Do evolutionists really understand the complexity of things?

[OldWiseGuy]

So why are you pushing ID without seeing the necessity of understanding it better?

The originators of ID, the Discovery Institute, have made their motive very clear. They want ID in the public consciousness and in the public schools as what they call a "wedge" for their political agenda.

But ID is not essential to theistic (i.e. non YEC) creationism. What's your dog in this fight?

Without regard to it's origin I like the term. I don't really care what is taught in schools. It's the blind leading the blind anyway. My 'dog' is just an intellectual exercise. I have no agenda other than to argue what I believe here on these forums (although my belief system does govern my personal life).

 

[Speedwell]

Without regard to it's origin I like the term. I don't really care what is taught in schools. It's the blind leading the blind anyway. My 'dog' is just an intellectual exercise. I have no agenda other than to argue what I believe here on these forums (although my belief system does govern my personal life).

I don't quite buy that. Too many of your posts give off the odor of "evolution says God didn't do it."

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I don't quite buy that. Too many of your posts give off the odor of "evolution says God didn't do it."

That's a reasonable conclusion. What's the problem?

 

[Speedwell]

That's a reasonable conclusion. What's the problem?

It isn't true.

 

[rjs330]

Evidence, and the courage to accept things as we find them, is what began my journey to atheism.

p

You've stopped your journey then. There is no courage in accepting what we find. What we touch and see is only a small portion of what our curiosity ought to lead us to. You find DNA. If all you are looking for is what it is and what it does you are missing the why is it here and what is it's purpose. Where did it come from and exactly how and why did it's purpose come to being and how does it fit the great complexity of life and the universe.

 

[rjs330]

I don't quite buy that. Too many of your posts give off the odor of "evolution says God didn't do it."

Actually speedwell what evolution says is that it didn't happen the say the bible says it happened. We've had the discussion. I really believe that theistic evolutionists believe God created everything. But they don't believe God did it the way the bible says he did it. Which was talked about in a different thread so don't want to do it again here as it's way OT.

Blind chance evolution is what this thread is about. If you believe that God designed creation to come to its current state by evolution then so be it. You are on our side in that secular evolution without a designer doesn't take into consideration the complexity of the universe and the life within it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The problem is that soft tissue fossil evidence is non-existent, therefore 'falsifiability' is meaningless. That's why the 'theory' stands. It's like Kylie's mousetrap argument. The 'primitive' examples are only speculation. What we do have is a complete mousetrap with no evidence that the design evolved in the way her link supposes. Same with evolution. There is no organic, biological evidence that creatures evolved.

So much fail... so little time and energy to address it all....

The theory makes predictions. You can test those predictions.
The theory details aspects of the process. You can observe each of those aspects in living creatures today.
- mutation: check
- inheritability of mutated dna: check
- the best fit for the environment are most successful at living and breeding: check
- this repeats every generation, having the mutation changes cumulated in offspring dna: check

If this is the case, and all life has common ancestry, then all life is a gigantic family tree.
Meaning it will fall into a nested hierarchy.

This nested hierarchy is exposed in so many different ways...
You see it in anatomy.
You see it in individual genes.
You see it by comparing sequences of genes.
You see it by looking for specific DNA markers.
You see it in phenotype traits
You see it in the psychology of creatures.
You see it in the geographic distribution of species.
You see it in the fossil record (yes, you can study the anatomy of these ancient creatures as well... they expose bones after all).

It's rather ridiculous actually, how solidly and consistently all these predictions check out and fit like a glove.

See, this is why I said "find me a reptile with an inner earbone". Because in the nested hierarchy of life, mammals have inner earbones. Reptiles, or any others, do not.
Birds have feathers, but mammals do not.
Mammals have hair, but amphibians do not.

And digging deeper, you can do the exact same with genes.
There will be genes that you'll only find in primates. There'll be genetic markers you'll only find in felines. Etc etc.

There's a gazillion ways you could show it to be wrong, if it is indeed wrong.

What the fossil record shows is a wide variety of fully functioning, successful critters

Nobody says otherwise.
No, evolution does not predict the existance of crockoducks.
In fact, such a creature would break the nested hierarchy and would thus falsify evolution.

Funny, isn't it?

That said I do believe in survival of the fittest in that the biggest, strongest, most able of the species pass on those qualities.

It's a bit of a shame then, that that is incorrect.
Evolution is not a ladder towards "bigger, stronger, smarter".

Evolution is an adaptive process.
"Fitness" in "survival of the fittest" is not about speed or power.
It is about being a better fit for the environment you happen to find yourself in.

So what "fit" means, is entirely dependend on the environment.
As in, you can't say what "fit" is, unless you know what environment we are talking about. Because "fit" in environment A, might be very "unfit" in environment B.

Take being "big" for example.
What does "big" imply? For example, big animals consume more food and more water.

So in periods of extreme shortage of both, they'll die.
A mouse might manage during the exact same period of shortage.

See?

 

[HitchSlap]

p

You've stopped your journey then.

It probably looks that way to you.

There is no courage in accepting what we find.

Yes, this is often the case with theists.

What we touch and see is only a small portion of what our curiosity ought to lead us to.

Small, large, however you want to define it.

You find DNA.

No, you find DNA.

If all you are looking for is what it is and what it does you are missing the why is it here and what is it's purpose.

Finding out "what it does" helps inform us why it's here and the purpose it serves.

Where did it come from and exactly how and why did it's purpose come to being and how does it fit the great complexity of life and the universe.

Sit tight, they're working on it.

 

[Speedwell]

Blind chance evolution is what this thread is about. If you believe that God designed creation to come to its current state by evolution then so be it. You are on our side in that secular evolution without a designer doesn't take into consideration the complexity of the universe and the life within it.

Oh, but it does, and explains it completely by natural causes. The evolutionary process of the theistic evolutionist and that of the atheist are identical in that respect. The only difference is that the theistic evolutionist ascribes divine purpose to it, Aristotle's Final Cause, which is undetectable to science and dispensable to the atheist.

 

[rjs330]

Oh, but it does, and explains it completely by natural causes. The evolutionary process of the theistic evolutionist and that of the atheist are identical in that respect. The only difference is that the theistic evolutionist ascribes divine purpose to it, Aristotle's Final Cause, which is undetectable to science and dispensable to the atheist.

Well I disagree. Secular evolution says that all of it was an accident of nature. Happenstance that a genetic mutation ocurred,that happened to,be a positive mutation. No hand no design no purpose behind it except nature found it helpful.

Correct me if I am wrong but theistic evolution says God by design started the universe on its path with a purpose to bring forth life and he set the universe in motion to fulfill that purpose. He set the building blocks in place so nature could take it's intended course to create and evolve life into what it is now and what it will,continue to be. Secular no God no hand because that is religion. Theistic God and his hand.

 

[quatona]

The difference between "secular evolution" and "theistic evolution" is the same as between "secular gravity" and "theistic gravity".

 

[rjs330]

The difference between "secular evolution" and "theistic evolution" is the same as between "secular gravity" and "theistic gravity".

That's completely untrue. Secular evolution does not acknowledge intelligence in the universe. Theistic evolution does.

 

[rjs330]

The difference between "secular evolution" and "theistic evolution" is the same as between "secular gravity" and "theistic gravity".

Do you believe that God created by evolution?

 

[Speedwell]

The difference between "secular evolution" and "theistic evolution" is the same as between "secular gravity" and "theistic gravity".

That's about it. My belief is that the universe is a closed system with respect to natural causes. I have no patience with systems like Intelligent Design in which the universe mostly goes of itself but requires periodic divine tinkering with biological evolution.

 

[quatona]

Do you believe that God created by evolution?

I´m not a theist.
Your or my metaphysical framework is immaterial for explanations how nature works - be it gravity, evolution, cosmology, physiology...

 

[quatona]

That's completely untrue.

No, it isn´t.

Secular evolution does not acknowledge intelligence in the universe.

Yes, it does.

 

[rjs330]

I´m not a theist.
Your or my metaphysical framework is immaterial for explanations how nature works - be it gravity, evolution, cosmology, physiology...

Then one as right. Theistic and secular evolution are not the same.

 

[Speedwell]

Then one as right. Theistic and secular evolution are not the same.

How do they differ? What's the difference between secular random variation and selection and theistic random variation and selection?

 

[quatona]

Then one as right.

Pardon?

Theistic and secular evolution are not the same.

Evolution theory is evolution theory.
Whether you believe in a God who set everything in motion, or you don´t is a completely different question.

 

[SteveB28]

That's completely untrue. Secular evolution does not acknowledge intelligence in the universe. Theistic evolution does.

And "secular gravity" doesn't recognise intelligence, where "theistic gravity" does. Doesn't your favourite book of stories talk of your god arranging the celestial bodies in space?

So what?