skulls you declared as "human".

 

[AnotherAtheist]

true. but when we consider a designer we dont need to involve convergent evolution but a convergent design. so the similarity we find in nature is the result of convergent design. this is why their number is wrong since they talking about natural event (evolution) vs another natural event (convergent evolution).

Yes, and if there was any evidence that specifically indicated a designer or that the designer actually exists, then it would be sensible to consider that hypothesis? Do you have any?

Otherwise it's better to support the theory that actually matches the evidence we see: Evolution from a single common ancestor.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

from your paper: "The most obvious design flaw of the retina is that the cellular layers are backwards"-

now, creation can predict that this is actually a good design. and guess what? this is actually what we find:

https://phys.org/news/2014-07-fiber-optic-pipes-retina-simple.html

"Having the photoreceptors at the back of the retina is not a design constraint, it is a design feature. The idea that the vertebrate eye, like a traditional front-illuminated camera, might have been improved somehow if it had only been able to orient its wiring behind the photoreceptor layer, like a cephalopod, is folly"

or:

Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 158102 (2010) - Retinal Glial Cells Enhance Human Vision Acuity

"The retina is revealed as an optimal structure designed for improving the sharpness of images"

or:

Evolution gave flawed eye better vision

"IT LOOKS wrong, but the strange, “backwards” structure of the vertebrate retina actually improves vision"

What's happened is that evolution has put in a 'fix', but the theoretical capability of a better eye design is ... better.

That the human eye compensates for design flaws does not stop those flaws being flaws in the first place. The complexities of the human eye – from the blind spot and macula to focused and peripheral vision | ZEISS United Kingdom

And, this compensation for design flaws are exactly what we would expect to see if the eye evolved, rather than having been designed by a competent designer.