Are there transitional fossils?

[Speedwell]

Now that's the whole thing, science only observes natural phenomenon so it can't investigate creation so life must have originated by naturalistic law because that's all science looks at. That's not science that's circular logic. Evolution starts at creation and not only creation but much of history, certainly redemptive history is beyond the purview of the empirical sciences. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, it's just one of the limitations of natural science.

The same blatant false dichotomy: if life originated by "naturalisic law" then God didn't do it.

 

[pitabread]

Evolution starts at creation and not only creation but much of history, certainly redemptive history is beyond the purview of the empirical sciences. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, it's just one of the limitations of natural science.

The more I think about this statement, the more it sounds little more than Last Thursdayism in a nutshell.

Bit of a non-starter, that.

 

[mark kennedy]

The more I think about this statement, the more it sounds little more than Last Thursdayism in a nutshell.

Bit of a non-starter, that.

Clutch phrases? Really?

 

[mark kennedy]

The same blatant false dichotomy: if life originated by "naturalisic law" then God didn't do it.

You don't seem to appreciate the inverse logic of Darwinism. If the possibility of exclusively naturalistic causation the there is an inverse logic. Now this is a creationist event, following initial creation normal naturalistic principles are sufficient. Guided evolution is just another naturalistic causation.

 

[Speedwell]

You don't seem to appreciate the 8nverse logic of Darwinism. If the possibility of exclusively naturalistic causation the there is an inverse logic. Now this is a creationist event, following initial creation normal naturalistic principles are sufficient. Guided evolution is just another naturalistic causation.

I don't even know what you mean by "the inverse logic of Darwinism."

 

[mark kennedy]

I don't even know what you mean by "the inverse logic of Darwinism."

Darwinian logic is little more then one long argument against special creation. You can't have that without an argument for special creation. Take for instance homology, if things alike are evidence for common ancestry then divergence is logically a viable counter argument. For ten years I've watched Darwinians ignore both the fossil evidence as well as genomics comparisons. If this research wasn't damaging to that worldview you guys would be dumping a truck by now.

 

[pitabread]

Clutch phrases? Really?

Maybe I'm just not understanding what you are presenting then. You seem to be claiming that we cannot use scientific methodology to investigate the past due to previously occurred miraculous events. Is that correct?

Essentially that's the premise of Last Thursdayism: that the universe and everything in it was miraculously created last Thursday with an appearance of history including the implanting of false memories. Science cannot prove or disprove that any more than it can prove or disprove the idea that life was miraculous created 6000 or so years ago with fully formed species.

All it can do is tell us what things look like. And what things look like is a ~4.5 billion year old Earth, life that has existed and evolved over those billions of years and eventually resulting in the biodiversity we see today.

 

[pitabread]

Darwinian logic is little more then one long argument against special creation. You can't have that without an argument for special creation.

Huh? Am I the only one who thinks this makes exactly zero sense?

For ten years I've watched Darwinians ignore both the fossil evidence as well as genomics comparisons.

Exactly who are you talking about?

 

[Speedwell]

Darwinian logic is little more then one long argument against special creation.

That presumes 'special creation' is worth the trouble of arguing against.

 

[mark kennedy]

That presumes 'special creation' is worth the trouble of arguing against.

Darwin thought so, On the Origin of Species is one long argument against special creation based on the naturalistic assumptions of Lamarch clearly stated in the opening lines of the preface. Then again in the introduction and then again toward the end of the book. Clearly Darwinism is predicated on a naturalistic worldview that presupposes no miraculous involvement in with organic or inorganic evolution. You just made it clear that special creation isn't worth arguing against which begs the question of why you do so much of it.

 

[Speedwell]

Darwin thought so, On the Origin of Species is one long argument against special creation based on the naturalistic assumptions of Lamarch clearly stated in the opening lines of the preface. Then again in the introduction and then again toward the end of the book. Clearly Darwinism is predicated on a naturalistic worldview that presupposes no miraculous involvement in with organic or inorganic evolution. You just made it clear that special creation isn't worth arguing against which begs the question of why you do so much of it.

What I am arguing against is the bogus notion that no miraculous involvement means the same thing as no divine involvement.

 

[mark kennedy]

Huh? Am I the only one who thinks this makes exactly zero sense?



Exactly who are you talking about?

I noticed that you are reduced to pedantic one liners that are fallacious ad hominem remarks. You have abandoned all evidential arguments and choose to throw out biting personal remarks. You didn't have any interest in the fossils, the comparative genomics or even what the word evolution actually means. It is very rare for a poster to recover from this kind of a death spiral. You've abandoned even a rationalistic approach you seemed to favor early. That's when I know I have them, when they have nothing else. No source material, no evidecial argument, not even bare bones logic. Just one ad hominem attack after another argued in circles ad infinitum ad nauseam. I always get a special kick out of that because once one poster falls it's a domino effect.

 

[mark kennedy]

What I am arguing against is the bogus notion that no miraculous involvement means the same thing as no divine involvement.

Oh so it's ok for God to get involved as long as he uses exclusively naturalistic means. What's this supposed to tell us about the first chapter of John, Hebrews, and Romans that clearly declare Christ to be Creator? Its even in the Ten Commandments. The creation is commemorated in the Sabbath just as the Exodus is commemorated in the Passover and the last Passove of Christ commemorates the cross. You are going to have to come to terms with the miraculous nature of the Gospel and it's historicity.

 

[pitabread]

Ah, forget it. Not worth it in the end.

 

[Speedwell]

Oh so it's ok for God to get involved as long as he uses exclusively naturalistic means.

No. It's OK for God to use naturalistic or miraculous means, as it suits Him. What that means is that God is still involved even if He he is not using miraculous means at the time.

What's this supposed to tell us about the first chapter of John, Hebrews, and Romans that clearly declare Christ to be Creator? Its even in the Ten Commandments. The creation is commemorated in the Sabbath just as the Exodus is commemorated in the Passover and the last Passove of Christ commemorates the cross. You are going to have to come to terms with the miraculous nature of the Gospel and it's historicity.

Why? I have no problem with the idea that God created everything or with miracles, either. At least you're "out" now. It's really all about "biblical" creationism, isn't it? The science stuff was just a smoke screen.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Genetics has determined that humans do no diverge by more then a fraction of a percent of their DNA. Mendelian genetics has all but vanquished race and the Darwinian concept of multiple species and subspecies of humans.

The idea that there were currently multiple subspecies of humans wasn't suggested by Darwin, in publication. Origin of species barely makes a remark about human evolution.

The age of the earth is irrelevant to the doctrine of creation and I can demonstrate that from an exposition of Genesis 1. The origin of life on this planet is another story entirely.

That's a fair conclusion, given that the bible itself never specifically gives an age for this planet. As for the origin of life, that's not a part of evolutionary theory. Again, I think it is abiogenesis that you take issue with. "Changes in species over time" is an observation that requires life to already exist.

Greater lengths of time do not give you an established molecular mechanism for the overhaul of highly conserved genes. Brain related genes in particular.

Well, define brain related. One of the notable distinctions between humans and other modern apes is that we lack functionality in a group of genes relating to the regulation of brain growth (which is why our brains develop so quickly and grow so large, but is also the reason that we are so prone to brain cancers compared to other apes), and a group of genes relating to the development of a muscle that would have restricted how large the skull can be, which contributes to jaw strength. The most highly conserved genes I can think of are the HOX genes, which direct development of the basic body plan before birth/hatching.

I don't think anyone could deny that there are clear limits. Functional constraint, the deleterious effects of mutations and just the fidelity of the DNA replication process argue strongly for obvious limits.

Well sure, not every mutation is viable (though the vast majority of mutations are functionally neutral). Hence why the DNA replication process is so highly retained in the life on this planet. Congratulations on being the first person I have seen bring that up on here. However, what I am referring to is limits that would prevent "one kind from transitioning into another". The irregular definitions of "kind" notwithstanding, I do not see how the limits you mention would not allow for significant genetic and physiological change or prevent it from being promoted with the right selective pressures and niches open.

It is also worth noting that there are plenty of mutations which have both negative and positive consequences, and how they balance out depends on the environment. For example, the mutation which causes sickle cell anemia in those that have two copies of it also grants a resistance to malaria. Since people who are heterozygous for this mutation rarely suffer from the genetic disease associated with it, and retain the resistance to malaria, the mutation is more beneficial for people that live in areas where malaria is prevalent and medicines are scarce, since malaria is such a deadly disease. However, it has no benefit to people that will never encounter malaria.

Darwin was reading Lyell while on board the Beagle, he often discusses at length. Gradualism is quite simply the gradual accumulation of traits changing over time. The influence of Lyell on his think cannot be overestimated.

I agree completely. Have you noticed that punctuated equilibrium has been brought up more, lately?

Darwinian naturalism became very popular and it was developed philosophically with the help of philosophers like Asa Grey and Hebert Spencer.

-_- science has no inherent philosophy; they are separate disciplines entirely. The scientific discoveries we make stand, regardless as to how people feel motivated to apply them.

Mendel had discovered that traits emerged in cyclical patterns something Darwin would have known simply as varieties. Mendel noted a prevailing stability, aka stasis, and that, 'species are fixed within limits beyond which they cannot change.' (Mendel, Experiments in plant-hybridisation 1865).

An aspect that is disproven by dog breeding alone, as well as evolution experiments with bacteria, the Italian wall lizard, etc. Find a paper published in a scientific journal that deems that there is such a limit, do not use one from over 100 years ago as if it stands today.

Evolution is defined in Biology by genetics. Darwinism was a part of a much larger philosophy that could be understood better as Naturalism and was developed by guys like Asa Grey, Darwin's philosophical pen pal and Herbert Spencer. Spencer related the concept of natural selection to political and legal theory, thus, the advent of Social Darwinism.

Sigh, Social Darwinism is what happens when people who have only some understanding of the science try to shape their philosophy with it. No scientific theory has any inherent morality to it. The theories that contributed to the production of the atomic bomb don't become immoral just because how people chose to apply that knowledge is morally questionable. It's not uncommon for the same information to have just as much potential to save lives as it does to destroy them.

Furthermore, are you seriously suggesting that genetics had no impact on Social Darwinism? People were killed and sterilized on the basis of "having inferior genetics and contributing to weakness in future children". Without the inheritable factor, there is no basis to such actions. Genetics is incorporated into evolutionary theory. You can't try to fault the unifying theory of biology and say genetics, a part of that theory, isn't equally at fault. In fact, I'd say that's one of the aspects that contributed to that nonsense the most, second to misunderstanding what "survival of the fittest" means. More like survival of the most promiscuous.

Darwinism is much more then the theory of natural selection, it's also a legal and social theory. In the post WW2 world Soviet Russia and China rejected Mendelian Genetics as being an unhealthy western influence while Darwinism was embraced whole heartily:

Three generations of imbeciles are enough." This decision opened the floodgates for thousands to be coercively sterilized or otherwise persecuted as subhuman. Years later, the Nazis at the Nuremberg trials quoted Holmes's words in their own defense...In Mein Kampf, published in 1924, Hitler quoted American eugenic ideology and openly displayed a thorough knowledge of American eugenics. "There is today one state," wrote Hitler, "in which at least weak beginnings toward a better conception [of immigration] are noticeable. Of course, it is not our model German Republic, but the United States." HNN article​

Comment: Darwin's Origin of Species was a banned text in Nazi Germany. Evolutionary theory was not taught in German schools at the time, because it was viewed as incompatible with the government enforced religion: Christianity. More specifically, Catholicism. Again, regardless as to the negative social impact some scientific theories may have, it doesn't make their content factually incorrect.

Furthermore, the practice of sterilizing people actually hurts our species as a whole. It promotes the start of a genetic bottleneck, and I trust that you know as well as I do how that impacts the health of a population. In a sense, any reduction in genetic diversity, no matter if it is well intentioned or not, has the potential to eliminate the part of our population that will be resistant to whatever pathogen is going to hit us next, and have other negative consequences for us down the road. To be blunt, the easiest way to have more healthy children is to have kids with someone genetically dissimilar to yourself (relative, given how genetically similar our species is as a whole). Since the most severe genetic disorders tend to be recessive or are at their worst when two copies of the disease allele are present, it mostly eliminates the chances of having a child with cystic fibrosis or sickle cell anemia and a bunch of other nasty conditions if you marry someone with ancestry from a different region than yourself. All with the plus of not reducing the genetic diversity of our species.

But hey, if you take Darwinism to mean more than just the scientific theory, you are welcome to do that. Just note that Social Darwinism and eugenics ceased to be very popular thanks to how disgusted people were with the actions of Nazi Germany. No one wanted to be associated with any such thing after that, for the most part. I'm sure there are still some people around the fringe that support some eugenics type stuff, but they aren't a majority. Not anymore.

-_- also, don't assume that supporters of evolutionary theory such as myself derive any philosophy from it. Deriving philosophy from any scientific theory is a mental flaw that regularly leads to complete garbage and making people look like morons. I'd use harsher language to get that point across, but this site would just censor it. So here is me getting creative with how I feel about people that try to derive philosophy and morality from scientific theories and discoveries: such people have the brains of hermit crabs well below the 10th percentile for hermit crab intelligence, and a moral compass as functional as an actual compass surrounded by magnets.​

The Theory of Evolution has become synonymous with Darwinian thinking through the Modern Synthesis.

Ha, thinking eugenics is modern. I dare you to make a thread with a poll asking people if they support eugenics or not. Let's see how many evolution supporters on here are complete morons.

I didn't coin the term and it's not something exclusive to Creationist thinking. I will not forego the use of it when discerning between the phenomenon of adaptive evolution and the apriori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means.

Your choice, it was just a friendly suggestion. You often get very frustrated with not being taken seriously, and I was only trying to help.

There is a rich history there, completely unaffected by Darwinism.

Sorry, but genetics had a hand in Social Darwinism and eugenics. Genetics is our understanding of how the inheritance and expression of traits works; without a basis of how inheritance works, Social Darwinism and eugenics don't have any basis for a process to meet their goals. It's not science's fault people can make stupid conclusions. It is on us to be responsible for our own actions.

Darwin could not have even conceived of chromosomes let alone DNA and certainly wouldn't have had any concept of genes.

I don't know about that, nucleic acids were discovered in 1868, and Darwin died in 1882. So, he might have known a little bit about DNA before he died, though not much.

Mendel simply refereed to them as 'elementals' since the substance of the molecular basis was completely unknown. Mendelian Genetics went through a process culminating in the DNA double helix model to be recognized as science, there are two foundation laws of science and a growing body of research involved. Darwinism enjoyed over night success without contributing much in practical terms to real world science. Mendelian Genetics has never been accused of being responsible for inciting racist thinking and to date I have yet to see it so much as criticized for it's social, legal or political implications. You just can't say that about Darwinism.

-_- racism is not an inherent property of evolutionary theory. People were racist long before that point, and tried to make a scientific justification for it. To be blunt, based on evolutionary theory alone, all you could conclude about the "races" of humans is that each one has a few minor differences in phenotype that mildly improve their survival chances in the regions from which they originated. Seriously, Social Darwinism comes from the time period in which people were trying to use the ratio of the distance of their chin and naval to justify racial superiority. When people have an agenda they aren't willing to give up on, they'll deviate from the scientific process.

I think if you dismiss Darwinism, the controversy over evolution goes away, Mendelian Genetics never needed it. When it comes to teaching evolution the only question that merits serious attention is how the central term 'evolution' is defined scientifically. Do we insist on Lamarck's prescription or simply defer to what can be directly observed or demonstrated. Opinions vary but Darwinian thinking transcends the boundaries of natural science into political, social and legal agendas.

You are bringing up a lot of items that really don't matter in terms of the scientific theory alone. Whatever crazy politics and philosophies people build around scientific theories is on them, not science.

 

[pitabread]

And you STILL haven't shown me where I insulted your religion.

You probably didn't. I'm starting to notice a pattern in his responses, including accusing people of personal attacks where there aren't any.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You probably didn't. I'm starting to notice a pattern in his responses, including accusing people of personal attacks where there aren't any.

Indeed. I'm pretty sure there's a commandment against it too. "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour."

 

[mark kennedy]

Such as what exactly? Care to point out any examples?

Just about everything huge posted for two pages.

I'm trying to get a handle on whatever the heck philosophy it is you subscribe to, but it's bloody difficult when a) you don't communicate in the clearest fashion a lot of the time, and b) get awfully defensive at the drop of a hat.

For one thing I haven't had to go on the defensive in years. Secondly I'm an old school Calvinist with an evangelical would view. I have offered detailed discussions grounded in reagent source material that you don't read and then you complain you don't understand. You might try a little background reading before you get in over your head like this.

You presume much. Like I said, I've studied some of this stuff at the university (under grad) level.

Yea well I've been studying this stuff as my favorite intellectual pass time for over ten years.

What is your education in the life sciences?

What could that possibly matter, no one is even honestly admitting a scientific definition of evolution.

Why do I get this impression of someone sitting in front of their computer cackling like a movie villain?

I do chuckle when the conversation descends to this irreparable state. I was here for the culture wars when guys like you peppered the thread like this constantly. There would always be one dedicated troller who simply insulted creationists relentlessly. It set a lot of guys like you up for easy snips. Its a lot harder when your arguments can be deconstructed and dismissed as fallacious.

"I have you now! Mwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!"

I'm really more of a Star Trek fan, resistance is futile, your fallacies will be assimulated.

What ad hominem attack? Does anyone else see any ad hominem attacks and can maybe point out whatever it is mark is seeing?

Ok this is the part were the conversation turns into a performance. It's an empty stage, a sole performer, a desperate plea for support and affirmation. You have entered the Darwinian Theator of the Mind. It's empty now except for a few hold outs from the Theator's hay day. A few lurkers scurrying about in the shadows and he plays the part of feigning indignation with mild dramatic effect.

From the balcony can be heard someone munching popcorn, throwing an occasionally throwing a milk dud and laughing maniacally. 'Resistence is futile, your arguments well be assimulated'.

If you want to know the honest truth, I don't think you're an idiot.

Thank you for such a mild condescending taunt, that's very kind of you.

I do, however, think that you don't articulate your ideas in the clearest fashion. Which makes it hard to understand where you are arguing from half the time.

Most of the time I just poke fun at pedantic fallacious taunts as they are argued in circles endlessly. I bring up the fossils since this is a thread about transitional fossils and when I demonstrated that the transition was from a gracias ape to Asian and African apes arguments fell silent. Of course genomics isn't going to make it in the conversation and just to seal the deal I demanded the scientific definition be acknowledged, all refused.

I always come back no matter how many times the conversation bogs down like this because I always learn something. This time it was paranthropus and that distinctive crest down the middle of the skull where our ancestors should be. It's no wonder fossil evidence is quickly abandoned in these discussions, persistence is futile.

 

[mark kennedy]

You probably didn't. I'm starting to notice a pattern in his responses, including accusing people of personal attacks where there aren't any.

It's ad hominem attacks and your buddy there has been doing it exclusively throughout the thread. I've quoted the rant about trying to bring religion into this and stormy just ignores it. Watch those posts closely because that's what yours are turning into fast. I've seen very few recover from it and some pretty able posters have major meltdowns from resorting to it. It's not too late, pull up or your going to keep arguing in circles till you finally crash.