Why I do not accept evolution part one

[Subduction Zone]

I suppose Sir Fred Hoyle was a total ignoramus, along with many, many other geniuses who reject evolution. It's an argument from impossibility, not incredulity. Evolution falls over at the first hurdle. Origin of Life. And it keeps falling over. The fundamental argument I've heard from evolutionists is that it happened so it happened.

Where did Fred Hoyle reject evolution? And you have not yet found any hurdles for the theory of evolution. All you have ever done is to demonstrate a lack of education in the sciences.

Fred may have been a genius at some aspects of physics. That is a far as his expertise went. He is more famous today in regards to what he got wrong rather than at what he got right.

 

[Shemjaza]

I suppose Sir Fred Hoyle was a total ignoramus, along with many, many other geniuses who reject evolution. It's an argument from impossibility, not incredulity. Evolution falls over at the first hurdle. Origin of Life. And it keeps falling over. The fundamental argument I've heard from evolutionists is that it happened so it happened.

So you've upgraded from scientists who reject evolution to geniuses who reject evolution... but still can't present evidence.

Explain why the origin of life is a hurdle. For arguments sake let's accept that abiogenesis is literally impossible and life was created by a miracle of some kind... evolution still has all the evidence that indicates that it is the source of the diversity of life.

People have pointed this out to you before... but after all these posts and all these rants, still no evidence.

 

[Kylie]

I suppose Sir Fred Hoyle was a total ignoramus, along with many, many other geniuses who reject evolution. It's an argument from impossibility, not incredulity. Evolution falls over at the first hurdle. Origin of Life. And it keeps falling over. The fundamental argument I've heard from evolutionists is that it happened so it happened.

Fred Hoyle was not trained in biology or any field relevant to evolution. He was an astronomer. When it comes to evolution, he was just as unqualified as you are. And as Speedwell has already mentioned, he was wrong about stuff in his own field. You haven't shown that evolution is impossible.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It's an argument from impossibility, not incredulity.

You haven't made an argument. The expression you used, "beggars belief", is a direct expression of incredulity (being unwilling or unable to believe).

If you want to argue that it's impossible, by all means do so, but bear in mind that this means showing how the evolutionary explanation is wrong, which means knowing what the evolutionary explanation is.

Evolution falls over at the first hurdle. Origin of Life.

Evolution addresses the diversity of life, not its origin.

To criticise a theory you need to know something about it - especially the part you are criticising.

 

[essentialsaltes]

They used a strawman?

*GASP!*

But they made a whole comic book and everything

 

[Hans Blaster]

Some creationists seem to assume that X and Y Chromosomes apply to all animals and even plants. (When they don't even define sex in all mammals.)

I think I understand why. I used to assume X/Y set sex in animals (or at least mammals or perhaps quadrupeds) and I was *never* a creationist and learned all of the things that lead me to that incorrect inference while still a believer. (Though belief in god was not part of that misguided inference.) In fact I'm still not sure how far the X/Y system extends in the animal kingdom.

These are the things I think lead to the inference in my case (not in order of importance or chronology):

1) I learned about simple Mendelian genetics

2) I learned about the human sex chromosome system

3) I understood sex determination in animals to be largely genetic (with known exceptions for determination by temperature, etc. in some non-mammals) in other vertebrates

4) and where I had access to that information (domestic mammals) from experience, I saw that the ratios of male to female newborns was roughly 1:1 like in humans.

Thus I inferred that there was not only a single Mendelian sex chromosome switch in mammals (and probably other quadrupeds) but that it was the same X/Y system in humans.

The thing is I *still* don't know how far it extends. I think I only heard about other sex determination genetics in the last decade, and certainly after my last biology course (which was last century). Perhaps even after my last major dive into the pop-sci evolution/anti-creationist books I have quite a few of. (Don't recall any of them discussing the evolution of sex determination or frankly much about the evolution of sexual reproduction.) I may have even learned about them from posts on this board.

Though I don't actually know how far the X/Y system extends I will take a guess that it is not unique to humans or that would have come up in the discussion of human evolution (like the chromosome 2 fusion event), but I don't know if it extends to the rest of the primates.

[Since this was a post about my non-creationist sourced ignorance on this topic, I didn't try to fill the gaps in my knowledge with an internet search, thus maintaining the effect such that I could write the post without distortion. Now I'm going to have to find out...]

 

[Kylie]

But they made a whole comic book and everything

Oh dang. As a nerd, I can't ever disagree with something that's been in comic book form!

Maybe if I get bitten by one, I too will be able to shoot toxic substances out of my rear. Although I'm sure my husband would say I just need to have a curry for dinner to gain that superpower.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I am ok with adaptation within a species. It fits entirely with the Bible's narrative. I am not ok with macro evolution. I've done "part one" which is addressed primarily to theistic evolutionists. I'll do part two some time in the near future. The Coronavirus has given me a good deal of spare time............

The Bible talks about animals originating in the ocean, then appearing on land, then culminating with mankind

You could call that macro-evolution I guess?, just not by a Darwinian mechanism

I agree- some capacity for adaptation is a practically essential design feature for an animal in diverse and dynamic surroundings- and we see it in operation

whether it is also the primary design mechanism... it's a very tempting extrapolation, but gets problematic I think, the more we learn about life and natural history.

 

[Speedwell]

The Bible talks about animals originating in the ocean, then appearing on land, then culminating with mankind

You could call that macro-evolution I guess?, just not by a Darwinian mechanism.

Why not? Why limit God in the mechanisms He may use?

I agree- some capacity for adaptation is a practically essential design feature for an animal in diverse and dynamic surroundings- and we see it in operation

whether it is also the primary design mechanism... it's a very tempting extrapolation, but gets problematic I think, the more we learn about life and natural history.

In fact it becomes more fully substantiated.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Why not? Why limit God in the mechanisms He may use?

I don't, so I think he can do better than leaving it all up to chance- for minds to develop that can know and appreciate his creation. He's God, he can arrange that sort of thing.. why would he not?

In fact it becomes more fully substantiated.

ohhh nooo it doesn't!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So you've upgraded from scientists who reject evolution to geniuses who reject evolution... but still can't present evidence.

Explain why the origin of life is a hurdle. For arguments sake let's accept that abiogenesis is literally impossible and life was created by a miracle of some kind... evolution still has all the evidence that indicates that it is the source of the diversity of life.

People have pointed this out to you before... but after all these posts and all these rants, still no evidence.

If one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure of order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of...

The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.

a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology


— Fred Hoyle

 

[Guy Threepwood]

^

 

[Speedwell]

I don't, so I think he can do better than leaving it all up to chance- for minds to develop that can know and appreciate his creation. He's God, he can arrange that sort of thing.. why would he not?

Your characterization of evolution as "leaving it all up to chance" is a straw man, and I think you know it full well.

ohhh nooo it doesn't!

And your expertise in this field is...?

If one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure of order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of...

Then you haven't been thinking very hard. ID is a pseudoscientific hoax concocted by a gang of radical Calvinists in Seattle to use as a "wedge" (yes, that's what they call it) to further their totalitarian political agenda.

The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.

a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology


— Fred Hoyle

And a quote from an astronomer who's been dead for twenty years and who probably didn't know any more about evolutionary biology than you do. Oh my! I don't know much about it either; but my background is in math and I understand the mathematics of stochastic processes used to model it. Yes, randomly distributed variation and selection can create ever so much complexity as we observe.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Your characterization of evolution as "leaving it all up to chance" is a straw man, and I think you know it full well.

leaving it up to chance, is the defining characteristic of Darwin's theory of evolution- including the modern synthesis of it.

Mutations are still believed to be essentially random- are they not?

And your expertise in this field is...?

"250,000 species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin."

"We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time."
David Raup: curator and Dean of Science at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago

^ I am humble enough to defer to experts in areas i don't work in like paleontology

But for my part- my background here is in computer programming- (commercially not just a hobby)
and I agree- this does come down to the math, but not static equations, algorithms - and they can be less intuitive, more exposing of inherent human cognitive biases- there is something very humbling about arguing with a computer!

Then you haven't been thinking very hard. ID is a pseudoscientific hoax concocted by a gang of radical Calvinists in Seattle to use as a "wedge" (yes, that's what they call it) to further their totalitarian political agenda.

there's that term again- the Big Bang used to be a psuedoscientifc hoax also according to Hoyle
it was his quote about intelligent design also- didn't know he was a radical calvinist!?

 

[Hans Blaster]

a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology


— Fred Hoyle

Is Old Dead Fred talking about me again? Probably not, I don't tinker much with biology.

 

[Hans Blaster]

there's that term again- the Big Bang used to be a psuedoscientifc hoax also according to Hoyle
it was his quote about intelligent design also- didn't know he was a radical calvinist!?

Hoyle supported an earlier cosmological model (the steady state model) and used the term "Big Bang" to mock the newer theory. I don't recall if he referred to the BB model as *pseudo*science and really doubt he used the term hoax.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Hoyle supported an earlier cosmological model (the steady state model) and used the term "Big Bang" to mock the newer theory. I don't recall if he referred to the BB model as *pseudo*science and really doubt he used the term hoax.

Fred Hoyle - Wikipedia
[Hoyle] found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator,

Yes, Hoyle and many other academic atheists at the time rejected the primeval atom explicitly for what they saw as the overt theistic implications of such a creation event-

Not sure that his 'steady state' theory was older though:


Georges Lemaître first noted in 1927 that an expanding universe could be traced back in time to an originating single point, calling his theory that of the "primeval atom".

[Hoyle] in 1948 began to argue for the universe as being in a "steady state" and formulated their Steady State theory. []He coined the term "Big Bang" on BBC radio's Third Programme broadcast on 28 March 1949

 

[Hans Blaster]

[Hoyle] found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator,

We'll I guess he did. Not the first prominent scientist to label a real science as pseudoscience.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

We'll I guess he did. Not the first prominent scientist to label a real science as pseudoscience.

Till his dying day in 2001 apparently- 'science progresses one funeral at a time': Max Planck.

So 'is it science or not science?' can be a highly subjective question..

A far more objective one maybe: 'is it true or not true?'

 

[Aussie Pete]

The Bible talks about animals originating in the ocean, then appearing on land, then culminating with mankind

You could call that macro-evolution I guess?, just not by a Darwinian mechanism

I agree- some capacity for adaptation is a practically essential design feature for an animal in diverse and dynamic surroundings- and we see it in operation

whether it is also the primary design mechanism... it's a very tempting extrapolation, but gets problematic I think, the more we learn about life and natural history.

I start with a very simple premise: God created. There is room for adaptation, not for evolution, in that premise. Adaptation is sensible and yes, can be inbuilt genetically. There are way too many anomalies to accept evolution unless you assume that God is not real or not involved. If you are of that view, evolution is all that is left.