Why I do not accept evolution part one

[Gene2memE]

I start with a very simple premise: God created.

You need to justify a premise before it can be validly accepted.

This pre-supposition is also far from simple - it assumes both the existence of a God, and that such an entity is capable of creation ex nihilo (and presumably, creation ex materia as well).

There is room for adaptation, not for evolution, in that premise. Adaptation is sensible and yes, can be inbuilt genetically.

Describe the difference between adaptation and evolution. What occurs precisely in adaption that cant occur in evolution?

here are way too many anomalies to accept evolution unless you assume that God is not real or not involved.

Which anomalies?

If you are of that view, evolution is all that is left.

There are plenty of non-evolutionary, naturalistic explanations for the history and diversity of life - its just that none of them explain the evidence available to us as well as the theory of evolution, nor do they provide the same predictive power.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

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.

I'd agree with that in general- if someone is not open to both possibilities, an objective comparison is difficult.

Having said that- there is a secular argument I am starting to hear increasingly which is neither design nor chance- but rather pre-packaged genetic info. i.e. 'no need for divine intervention to drive macro evolution- the information needed for change is already installed in the genes, waiting to be activated by environmental stimuli etc'

This begs the question of course, of how this info came to be, but 'random mutation' Darwinism it aint!

 

[Speedwell]

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

Well, the 'big bang' theory was formulated by a Roman Catholic. Is that why modern creationists don't like it?

 

[Speedwell]

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?

Random to fitness, yes. But it is randomly distributed variation, not random mutations, on which natural selection acts.

 

[Speedwell]

I'd agree with that in general- if someone is not open to both possibilities, an objective comparison is difficult.

Having said that- there is a secular argument I am starting to hear increasingly which is neither design nor chance- but rather pre-packaged genetic info. i.e. 'no need for divine intervention to drive macro evolution- the information needed for change is already installed in the genes, waiting to be activated by environmental stimuli etc'

This begs the question of course, of how this info came to be, but 'random mutation' Darwinism it aint!

Citation? That certainly is a creationist argument; I don't believe I have heard it put forth by a secular scientist.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Describe the difference between adaptation and evolution.

one is observed, the other is speculated- that's a pretty big distinction in terms of evidence

But in practice- it comes down to limits inherent to hierarchical information systems.

to demonstrate the principle: you can throw random 'variation' into the text parameters determining shape, size and color in this text. Just as control genes can determine different eye or fur color

This works because the random variation is constrained within a range of pre-determined viable limits.

but of course you understand why you can never write a new software program by this method- not given a trillion years, overstep those limits and you crash the system, or kill the overbred animal.

Not to say macro-change cannot happen, just not through this feature of natural variation within ranges

i.e. variation is a design feature, not a design mechanism

 

[Guy Threepwood]

[

Citation? That certainly is a creationist argument; I don't believe I have heard it put forth by a secular scientist.

I've heard it a couple of times as a secular rebuttal to the problem of irreducible complexity-
that neither incremental change nor divine intervention is needed- because the genetic information is essentially complete and pre-existing, and is activated- we're talking early stages of life- but those are the most difficult to account for- I'll see if I can get a good link for you

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Well, the 'big bang' theory was formulated by a Roman Catholic. Is that why modern creationists don't like it?

ha- well I can't speak for them! But I do find it odd where it is considered somehow not compatible with Genesis.. That compatibility was exactly what atheists complained of and rejected it for!

 

[Kylie]

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

Not quite.

The Bible talks of God creating animals fully formed from the water, then entirely different animals fully formed from the land. That is not in agreement with the scientific description.

 

[coffee4u]

Well, the 'big bang' theory was formulated by a Roman Catholic. Is that why modern creationists don't like it?

We don't like it because it's not in the Bible.

 

[Kylie]

We don't like it because it's not in the Bible.

Willing to bet that whatever you are using to post your replies isn't in the Bible either, but...

 

[coffee4u]

Not quite.

The Bible talks of God creating animals fully formed from the water, then entirely different animals fully formed from the land. That is not in agreement with the scientific description.

And I actually agree with you. Fully formed sea creatures in the ocean.

Animals, however, were created like man, out of the dirt/clay.
Genesis 2
19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky.

The Bible most definitely does not agree with evolution no matter how some like to try and make it wear an evolution dress, it's ill fit shows.

 

[coffee4u]

Willing to bet that whatever you are using to post your replies isn't in the Bible either, but...

???
We're talking about creation/evoltion here.

 

[Gene2memE]

one is observed, the other is speculated- that's a pretty big distinction in terms of evidence

You do realise that adaptation is a MECHANISM within evolution, don't you? And has been since Darwin and Wallace formulated the theory.

But in practice- it comes down to limits inherent to hierarchical information systems.

to demonstrate the principle: you can throw random 'variation' into the text parameters determining shape, size and color in this text. Just as control genes can determine different eye or fur color

This works because the random variation is constrained within a range of pre-determined viable limits.

but of course you understand why you can never write a new software program by this method- not given a trillion years, overstep those limits and you crash the system, or kill the overbred animal.

Not to say macro-change cannot happen, just not through this feature of natural variation within ranges

i.e. variation is a design feature, not a design mechanism

Cool.

Homeobox and hox genes, and their observed and tested role in developing novel body planforms, and all the genetic work on the evolution of novel morphological features are just fiction then?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

one is observed, the other is speculated- that's a pretty big distinction in terms of evidence

Using their commonly accepted definitions, both are observed and neither is speculated. Of course, you have a non-standard definition of at least one of those terms which allows you to make these silly assertions.

But in practice- it comes down to limits inherent to hierarchical information systems.

to demonstrate the principle: you can throw random 'variation' into the text parameters determining shape, size and color in this text. Just as control genes can determine different eye or fur color

This works because the random variation is constrained within a range of pre-determined viable limits.

but of course you understand why you can never write a new software program by this method- not given a trillion years, overstep those limits and you crash the system, or kill the overbred animal.

Not to say macro-change cannot happen, just not through this feature of natural variation within ranges

i.e. variation is a design feature, not a design mechanism

That is a truly awful analogy. It is wrong in so many ways it's hard to know which failing to pick on first. Let's start with the obvious point that DNA is not a man made computer programming language and only bears a passing resemblance to one if you try really hard to force it into that box.

 

[Kylie]

???
We're talking about creation/evoltion here.

I was talking about the "I don't like it because it's not in the Bible" excuse for being against certain things.

 

[Shemjaza]

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

Okay if it is "evidently nonsense of a high order" present the evidence?

You arrive at the conclusion of intelligent design... what is the evidence that brought you to that conclusion?

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?'

Anyone can declare anything to be truth or not truth, or science or not science.

However science has actual definitions... you need evidence. Many an accomplished scientist has strayed from actually performing science for personal reasons, they are only human.

However science has an inbuilt advantage. No matter how shocking or different to the accepted facts, if you can present coherent repeatable evidence then it's science.


How do you test truth?

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.

What anomalies? Are you ready to present evidence this time... or shall you disappear and reappear as if no one responded to you?

[


I've heard it a couple of times as a secular rebuttal to the problem of irreducible complexity-
that neither incremental change nor divine intervention is needed- because the genetic information is essentially complete and pre-existing, and is activated- we're talking early stages of life- but those are the most difficult to account for- I'll see if I can get a good link for you

The real problem is that genetic information can trivially be created by random mutations.

Sections of DNA can be changed or repeated in the reproduction process, this allows new functions.

No pre-loading required.

 

[Ophiolite]

one is observed, the other is speculated- that's a pretty big distinction in terms of evidence

But in practice- it comes down to limits inherent to hierarchical information systems.

to demonstrate the principle: you can throw random 'variation' into the text parameters determining shape, size and color in this text. Just as control genes can determine different eye or fur color

This works because the random variation is constrained within a range of pre-determined viable limits.

but of course you understand why you can never write a new software program by this method- not given a trillion years, overstep those limits and you crash the system, or kill the overbred animal.

Not to say macro-change cannot happen, just not through this feature of natural variation within ranges

i.e. variation is a design feature, not a design mechanism

Let us accept that there are pre-determined limits to the variability permitted by random variation in DNA.

• What evidence do you have that these limits preclude evolution of the biosphere from a simple common ancestor?
• What evidence do you have that these limits are not subject to change as a consequence of certain, earlier random changes?

Thus far, all I can see is you asserting that neither of these possibilities are valid, but offering nothing in support of the claim. It looks very much like the logical fallacy of Argument from Incredulity.

 

[coffee4u]

Homeobox and hox genes, and their observed and tested role in developing novel body planforms, and all the genetic work on the evolution of novel morphological features are just fiction then?

Seen in fully functioning creatures that are already here.
They haven't observed some other creature turn into a snake, they assume it.

 

[Shemjaza]

Seen in fully functioning creatures that are already here.
They haven't observed some other creature turn into a snake, they assume it.

Infer it from evidence... it's an important distinction.

Evolution is the conclusion, not the initial assumption.