Evolution/Creation on Trial

[SteveB28]

I investigate things all the time. If you see my replies they are not a one or two sentence response dismissing things without detailed explanations. So I do inquire and read volumes of info on the subjects. I may not be able to understand some of the higher level info associated with genetics ect but I will find commentaries and try to get a basic understanding.

This is why I never reply immediately and take a few days to get back. Unlike some who will reply straight away dismissing what has been said without checking things and assuming they know. But just because I decide to disagree with what is said doesn't mean I have a closed mind or am ignoring any evidence you think is right. Thats the point I disagree in my conclusions. Thats the problem with evolution and the religion debate. The evidence can be argued for either side and it comes down to what a person believe and how they see things.

A good example is common decent can also be seen as common design.

Please show me ONE EXAMPLE of your 'open-mindedness'. ONE EXAMPLE of you EVER agreeing with the conclusions formed from evolutionary theory.

Just ONE.

 

[Jan Volkes]

Christian's put their faith in God being the cause because we believe that the Bible is divine revelation from our maker. The atheist has to put his/her faith in something else and that is why those without the Christian faith are floundering trying to find an explanation that will never be found.

So someone made something up and you all think it's true, why on earth would you think that? and why do you not think all the other made up things are not true?

 

[Oncedeceived]

What with all that towing the line modern science does it is amazing how we still manage to have such a technologically advanced society. Apparently they use a different method for the applied sciences that continue to make functional discoveries despite all this collusion with non functional science.

It will begin to hamper Science if it continues. We continue to have a successful technological advanced society. I feel that we would be farther down the road if Scientists would go in without evolution as a priori and let the evidence lead where it may.

 

[Oncedeceived]

How come you get to demand process details but creationists don't have to show process details? No creationist has ever specified the level of detail in creation you are demanding from evolutionists.

Do you not understand that evolution and its applications are part of a evidence produced worldview? Evolution is suppose to be based entirely upon evidence...mountains of evidence in fact that materialists claim explain everything by natural processes. If one wishes to claim that evolution is the answer to all phenomena that is present in the life forms we find on earth and evolution explains it all with mountains of evidence it is incumbent on those who make that claim to support it with the evidence they say is there to do so. When one claims that all there is to explain the life on earth is evolution, that explanation should be able to explain it.

Not a problem. The virus normally leaves the altered DNA as part of infecting the host. Its the nature of the virus to do infecting like that.

Or are you asking for how viruses originally evolved?

Scientists make two assumptions about ERV's, that they are random and that they are non-functional. There have been some new findings that may show both assumptions may not be true. So, if these two assumptions are invalid, then we could legitimately interpret the shared ERV's and LTR's as either common design features (if these sequence elements display function) or the result of nonrandom, repeatable events that took place independently in separate organisms.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I'm sorry, those of you who say macro evolution is mathematically impossible are simply wrong. Its perfectly possible mathematically. In fact you can't even define the difference between micro evolution and macro evolution.

Do you believe that in macro evolution one usually needs great amounts of time to explain the differences?

 

[The Cadet]

It will begin to hamper Science if it continues.

Beg your pardon?

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/the-light-of-evolution-what-would-be-lost.7893556

What you don't get is that many of our advances within science have come directly as a result of an understanding of the theory of evolution. Evolution makes testable, falsifiable predictions, and these are used as the basis of new and useful discoveries, particularly in fields like zoology and virology. Evolution at and above the species level has been used to help us in the fight against HIV and cancer.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Do you believe that in macro evolution one usually needs great amounts of time to explain the differences?

I think the distinction between mini and macro evolution is absent. But of course, more change is generally associated with more time, and there has been gobs and gobs of time.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

It will begin to hamper Science if it continues. We continue to have a successful technological advanced society. I feel that we would be farther down the road if Scientists would go in without evolution as a priori and let the evidence lead where it may.

You contradict yourself by asking that we go with the evidence and asking that we drop evolution.

 

[Paulos23]

It will begin to hamper Science if it continues. We continue to have a successful technological advanced society. I feel that we would be farther down the road if Scientists would go in without evolution as a priori and let the evidence lead where it may.

I have yet to see any advancement due to Creation Science. Until then, I would say that Science based on TOE has a leg up on Creation "Science".

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Do you not understand that evolution and its applications are part of a evidence produced worldview? Evolution is suppose to be based entirely upon evidence...mountains of evidence in fact that materialists claim explain everything by natural processes. If one wishes to claim that evolution is the answer to all phenomena that is present in the life forms we find on earth and evolution explains it all with mountains of evidence it is incumbent on those who make that claim to support it with the evidence they say is there to do so. When one claims that all there is to explain the life on earth is evolution, that explanation should be able to explain it.

Well you are kind of acting like someone who won't trust a map unless I send you a photograph of every city and testify I've been there. Or someone who won't trust orbital mechanics unless you've followed a planet through every possible orbit position. The parts we can check do check out. There are parts of the evolutionary history we just cannot get at, for obvious reasons, and this is no reason to disbelieve evolution.

Scientists make two assumptions about ERV's, that they are random and that they are non-functional. There have been some new findings that may show both assumptions may not be true.

Given millions of years, evolution will inevitably coopt some of the ERV's to become functional. That does not invalidate their usefulness as evidence of past relationships.

So, if these two assumptions are invalid, then we could legitimately interpret the shared ERV's and LTR's as either common design features (if these sequence elements display function) or the result of nonrandom, repeatable events that took place independently in separate organisms.

But since they are valid your attempts to dismiss the evidence remain bogus. Virii don't pick and choose their landing site in a genome when they infect. They just seize on whatever strand they happen to bump in to. And mutations don't care what they mutate . . . it might as well be that ancient ERV sitting there as any other spot on the chromosome . . . if it turns out to be useful, natural selection will preserve that mutation without worrying that it might upset some future investigator who would have preferred the ERV be left untouched.

 

[Belk]

It will begin to hamper Science if it continues. We continue to have a successful technological advanced society. I feel that we would be farther down the road if Scientists would go in without evolution as a priori and let the evidence lead where it may.

Why is it not affecting us now? You realize that the TOE has been the predominate theory in biology for 150+ years yes? How are we still able to have functional scientific discoveries? Unless you are claiming this is limited to certain fields? Sorry, but this claim of collusion does not hold water as far as I can see.

 

[bhsmte]

Why is it not affecting us now? You realize that the TOE has been the predominate theory in biology for 150+ years yes? How are we still able to have functional scientific discoveries? Unless you are claiming this is limited to certain fields? Sorry, but this claim of collusion does not hold water as far as I can see.

That collusion is required for certain people to hold onto their belief though, so they must claim collusion.

 

[Loudmouth]

If anything Darwin talked about how complex the eye was and how he couldn't believe that it formed by gradual steps.

I can only assume that you are repeating a lie that you read on a creationist site since you seem like an honest dude most of the time. I am here to let you know that you have been duped. I would strongly suggest that you not read the creationist nonsense and read the actual source material for yourself.

"With these facts, here far too briefly and imperfectly given, which show that there is much graduated diversity in the eyes of living crustaceans, and bearing in mind how small the number of living animals is in proportion to those which have become extinct, I can see no very great difficulty (not more than in the case of many other structures) in believing that natural selection has converted the simple apparatus of an optic nerve merely coated with pigment and invested by transparent membrane, into an optical instrument as perfect as is possessed by any member of the great Articulate class."--Charles Darwin, "The Origin of Species"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter6.html

It is such an easy quote to find. The entire book is available online for free. So why would creationists continue to use such an obvious whopper of a tale?

The examples used are not proof of the evolution of the eye by small incremental steps.

The bigger question is why do you even pretend to care about the evidence when you ignore and misrepresent it with almost every one of your posts?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why is it not affecting us now? You realize that the TOE has been the predominate theory in biology for 150+ years yes? How are we still able to have functional scientific discoveries? Unless you are claiming this is limited to certain fields? Sorry, but this claim of collusion does not hold water as far as I can see.

Evolution happens. The problem is that evolution is taken a priori with certain a priori ideas that sometimes hampers discovery.

 

[bhsmte]

Why is it not affecting us now? You realize that the TOE has been the predominate theory in biology for 150+ years yes? How are we still able to have functional scientific discoveries? Unless you are claiming this is limited to certain fields? Sorry, but this claim of collusion does not hold water as far as I can see.

I guess we should wait for the evidence that discoveries have been hampered.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Beg your pardon?

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/the-light-of-evolution-what-would-be-lost.7893556

What you don't get is that many of our advances within science have come directly as a result of an understanding of the theory of evolution. Evolution makes testable, falsifiable predictions, and these are used as the basis of new and useful discoveries, particularly in fields like zoology and virology. Evolution at and above the species level has been used to help us in the fight against HIV and cancer.

Common design and the separation of different kinds of organisms would have the same predictions along with the evolutionary processes.

 

[Belk]

Evolution happens. The problem is that evolution is taken a priori with certain a priori ideas that sometimes hampers discovery.

I think I am missing the thrust of your statement here. What is taken "a priori" and how does it hamper discovery?

 

[Loudmouth]

There have been many peer reviewed papers showing the complexity of having to evolve multiple mutations to account for the systems and features needed for living things.

That is the sharpshooter fallacy. It is easy to hit a bullseye at 2,000 yds when you can draw the bullseye around the bullet hole. In fact, you can do it every time.

What you are ignoring are all of the multi-residue adaptations that did not occur. It is like ignoring all of the losers in a lottery. If the odds of winning the lottery are 1 in 150 million, does that mean that there should only be a winner in 1 out of every 150 million lottery drawings? If so, how do you explain the fact that people win the lottery all of the time?

Its just reasonable deduction that a complex ability requires more than one or two or even many things working together to make it function. The things that have been used showing a certain stage of a more developed ability are complex themselves and require an explanation as to how they were able to mutate into existence.

If we lack an explanation, "God did it" is not the default fill in answer. That is a God of the Gaps fallacy.

We also have examples of irreducibly complex systems evolving in a step wise manner. One example is the mammalian middle ear. This structure requires three interacting tiny bones. Take away any one of those middle ear bones and that mammal will be deaf. This would mean that all three had to always be there, right?

WRONG!!!

Mammals evolved from reptiles. Reptiles have a single middle ear bone, and three lower jaw bones. Mammals have three middle ear bones, and one lower jaw bone. In the fossil record, we can find the intermediate steps in the mammal-like reptiles where two of the lower jaw bones are found at an intermediate step acting as both ear bones and jaw bones.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex2

We have the intermediate steps showing us how an irreducibly complex system did evolve. The sad part is that no matter how many IC systems we show did evolve, you will always search around and try to find one that we don't understand quite yet, and then claim once again that your God exists in our ignorance.

At what point do you understand what it means to have a positive argument for design? Why do you demand evidence for evolution when you require no evidence for your beliefs in a designer?

 

[Loudmouth]

Common design and the separation of different kinds of organisms would have the same predictions along with the evolutionary processes.

No, it wouldn't. A common designer of mammals and birds could create a species with a mixture of bird and mammal features. Common design makes no prediction of a nested hierarchy. Evolution does.

 

[The Cadet]

Common design and the separation of different kinds of organisms would have the same predictions along with the evolutionary processes.

...Right. Which is why the Discovery Institute has contributed significantly to fighting HIV and cancer.

...Oh wait, they haven't, because intelligent design makes no testable predictions that would falsify the theory. Please tell me one situation that the theory of "common design" could not accommodate. Please tell me one thing in biology that your god could not create. Intelligent design can accommodate these predictions, but it cannot justifiably make these predictions, because it is not well-defined and is not falsifiable.