Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[DogmaHunter]

If you want to make the claim that evolution could explain the design found in life forms then yes.

Considering how evolution works, do you really consider that to be a reasonable and intellectually honest request?

The complexity that was required for even the first replicating cell is included in that claim.

How have you determined what the "minimum required complexity" is?
And the "minimum required complexity" of what, exactly?

We find evidence for life as far back as 3.2 billion years ago which does not give you the 2 to 3 billion years as you said. If life was present 3.2 billion years ago as evidence suggests then there is a very short period in evolutionary terms for this replication to arise.

No, replication must be present from the start. No replication = no evolution.
You are again completely confusing the origins of life with the origins of diversity.

Evolution explains the latter, not the first.
In context of evolution, it's rather irrelevant how first life came to be. It's not even relevant how complex that first system was.

Evolution only sets in after the self-replicating system exists.

You have the origin of life -whatever it is- and then life exists. Once life exists, evolution starts. It's not hard.

Yes, you are and that is the problem.

It is a problem that I don't misrepresent what evolution is about?
Evolution is all about adaption to environment.... the struggle of organisms to survive in the niche they inhabit. And those that are best at it get to spread their genes, along with their mutations, to the next generation.

See video I presented to Loudmouth.

I'ld prefer that you paraphrase the points you think are relevant instead of having me watch a video.

You are making a very bold claim here. Provide evidence that confirms that there is no planning or purpose in the inner workings of the cell.

Assuming -for all practical intents and purposes- that things are not there, seems to me to be the default position.

Perhaps you should not try to shift the burden of proof.
It's not upto me the support the idea that X is not present.
It's upto those who claim that X is present, to support it.

This is impossible without the complexity of the replicating cell. The very first living organism was extremely complex with a inner life very similar to a working factory humans have created.

The origins of life is not within the scope of evolution theory.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Thus animate objects are made up of inanimate objects? Yes, we are talking about the same thing, I'm just starting at the very base, or genesis if you prefer. By what mechanism are these basic inanimate objects derived?

We are discussing evidence and while I totally understand that these systems have basic fundamental elements and are in the whole designed system there is no evidence that we can point to as design for them.

Do you not as a Christian believe the universe was created by God?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Unfortunately, nobody has informed Loudmouth that we can actually observe humans descending from humans.

 

[RickG]

We are discussing evidence and while I totally understand that these systems have basic fundamental elements and are in the whole designed system there is no evidence that we can point to as design for them.

If you are going to invoke design, you must include everything, not just what you want.

Do you not as a Christian believe the universe was created by God?

I do not view the Genesis account of creation as literal, but aside from that, where in that account does it say God created the universe?

 

[Astrophile]

Again, seeing patterns rather than purpose, function and complicated interaction of systems.

First, I think that you are begging the question in saying that living things show 'purpose' and 'function'; to describe a system or a process as having a 'purpose' or a 'function' appears, by itself, to imply the existence of conscious design. Being living things ourselves, we find it easier to see function rather than mere cause and effect in living things, whereas we see inanimate things in terms of cause and effect rather than function.

Second, there are many historical examples of scientists incorrectly interpreting inanimate phenomena in terms of intelligent design. Johann Kepler believed that the Moon's craters were artificial, because he did not know of any natural process that could create circular depressions. About 200 years later, Franz von Paula Gruithuisen interpreted some ridges on the Moon near to the crater Schröter as a lunar city.

Percival Lowell mistook linear features on Mars (most of them illusory) for a global network of artificial canals; Lowell emphasised the evidence for design shown by the straightness of the canals, their uniform width, and the fact that several of them converged on a single spot. More recently, Martian landforms have been interpreted as a sculpture of a human face and as the remains of cities.

The first observations of pulsars, during the late 1960s, were interpreted as artificial radio signals, possibly from alien civilisations. It is worth mentioning here that pulsars are better time-keepers than any watch or clock made by human beings, so that they present us with an example of something that the Reverend Dr. Paley said was impossible, a watch without a watch-maker.

Finally, in the field of archaeology, oddly shaped pebbles were interpreted as tools made and used by early human beings, and were called 'eoliths'.

All these supposedly designed phenomena, lunar craters and lunar cities, Martian canals and 'faces on Mars', pulsars and eoliths, turned out not to be designed at all; the appearance of design existed only in the minds of the scientists. How do you know that the apparent design of living things will not go the same way as the apparent design of these phenomena?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Considering how evolution works, do you really consider that to be a reasonable and intellectually honest request?

If claims are going to be made that require it yes.

How have you determined what the "minimum required complexity" is?
And the "minimum required complexity" of what, exactly?

I haven't but biologists in the field have.

No, replication must be present from the start. No replication = no evolution.
You are again completely confusing the origins of life with the origins of diversity.

I am using the first replicating cell. Not the origin of life. The cell that had the ability to replicate and able to evolve. I hope that clears that up.

Evolution explains the latter, not the first.
In context of evolution, it's rather irrelevant how first life came to be. It's not even relevant how complex that first system was.

Yes. That creates an even bigger problem for a materialist but I am only focusing on that cell that can replicate and evolve.

Evolution only sets in after the self-replicating system exists.

Right, the cell that could replicate and evolve is what I am talking about.

You have the origin of life -whatever it is- and then life exists. Once life exists, evolution starts. It's not hard.

No, it isn't hard. I think it is a cop out but that is my opinion.

It is a problem that I don't misrepresent what evolution is about?
Evolution is all about adaption to environment.... the struggle of organisms to survive in the niche they inhabit. And those that are best at it get to spread their genes, along with their mutations, to the next generation.

Right, and I don't really care about those organisms that come later although they still have immense complexity I am discussing the first life forms.

I'ld prefer that you paraphrase the points you think are relevant instead of having me watch a video.

Its your choice if you don't wish to take a look.

Assuming -for all practical intents and purposes- that things are not there, seems to me to be the default position.

You made a positive claim. Support it.

Perhaps you should not try to shift the burden of proof.
It's not upto me the support the idea that X is not present.
It's upto those who claim that X is present, to support it.

This is an atheist support concept that allows them to side step their own responsibility for their claims. The design is seen in life forms, the purpose of function is present in life forms. Design is in evidence, if you claim it is not design but an illusion, that no purpose or planning is involved it is up to you to support your counter claim.

The origins of life is not within the scope of evolution theory.

Repeat the mantra. However, I am talking about the cell that was able to reproduce and evolve.

 

[Astrophile]

This isn't though:

You are not quite right. Three of the stars of the cross belong to the Scorpius-Centaurus association, but the top star does not. It is much closer than the other three and is not related to them.

 

[Oncedeceived]

If you are going to invoke design, you must include everything, not just what you want.

Design is already invoked and not by me but by the biologists that work in the field.

I do not view the Genesis account of creation as literal, but aside from that, where in that account does it say God created the universe?

Nehemiah 9:6:
"You alone are the LORD You have made the heavens, The heaven of heavens with all their host, The earth and all that is on it, The seas and all that is in them You give life to all of them And the heavenly host bows down before You.

Isaiah 66:2
"For My hand made all these things, Thus all these things came into being," declares the LORD "But to this one I will look, To him who is humble and contrite of spirit, and who trembles at My word.

Isaiah 45:18
For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste place, but formed it to be inhabited), "I am the LORD, and there is none else.

Colossians 1:16
For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him.

There are more if you need them.

 

[Loudmouth]

Unfortunately, nobody has informed Loudmouth that we can actually observe humans descending from humans.

So you agree that common descent produces homologous structures?

 

[Loudmouth]

Perhaps you could cite an observation of a deity producing a human being? Or is common descent the only observed mechanism that we have which produces homologous structures in biological organisms?

 

[AV1611VET]

You are not quite right. Three of the stars of the cross belong to the Scorpius-Centaurus association, but the top star does not. It is much closer than the other three and is not related to them.

So?

Does that mean it's in the same category as a duck cloud?

 

[Oncedeceived]

First, I think that you are begging the question in saying that living things show 'purpose' and 'function'; to describe a system or a process as having a 'purpose' or a 'function' appears, by itself, to imply the existence of conscious design. Being living things ourselves, we find it easier to see function rather than mere cause and effect in living things, whereas we see inanimate things in terms of cause and effect rather than function.

Second, there are many historical examples of scientists incorrectly interpreting inanimate phenomena in terms of intelligent design. Johann Kepler believed that the Moon's craters were artificial, because he did not know of any natural process that could create circular depressions. About 200 years later, Franz von Paula Gruithuisen interpreted some ridges on the Moon near to the crater Schröter as a lunar city.

Percival Lowell mistook linear features on Mars (most of them illusory) for a global network of artificial canals; Lowell emphasised the evidence for design shown by the straightness of the canals, their uniform width, and the fact that several of them converged on a single spot. More recently, Martian landforms have been interpreted as a sculpture of a human face and as the remains of cities.

The first observations of pulsars, during the late 1960s, were interpreted as artificial radio signals, possibly from alien civilisations. It is worth mentioning here that pulsars are better time-keepers than any watch or clock made by human beings, so that they present us with an example of something that the Reverend Dr. Paley said was impossible, a watch without a watch-maker.

Finally, in the field of archaeology, oddly shaped pebbles were interpreted as tools made and used by early human beings, and were called 'eoliths'.

All these supposedly designed phenomena, lunar craters and lunar cities, Martian canals and 'faces on Mars', pulsars and eoliths, turned out not to be designed at all; the appearance of design existed only in the minds of the scientists. How do you know that the apparent design of living things will not go the same way as the apparent design of these phenomena?

It comes down to the knowledge one holds when making such determinations. We have extremely technological abilities today to view systems that before that technology existed could never have even been imagined. It is from this gain in knowledge that the design was to apparent to ignore.

 

[Astrophile]

So?

Does that mean it's in the same category as a duck cloud?

Yes. The stars of the Southern Cross are not in their present positions for the purpose of making the shape of a cross; the shape formed by the stars is quite accidental, and the stars are not even all at the same distance.

 

[Loudmouth]

It comes down to the knowledge one holds when making such determinations. We have extremely technological abilities today to view systems that before that technology existed could never have even been imagined. It is from this gain in knowledge that the design was to apparent to ignore.

You mean the way that proteins appear, visually?

 

[bhsmte]

Or a natural design process.

Like evolution.



No, the fact is that you rule out a natural process, only by playing semantic games.
"Design => designer" is nonsense.

An automated process on a computer can design robots that have some type of locomotion. This algorithm will spew out designs, none of which will be the product of designers. The "designer" is just a mindless algorithm.


Evolution is a natural process which "produces" "designs" through the following algorithm:
- survive
- find a mate
- reproduce with random variation
- repeat


See above.

There really is no option to allow natural processes to be able to produce things that "appear" to be designed.

That is not allowed to be even contemplated and we all know why.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes. The stars of the Southern Cross are not in their present positions for the purpose of making the shape of a cross;

I totally disagree.

Not only did God put the stars where they are so as to give us the plan of salvation in the cosmos, but He named them Himself as well.

QV God's Voice in the Stars, by Kenneth C. Fleming.

 

[RickG]

Design is already invoked and not by me but by the biologists that work in the field.

Again, I'm referring to what your are saying, not biologists.

Nehemiah 9:6:
"You alone are the LORD You have made the heavens, The heaven of heavens with all their host, The earth and all that is on it, The seas and all that is in them You give life to all of them And the heavenly host bows down before You.

Isaiah 66:2
"For My hand made all these things, Thus all these things came into being," declares the LORD "But to this one I will look, To him who is humble and contrite of spirit, and who trembles at My word.

Isaiah 45:18
For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste place, but formed it to be inhabited), "I am the LORD, and there is none else.

Colossians 1:16
For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him.

There are more if you need them.

Heavens and earth are the universe? Let's look at Genesis 1:1 and 7-8.

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven.

So heaven is between two layers of water?

 

[Oncedeceived]

You mean the way that proteins appear, visually?

The workings of the systems.

 

[Loudmouth]

The workings of the systems.

And how do you describe the workings, by their visual appearance? I believe you used "gears of a clock" before, did you not?

 

[AV1611VET]

So heaven is between two layers of water?

Yes.

The "heaven" underneath the water is the atmosphere, and the "heaven" over the water is outer space.

First and Second Heaven.