Are there any facts contrary to T.O.E?

[AV1611VET]

They use the ingredients they have at hand. You can't expect people to make a three layered, chocolate fudge cake when all they have at hand is just flour, eggs, milk and sugar and you refuse to give them the chocolate and the fudge.

In this case, "people" didn't make that cake.

God made it.

 

[Aaron112]

In this case, "people" didn't make that cake.

God made it.

Like (or not) Jesus says : "food to eat you know not of" .......

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

In this case, "people" didn't make that cake.

God made it.

Which is exactly the problem.

You're expecting science to deal with the supernatural, when there is no way to study the supernatural in any meaningful way, and then you get fussy about it when it's pointed out.

And yes, we know what you're going to say: "ScIeNce Is MYoPiC!"

 

[Laodicean60]

hat is just a creationist misrepresentation of science. The reality is "the best explanation available given the evidence in hand." But nobody has any doubt that evolution is more complicated than we once assumed.

Are you talking about the article?

Kevin Lalandis professor of behavioural and evolutionary biology at the University of St Andrews in Scotland, an elected fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh and a fellow of the Society of Biology. His latest book, co-authored with Tobias Uller, is Evolutionary Causation: Biological and Philosophical Reflections (2019).

 

[Hans Blaster]

I have linked a few examples. Like I said generally the EES supports the idea that creatures ability to direct their own evolution towards beneficial and adaptive changes through choices and that evolution is not blind or random but geared towards certain outcomes over others which are well suited for adaptations and survival. Niche Construction, developmental plasticity and Inheritence beyond genes are examples.

But some are even directly supporting a form of Lamrackism.

The received wisdom is that parental experiences can’t affect the characters of their offspring. Except they do. The way that genes are expressed to produce an organism’s phenotype – the actual characteristics it ends up with – is affected by chemicals that attach to them. Everything from diet to air pollution to parental behaviour can influence the addition or removal of these chemical marks, which switches genes on or off. Usually these so-called ‘epigenetic’ attachments are removed during the production of sperm and eggs cells, but it turns out that some escape the resetting process and are passed on to the next generation, along with the genes.

Science in flux: is a revolution brewing in evolutionary theory? | Aeon Essays

Is evolutionary science due for a major overhaul – or is talk of ‘revolution’ misguided?

aeon.co

That is a very odd choice of the essayist to make. Referring to epigenetics as "Lamarckian".

Ah the good old ad hominem logical fallacy again.

Nope. ID is not science. People who "research" ID are not acting as scientsts. I went down the rabbit hole on that one and it's ID all the way down.

 

[BCP1928]

Are you talking about the article?

Kevin Lalandis professor of behavioural and evolutionary biology at the University of St Andrews in Scotland, an elected fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh and a fellow of the Society of Biology. His latest book, co-authored with Tobias Uller, is Evolutionary Causation: Biological and Philosophical Reflections (2019).

I read the article a while back, which is why I speculated about your reason for posting it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Which is exactly the problem.

You're expecting science to deal with the supernatural, when there is no way to study the supernatural in any meaningful way, and then you get fussy about it when it's pointed out.

And yes, we know what you're going to say: "ScIeNce Is MYoPiC!"

If science is going to contradict the Bible, it had better do so with the utmost of convincing evidence.

Claiming evolution, which has more missing parts than sea shells on the sea floor, doesn't cut it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If science is going to contradict the Bible, it had better do so with the utmost of convincing evidence.

Claiming evolution, which has more missing parts than sea shells on the sea floor, doesn't cut it.

The Bible only contradicts a literal reading of the Bible, especially one such as yours.

 

[Larniavc]

Once these single cells colonized and started making complex life what caused the diversification of all living things on earth?

So we have established that your original assertion has been rebutted to you satisfaction?

"We have no example of single cell life developing into complex life."

 

[Aaron112]

If science is going to contradict the Bible, it had better do so with the utmost of convincing evidence.

Claiming evolution, which has more missing parts than sea shells on the sea floor, doesn't cut it.

I would have thought from the many posts that you already have posted
that you know/knew that many many many convincing 'evidence' has been used to dissuade millions from the Bible, away from truth, to believe false info is true ?
Thus, I mean, being "convincing" in no way indicates being truth.

 

[BCP1928]

If science is going to contradict the Bible, it had better do so with the utmost of convincing evidence.

Why? Science isn't trying to convince you of anything. They are just trying to find out what happened. I don't think many of them care whether it contradicts your Bible, not even the Christians.

Claiming evolution, which has more missing parts than sea shells on the sea floor, doesn't cut it.

They get to claim it as long as there isn't any evidence against it. That's how science works.

 

[Aaron112]

The problems with worldly science, et al....
"Upon reading these various passages we can see clearly how the powers of darkness are especially related to man’s mind, how it is peculiarly susceptible to Satan’s assault. With respect to man’s will, emotion and body, the powers of evil are helpless to do anything directly unless they first have gained some ground therein. But with man’s mind they can work freely without initially persuading man or securing his invitation. The mind appears to be their possession already. The Apostle in comparing men’s minds to an enemy’s strongholds seems to imply that Satan and his wicked spirits already have established a deep relationship with the minds of men, that somehow they are using them as their bastions in which to imprison their captives. Through man’s mind they impose their authority and through the mind of their captives they transmit poisonous thoughts to others so that these too may rise up against God.
It is difficult to estimate how much of the world’s philosophy, ethics, knowledge, research, and science flow from the powers of darkness. But of one point we are certain: all arguments and proud obstacles against the knowledge of God are the fortresses of the enemy."

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The problems with worldly science, et al....
"Upon reading these various passages we can see clearly how the powers of darkness are especially related to man’s mind, how it is peculiarly susceptible to Satan’s assault. With respect to man’s will, emotion and body, the powers of evil are helpless to do anything directly unless they first have gained some ground therein. But with man’s mind they can work freely without initially persuading man or securing his invitation. The mind appears to be their possession already. The Apostle in comparing men’s minds to an enemy’s strongholds seems to imply that Satan and his wicked spirits already have established a deep relationship with the minds of men, that somehow they are using them as their bastions in which to imprison their captives. Through man’s mind they impose their authority and through the mind of their captives they transmit poisonous thoughts to others so that these too may rise up against God.
It is difficult to estimate how much of the world’s philosophy, ethics, knowledge, research, and science flow from the powers of darkness. But of one point we are certain: all arguments and proud obstacles against the knowledge of God are the fortresses of the enemy."

Yeah, preaching and apologetics are not allowed on this forum.

Statement of Purpose:
General Apologetics: This is not a forum where Christians are asked to defend their faith against objections and criticism from non-believers. Non-Christians are not allowed to challenge Christian theology, beliefs and practices here or in any forum at Christianforums.

 

[AV1611VET]

Thus, I mean, being "convincing" in no way indicates being truth.

You're right.

I don't care for the word "convincing," myself; but I didn't know what word to use.

 

[Aaron112]

You're right.

I don't care for the word "convincing," myself; but I didn't know what word to use.

I just went back and read the post.

I think "real proof" would be good - but most people think when they are convinced that they were told the truth with real proof anyway/already, even if far from it.

 

[stevevw]

This is the Big Lie of creationism, the lie on which it is based, first enunciated by Henry Morris, the founder of modern creationism:

"The purpose of the theory of evolution is to deny the existence of God,"

Here your creating a Strawman. I have not said that evolution was created to deny God. I said that agency has been denied and you don't have to believe in Gods creation to support the idea that humans have agency, have free will and intentional choices that can make a difference in their life and to reality itself. Even science supports this idea in different ways.

It turns out to be a problem only for those creationists who tell it, one of those self-fulfilling prophecies. Traditional Christians have a fuller understanding of teleology and don't have that problem with it.

Yes and that is exactly what I am referring to. You are the one creating this false representation of my arguements. I am simply saying that living things have more of a bility to direct the outcomes of evolution or their own survival and fitness than mainstream sciences and especially the standard evolution theory give credit for.

Part of that reason was to avoid any reference to teleology which includes agency being a force that can change things besides the natural forces. Because the more agency and ability of living things to direct their own evolution the less influence the natural forces like NS and random mutations have.

In some ways there is also an element of the creationist dogma with the sticking dogmnaticially to Neo Darwinism as its trying to preserve an idea that NS is all creative and can do what we would normally think impossible. It attributes far more to NS and random mutations than justified. Making it more an ideological belief, a epistemic belief about how we should believe evolution works. When there is ample evidence that its now been undermined as a theory.

 

[Ophiolite]

Yes and that is exactly what I am referring to. You are the one creating this false representation of my arguements. I am simply saying that living things have more of a bility to direct the outcomes of evolution or their own survival and fitness than mainstream sciences and especially the standard evolution theory give credit for.

It's quaint that you think there is such a thing as "standard evolution theory". Since research into evolution and its mechanisms is ongoing, continuously increasing in depth and breadth, it follows that the theory is dynamic and partly dependent upon the perspective of the researcher. Inasmuch as there is a standard theory it exists as an educational tool to acquaint students with the principles of the subject, not as a definitive statement of current thinking.

As to the ability of "living things ... to direct the outcomes of evolution or their own survival", this has long been recognised as a component of the environment within which selection takes place. Thus your simple assertion is incorrect.

 

[BCP1928]

Here your creating a Strawman. I have not said that evolution was created to deny God. I said that agency has been denied and you don't have to believe in Gods creation to support the idea that humans have agency, have free will and intentional choices that can make a difference in their life and to reality itself. Even science supports this idea in different ways.

Yes and that is exactly what I am referring to. You are the one creating this false representation of my arguements. I am simply saying that living things have more of a bility to direct the outcomes of evolution or their own survival and fitness than mainstream sciences and especially the standard evolution theory give credit for.

Part of that reason was to avoid any reference to teleology which includes agency being a force that can change things besides the natural forces. Because the more agency and ability of living things to direct their own evolution the less influence the natural forces like NS and random mutations have.

In some ways there is also an element of the creationist dogma with the sticking dogmnaticially to Neo Darwinism as its trying to preserve an idea that NS is all creative and can do what we would normally think impossible. It attributes far more to NS and random mutations than justified. Making it more an ideological belief, a epistemic belief about how we should believe evolution works. When there is ample evidence that its now been undermined as a theory.

It's the spin, Steve. A spin put on it by that Jonathan Bartlett article. Extended Evolutionary Synthesis is not something that undermines evolutionary theory. It's part of it, and the idea that the theory of evolution must be defended as pure random variation and natural selection against things like that is fatuous nonsense. Everybody knows evolution is more complicated than that, Pure random variation and natural selection is only used as a teaching tool and in certain mathematical models.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Here your creating a Strawman. I have not said that evolution was created to deny God. I said that agency has been denied and you don't have to believe in Gods creation to support the idea that humans have agency, have free will and intentional choices that can make a difference in their life and to reality itself. Even science supports this idea in different ways.

What would count as evidence of agency?

 

[stevevw]

It's the spin, Steve. A spin put on it by that Jonathan Bartlett article. Extended Evolutionary Synthesis is not something that undermines evolutionary theory.

You obviously don't understand the core differences between the EES and SET the standard evolutionary theory or the Modern Synthesis. Yes the EES expands evolutionary forces while continuing to support some aspects of SET which is NS, mutations, drift and population genetics.

But it redefines those roles into less dominant ones where for example NS is only one of several forces and not dominant. In fact other forces like Niche Construction and developmental forces like plasticity and developmental bias actually direct what NS will follow.

In other words its not random mutations determining variation that NS acts upon but other self organising forces that come from the creature itself. NS serves to only release what has been selected by creatures activity internally and externally. NS is either dominated by other forces or completely bypassed.

The fundemental difference in core assumptions is that the SET believes life is programmed to a genetic code where agency, intention, self organisation, free will choice or development are not dominant or rather have little influence. Whereas the EES makes them central thus reducing the dominance of genetics and NS, the programmed schema.

This is summed up in a paper I already linked which are from peer reviewed scientific journals. Yet you choose to fixate on one papers source and ignore the others. Yet the content of the article you object to is backed by the other peer reviwed articles.

Overall, the EES proposes that variation is more predictable and selection effects are less directional than hitherto argued. Although the EES recognizes the fundaments of the classical MS theory, it differs in its interpretation of the role of some of its elements and integrates new components, such as constructive processes of development, multiple inheritance mechanisms, niche reciprocity, as well as behavioural and cultural elements.

It is unavoidable to notice that an integration of these concepts means not a simple add-on of a few peripheral notions to the MS model without any effects on its core logic. Rather, the EES establishes a new structure of the theoretical evolutionary framework that goes beyond the reductionist and gene-centred perspective of the past. It represents a different way of thinking about evolution, historically rooted in the organicist tradition [108].

The resulting theoretical framework (the EES) differs from the latter in its core logic and predictive capacities.

The differences in structure and consequences are substantial enough to require a new designation, because to continue using ‘MS’ evokes a wholly different set of assumptions and predictions. ‘EES’ used here and elsewhere [4,5,9,14,15,27,28,49] is not meant as a simple extension of the MS, as sometimes wrongly implied, but to indicate a comprehensive new synthesis.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5566817/

It's part of it, and the idea that the theory of evolution must be defended as pure random variation and natural selection against things like that is fatuous nonsense. Everybody knows evolution is more complicated than that, Pure random variation and natural selection is only used as a teaching tool and in certain mathematical models.

The same paper addresses this as well.

Even though claims have been made that classical evolutionary biology has continuously incorporated aspects from new conceptual domains [33,36], the majority of tenets and explanations that appear in characterizations of the current theory are still derived from the MS account and its population genetic principles [37]. The gene-centric position remains constitutive of the MS.

All the extensive discussions, led over decades, seem not to have altered the preponderant stance to hold on to the classical prerequisites of gradualism, adaptationism, selectionism and gene-centrism. Hence, the claim of continuous incorporation of new conceptual components by the MS theory is misleading.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5566817/

As mentioned above the EES is not just an addon to the current theory but rather a "comprehensive new synthesis" with different core assumptions and predictions. So how could the current theory have included what the EES is proposing if a new synthesis is required. That means the current theory has not kept up in reality and still holds on to the same core logic and assumptions of the Modern Synthesis that was developed decades ago.