How to choose between creation and evolution.

[OldWiseGuy]

Maybe we should examine the 'evolution' of the plants the feed the animals. They must have evolved separately but at the same time, and just in time for dinner.

 

[Speedwell]

I believe everything is a product of purposeful design, even when the design goes wrong and produces a monstrosity. If the wrong chemicals are mixed and blow up the mixture was 'designed' to do so.

The problem is, that the purpose cannot be directly detected in the object. That is why functional complexity--in itself--is not evidence of design. I believe that the universe is infused with divine purpose, but I can't prove it. Intelligent design is an unfalsifiable proposition.

 

[pitabread]

Maybe we should examine the 'evolution' of the plants the feed the animals. They must have evolved separately but at the same time, and just in time for dinner.

Populations of organisms evolve in response to their environment. And that environment includes other organisms.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

So, you don't know either.

If you feel that the information that I give is not correct or sufficient, then you might actually want to explain why that is.

The evolution of the eye (several eyes really, since eyes have evolved independently several times) is well evidenced by all of: physiological, genetic, and fossil evidence. You appear to be trying to just arm-wave that all away.

EDIT: I had a look back and find this:

Shot through with the usual suppositions and giant biological leaps. Nothing new here. Science says that nothing can be proven absolutely, but we are to believe the ToE as absolute fact. Or we are to believe the latest iteration...until a better one is devised. Curious.

Again, that appears to be an attempt to arm-wave away humanity's now good understanding of how eyes evolved. Can you actually tell us what is wrong in the article. In detail so that we can discuss your actual reasons for disagreeing with the article.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

If you feel that the information that I give is not correct or sufficient, then you might actually want to explain why that is.

The evolution of the eye (several eyes really, since eyes have evolved independently several times) is well evidenced by all of: physiological, genetic, and fossil evidence. You appear to be trying to just arm-wave that all away.

EDIT: I had a look back and find this:



Again, that appears to be an attempt to arm-wave away humanity's now good understanding of how eyes evolved. Can you actually tell us what is wrong in the article. In detail so that we can discuss your actual reasons for disagreeing with the article.

Humanity believes that eye evolved but has no real clue how, which explains the rather sketchy details (the devil is in them missing details).

What's wrong with the article is that it is pure speculation, by admission of the author.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Humanity believes that eye evolved but has no real clue how, which explains the rather sketchy details (the devil is in them missing details).

In particular the Scientific American article shows that we (humanity) have a very good and detailed idea how the eye evolved. You are attempting to just arm-wave that away, without being able to explain your reasons for doing so. E.g. you mention 'sketchy details' when that is not an accurate description of the state of our knowledge. And you don't even say what the missing details are. I don't believe you do have an argument; if you did, you would be able to support your claims that our understanding of the evolution of the eye is at the level of 'no real clue how'.

 

[VirOptimus]

In particular the Scientific American article shows that we (humanity) have a very good and detailed idea how the eye evolved. You are attempting to just arm-wave that away, without being able to explain your reasons for doing so. E.g. you mention 'sketchy details' when that is not an accurate description of the state of our knowledge. And you don't even say what the missing details are. I don't believe you do have an argument; if you did, you would be able to support your claims that our understanding of the evolution of the eye is at the level of 'no real clue how'.

Thats his usual shtick, yes.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Maybe we should examine the 'evolution' of the plants the feed the animals. They must have evolved separately but at the same time, and just in time for dinner.

Incorrect, you are neglecting animals that consume bacteria. Animals predate plants just slightly. Also note that the first photosynthetic organisms were bacteria, not plants.

 

[LordKroak10]

what if we are talking about a robot that made from organic components like a living thing? in this case you will conclude design or a natural process if you will find such one?

If it's organic and living, what makes it a robot? What do you define as a "robot" that allows such a thing to be alive? If it's alive, I assume it's a living thing and not a robot.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Incorrect, you are neglecting animals that consume bacteria. Animals predate plants just slightly. Also note that the first photosynthetic organisms were bacteria, not plants.

It follows then that the first critters that ate the bacteria were not 'animals'. My statement therefore stands. The bacteria evolved for these critters just in time for dinner.

 

[LordKroak10]

Maybe we should examine the 'evolution' of the plants the feed the animals. They must have evolved separately but at the same time, and just in time for dinner.

Actually, while all animal life was still confined to the oceans, plants began to colonize the land, and without anything to eat them they thrived. As amphibians became some of the first animals to transition to land, they found an abundant food source and probably adapted quite easily from eating aquatic plants to those growing on land.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Actually, while all animal life was still confined to the oceans, plants began to colonize the land, and without anything to eat them they thrived. As amphibians became some of the first animals to transition to land, they found an abundant food source and probably adapted quite easily from eating aquatic plants to those growing on land.

Well, let's turn our attention to those aquatic plants then.

 

[LordKroak10]

Whoops, misclicked. Ignore this

 

[LordKroak10]

Well, let's turn our attention to those aquatic plants then.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. All life began as simple single-celled organisms. Over time, these became bigger and more complex as competition increased due to speciation. Some became more efficient producers, while others became consumers. These continued to grow and evolve over time into the earliest forms of plants and animals. Producers had to come first, but consumers probably weren't too far behind once it became more advantageous for some to consume rather than produce their own food. They evolved alongside each other and adapted as they needed.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. All life began as simple single-celled organisms. Over time, these became bigger and more complex as competition increased due to speciation. Some became more efficient producers, while others became consumers. These continued to grow and evolve over time into the earliest forms of plants and animals. Producers had to come first, but consumers probably weren't too far behind once it became more advantageous for some to consume rather than produce their own food. They evolved alongside each other and adapted as they needed.

That's an example of the usual overview. How about some details.

 

[DogmaHunter]

if there is a code on information and a code reader those are complex languages the motor has to be also directed by a program to assemble every cell in just the right place. Randomness could not assemble a working motor but say it did the information to use the motor is directed not by the motor.

Evolution isn't random. It is directed by natural selection.
What works propagates, what doesn't (or less good) dies.
Sounds pretty directed to me...

The single celled organism is much more complicated than anyone in the early days of evolution thought.

The single celled organism we study today, is the result of at least 3.8 billion years of evolution.

Even granted that you did get your 1st miracle cell the upward complexity and diversity and balance is designed not engineered.

First life did not look like cells that had been evolving for 3.8 billion years.

I used to go to areas looking for arrowheads and there are millions of rocks that are millions of years old and an arrowhead stands out because it has specific design elements.

Those being: marks of manufacturing.
And you recognise them by comparing it to those marks that form naturally.

If nature cannot create an arrowhead by itself you are giving it credit for organizing information to generate billions of life forms that are quantum steps beyond and arrowhead.

Why would nature "create" arrowheads? They are sculpted rock.
There are no such processes.
But there is a process known as biological evolution. It's what drives change in the biological world and which explains bio-diversity.

The evidence is the same for both sides

It is not. Life, which is complex chemistry, is not the same as sculpted rocks.

as we can look at how many amino acids and all are needed and even break down the code and analyze it.

And when we do, we find that all this "code" cross species, falls into a gigantic family tree. Because it is a family tree.

My world view includes the super natural as part of reality

Yes, but only because you believe it as a direct result of your religion.
The supernatural doesn't demonstrably exist in reality.

For all I can determine, the supernatural only seems to exist between the ears of those that believe it.

and others deny the super natural exists.

For all practicaly purposes, I live life as if it doesn't exist, yes.
Not because I'm hellbend on "denying" it. But rather because I have exactly zero rational reasons to think otherwise.

The scriptures teach of fallen and loyal angels. If you do a study into spirit guides, automatic writing, Satanism and rock and roll there is evidence my world view that includes other dimensions interacting on our own is valid.

Rock and roll? lol, owkay.

If there is a spiritual world then we are spiritual beings

And if there isn't then we aren't.
If you wish to claim there is, I'm just gonna ask you to demonstrate it. Can you?

and the conscience we possess and the self awareness are not a mutation upward but an endowment to us.

If you say so.

I accept the idea that conscience and self awareness, is the product of our physical brain because that is what the evidence seems to support.

I have no reasons to think otherwise. You are welcome to try and give me one.

 

[LordKroak10]

That's an example of the usual overview. How about some details.

You are asking a group of strangers on the internet to give you an unreasonably detailed explanation of molecular mechanisms that take years of study to understand. Now I have studied these mechanisms and understand to a fair extent how they work, but I will not be posting a 300-page dissertation on a web forum. That is an absurd and childish demand to make.

I, and others, have given sufficient overviews of the mechanisms at work to explain the process of evolution. If that is not enough, I recommend you pick up a Molecular Biology college textbook and study it yourself. But do not demand people to give a certain type of answer and then claim to be in the right just because no one wants to sit down and type an answer for an hour or more.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You live in a world where that world view is shoved down your throat to create a world of post modernism and people are now behaving like animals as well without restraint. If given equal time people would change their minds on a lot of things such as man made carbon causing global warming, 9/11 a bunch of guys with box cutters, a real global flood did occur...

Yes, yes, it's all a big giant conspiracy.

Those "post modernists" have infiltrated EVERY scientific research center around the world, they infiltrated EVERY science journal, EVERY university, EVERY lab, EVERY government,.... they are ALL in on it. Every politician, scientist, you name it....

But one has to ask himself..... what is more likely?
That it's indeed a conspiracy the size of which, the world has never seen the size of which...
Or that a random anti-science fundamentalist on a christian forum on the interwebs... is mistaken?

 

[Gene2memE]

Humanity believes that eye evolved but has no real clue how, which explains the rather sketchy details (the devil is in them missing details).

What's wrong with the article is that it is pure speculation, by admission of the author.

My hindmost fundament! Just because you're ignorant about this, doesn't meant that evolutionary biologists are.

The evolution of the eye is a complex topic and area of ongoing research, with literally tens of thousands of papers and books published about it. No single popular science piece is going to provide the sort of exhausting detail you want, no single published paper is going to either.

You're just setting up an impossible standard (your "details") and then claiming that anything that doesn't 100% meet your requirements is "sketchy" or the "usual suppositions and giant biological leaps".

If you want the basics of the molecular evolution of photoreceptors, try this:

Evolution of phototransduction, vertebrate photoreceptors and retina - ScienceDirect

If you want more "details", do us all a favour and read the references provided within the study, there's only about 400 of them. If you're then unsatisfied with the "details", then you've go a legitimate reason to be.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You are asking a group of strangers on the internet to give you an unreasonably detailed explanation of molecular mechanisms that take years of study to understand. Now I have studied these mechanisms and understand to a fair extent how they work, but I will not be posting a 300-page dissertation on a web forum. That is an absurd and childish demand to make.

I, and others, have given sufficient overviews of the mechanisms at work to explain the process of evolution. If that is not enough, I recommend you pick up a Molecular Biology college textbook and study it yourself. But do not demand people to give a certain type of answer and then claim to be in the right just because no one wants to sit down and type an answer for an hour or more.

If your study has proven evolution to be true why not present evolution as true. If brief articles written by experts are shot through with speculation what good does your study do? The truth is that evolution can't account for the complexity of life on earth. In fact it makes no attempt to do so.

"My wish is your command" logic doesn't fly.