Do evolutionists really understand the complexity of things?

Speedwell said:

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

Click to expand...

The difference is one needs God and the other doesn't. Theistic evolution says it was by God's design that evolution occurred and it wouldn't have happened,without him. Secular evolution says it happened by chance,and God if there is one had nothing to,do,with it.

SteveB28 said:

An


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?

Click to expand...

That's the point,of this thread. The amazing complexity of This universe should lead one to,see God and his power and glory because it's just to complex and amazing to have happened by chance. The universe screams there is a God because it's complexity shows that a designer had to be involved.

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
Romans 1:19‭-‬20 ESV
http://bible.com/59/rom.1.19-20.ESV

rjs330 said:

The difference is one needs God and the other doesn't. Theistic evolution says it was by God's design that evolution occurred and it wouldn't have happened,without him. Secular evolution says it happened by chance,and God if there is one had nothing to,do,with it.

Click to expand...

But the process of evolution itself is the same in each case.

rjs330 said:

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

Click to expand...

You say it is untrue, but then you say something that confirms exactly that which you said was untrue...

rjs330 said:

The difference is one needs God and the other doesn't. Theistic evolution says it was by God's design that evolution occurred and it wouldn't have happened,without him.

Click to expand...

They say it, but they never show it.

Secular evolution says it happened by chance

Click to expand...

That is simply not correct. It happens by necessity.
Evolution is an inevitable outcome when you have systems that reproduce with inheritable variation in competition for limited resources in an everchanging environment.

It is the only possible outcome.
There's no "chance". It's just what inevitably happens when you have such reproducing systems. Always, everywhere.

,and God if there is one had nothing to,do,with it.

Click to expand...

Biology, or indeed any other science, makes no mention of gods, pro or con.
Science only keeps into account things that actually manifest in the real world in detectable ways.

rjs330 said:

Secular evolution says it happened by chance,

Click to expand...

...this is a misrepresentation.

and God if there is one had nothing to,do,with it.

Click to expand...

Evolution theory makes no statements about Gods, neither positively nor negatively.

TagliatelliMonster said:

They say it, but they never show it.



That is simply not correct. It happens by necessity.
Evolution is an inevitable outcome when you have systems that reproduce with inheritable variation in competition for limited resources in an everchanging environment.

It is the only possible outcome.
There's no "chance". It's just what inevitably happens when you have such reproducing systems. Always, everywhere.



Biology, or indeed any other science, makes no mention of gods, pro or con.
Science only keeps into account things that actually manifest in the real world in detectable ways.

Click to expand...

Actually that's untrue. Evolution does not always happen by necessity. Sometimes creatures do adapt by necessity, but the majority of the evolutionary process was not by necessity it was by chance. It's impossible to,show necessity. Why did creatures evolve to come out of the sea? If something was living in the sea,then it was complete in doing so. It might do,some adapting to,survive in the sea but there was no necessity to obtain lungs to,leave and breath air. Why did creatures evolve to have wings? Why did they need wings? What part of the DNA decided we need,to evolve wings to fly? If it it took a million years to do it why? If wings were so important to survival it didn't happen quick enough. There was,no point because the creatures were still dying and the development of wings would have been found to be useless. Show me in nature right now a major evolutionary change like that occurring and it's benefit of what it's final outcome will,be by necessity for survival that will take that long. It's not possible because the creature would die,out before then.

You present the problem. Science is,only a method to discover what is. If that is all you want then that's all you get. If you only want a narrow view then that's what you get. But the discovery should lead you to a broader perspective like where did it all come from and why does it all fit like it does. This world and all its amazing complex process should lead one to ask much larger questions. Tie that to the larger complexities of the universe at large and the answer is,plain to see IF you are broadening you horizons and have an open heart. But if you are,closed minded and narrow focused you miss out.

Speedwell said:

But the process of evolution itself is the same in each case.

Click to expand...

Yes but that is narrow thinking and that's my,point. Why does the bible declair that the world and the universe show the glory, majesty and,might of God? Because if you look further than the narrow process you can see it. The complexity of,what is should lead you to God. Unless you are,so,focused on a process such as evolution you miss the bigger,picture. You miss the forest for the trees.

rjs330 said:

Actually that's untrue. Evolution does not always happen by necessity. Sometimes creatures do adapt by necessity, but the majority of the evolutionary process was not by necessity it was by chance.

Click to expand...

No, it is by necessity. As in "inevitable". It's what happens when you have systems that reproduce with variation and compete for limited resources.

Specialisation for the niche is inevitable.

It's impossible to,show necessity. Why did creatures evolve to come out of the sea? If something was living in the sea,then it was complete in doing so. It might do,some adapting to,survive in the sea but there was no necessity to obtain lungs to,leave and breath air. Why did creatures evolve to have wings? Why did they need wings? What part of the DNA decided we need,to evolve wings to fly?

Click to expand...

Wings are used to fly today by most creaures. Wings however were not always for flight, nore are they capable of flight in several species today.

Pinguins come to mind. Ostriches come to mind.

It seems you misunderstood also what I meant by "necessity". Perhaps I didn't express myself well.

I'm not talking about specific traits or whatever.
I'm purely talking about an inevitable outcome of adaption to the habitat.

This is why I keep repeating "systems that reproduce with variation and which compete over limited resources in an ever changing environment". "resources" here also doesn't only point to food and water. It also points to mates to breed with. Next to competition for food / survival, there is also sexual competition: the struggle to find / "win" a mate.

If all those parameters are a part of the system in place, then there are only 2 possible outcomes:
- adaption / evolution
or
- eventual extinction.

If it it took a million years to do it why?

Click to expand...

Because evolution is necessarily a slow process.

You present the problem. Science is,only a method to discover what is. If that is all you want then that's all you get. If you only want a narrow view then that's what you get.

Click to expand...

I don't care about it being "narrow". I care about it being accurate and verifiable.
See, I'ldlike to believe as many true things as possible and as little false things as possible.

But the discovery should lead you to a broader perspective like where did it all come from and why does it all fit like it does.

Click to expand...

Evolution answers that question. Unless you are talking about the very origins of life itself - that's beyond the scope of evolution theory.
But that doesn't mean those questions aren't addressed. It merely means that other branches/fields of science are investigating those questions.

A theory of gravity, for example, doesn't address the origins of matter either. Nore does it need to.

This world and all its amazing complex process should lead one to ask much larger questions.

Click to expand...

Just because certain scientific subjects operate within a well-defined scope, doesn't mean that everything beyond that scope isn't addressed elsewhere in science....

Tie that to the larger complexities of the universe at large and the answer is,plain to see IF you are broadening you horizons and have an open heart. But if you are,closed minded and narrow focused you miss out.

Click to expand...

I'm not being closed minded, simply because I'm not willing to accept bronze age stories at face value...

rjs330 said:

Yes but that is narrow thinking and that's my,point. Why does the bible declair that the world and the universe show the glory, majesty and,might of God?

Click to expand...

Because it is a religious book. What else did you expect it to say? That god exists, but is irrelevant?

Every religion makes claims about the god(s) claimed in them. I wouldn't expect christianity to be any different.

The complexity of,what is should lead you to God.

Click to expand...

Why?

Unless you are,so,focused on a process such as evolution you miss the bigger,picture. You miss the forest for the trees.

Click to expand...

What bigger picture?

TagliatelliMonster said:

Every religion makes claims about the god(s) claimed in them. I wouldn't expect christianity to be any different.

Click to expand...

That's why you're a mission field.

OldWiseGuy said:

The theory predicts what has happened, not what will happen.

Click to expand...

/facepalm

Scientific predictions are not like "prophecy" or "telling the future", mate....

Scientific predictions are descriptions about what you should and shouldn't be able to observe in the world, if the model is correct or false.

As such, evolution predicts that you won't find amphibians with hair.
Because if evolution is correct, then life is a family tree. A family tree is a branching pattern. A nested hierarchy.

That means that every branch will have traits that you'll only find on that branch and its sub-branches.

Hair is such a trait that is found on the mammalian branch.
So you won't find it on the other branches.
Same goes for feathers... you won't find mammals with feathers.
You can do this for anatomical traits and you can do this based on genetics. It should hold up for entire DNA strings, gene sequences or even individual genes or genetic markers.

For example, viral insertions that happened AFTER the split between the common ancestor of gorilla's on the one hand and the common ancestor of chimps and humans on the other, should only show up in either gorilla's or humans and chimps.

This is exactly what we find.
If evolution is false, why do we find these things? Why is the nested hierarchy in life exactly as we would expect if evolution were true, while it is really false?

Why does literally ALL this data, point to common ancestry of all living things?

And just to be clear... it doesn't stop at mere comparision of anatomical and genetic structures...

It's even evident right down to the geographic distribution of species.
You don't find any kangaroo's outside of australia.
You don't find any human remains next to trilobites.
You don't find any rabbits in pre-cambrian strata.

Literally everything is exactly as it is expected to be, if evolution occured. And while there are literally a gazillion potential ways to falsify it, nobody seems to be able to.

What does that tell you?
That's a pretty good justification to accept that it in fact occured.

It's the 'mousetrap' all over again. Because there is a complete mousetrap now there must have been an incomplete mousetrap sometime in the past that organized itself over time into a complete mousetrap.

Click to expand...

No. There is no such thing as "incomplete" creatures or traits. Every creature that ever lived was a "fully formed" member of the species it belonged to.

A pinguin does not have "half a wing".

Isn't "nested hierarchy" just a different way of saying common design i.e. design that is common or unique to that species?

Click to expand...

No. Nested hierarchy is about the pattern of similarities.

OldWiseGuy said:

Penguins use their wings to 'fly' through the water. Without them they couldn't maneuver fast enough to catch fish. They are also used as 'arms' for balance while walking on ice. Great design.

Click to expand...

Sorry, can't resist...


(video released very late at night on 31 March 2008)

TagliatelliMonster said:

It's even evident right down to the geographic distribution of species.
You don't find any kangaroo's outside of australia.
You don't find any human remains next to trilobites.
You don't find any rabbits in pre-cambrian strata.

Click to expand...

You answered your own question with a question.

Why don't we find humans wih trilobites? Or, rabbits in the pre-cumbrian....The answer is simple.

Geographic distribution of species

OldWiseGuy said:

Penguins use their wings to 'fly' through the water

Click to expand...

It's called 'swimming'.

Without them they couldn't maneuver fast enough to catch fish. They are also used as 'arms' for balance while walking on ice. Great design.

Click to expand...

And a nice illustration that wings don't need to be used for flying.
Which directly counters the "objection" concerning the evolution of wings, which trigged me into making that point.

So please don't move the goalposts.

TagliatelliMonster said:

For example, viral insertions that happened AFTER the split between the common ancestor of gorilla's on the one hand and the common ancestor of chimps and humans on the other, should only show up in either gorilla's or humans and chimps.

Click to expand...

Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) are some of the most cited evidences for evolution. They are part of the suite of ‘junk DNA’ that supposedly comprised the vast majority of our DNA. ERVs are said to be parasitic retroviral DNA sequences that infected our genome long ago and have stayed there ever since. These short DNA strands are found throughout the human genome, and make up about 5% of the DNA,1or about 10% of the total amount of DNA that is classified as transposable elements (i.e. 50%).2

However, the term ‘endogenous retrovirus’ is a bit of a misnomer. There are numerous instances where small transposable elements thought to be endogenous retroviruses have been found to have functions, which invalidates the ‘random retrovirus insertion’ claim. For instance, studies of embryo development in mice suggest that transposable elements (of which ERVs are a subset) control embryo development. Transposable elements seem to be involved in controlling the sequence and level of gene expression during development, by moving to/from the sites of gene control.3

Evolutionists have used shared mistakes in ‘junk DNA’ as ‘proof’ that humans and chimps have a common ancestor. However, if the similar sequences are functional, which they are progressively proving to be, their argument evaporates. ref

-57 said:

You answered your own question with a question.

Why don't we find humans wih trilobites? Or, rabbits in the pre-cumbrian....The answer is simple.

Geographic distribution of species

Click to expand...

...perfectly in line with what evolution predicts.

Again, like always, it is about the pattern in which they are distributed.
Evolution, combined with geology (and the moving of continents), predicts a specific distribution pattern. This prediction is consistent with the actual pattern we observe in the world.


If evolution is correct, then species that evolved on a continent (like australia) after it drifted away from the other continents and thus genetically isolates life living on that continent, should only be found on that particular continent.

If we would discover a population of kangaroo's in latin america, that would pose a real problem. But we don't find such things.

Instead, we find populations exactly where we expect to find them, if evolution is true.