Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Right. At first I said they came from two populations. In other words, they were two species. But then mathclub proposed one species and I have to agree. Its more likely the birds came from one population. They were one species. If there were two species, and every island was a unique environment, then they would have settled on the island where they could find food. But it doesnt make sense to imagine every island was a unique environment, though some of the islands are larger than the others.
So if the birds settled on the islands, and there are 16 of them as well as many islets, and the islands are separated by water, then you would end up with 16 populations of finches. The birds of one island would breed with one another rather than travel to another island to breed. So its like statistical sampling - you have + or - away from the norm or common ancestor. Every population is a statistical sample + or - , drifting to a possible beak of a size and a shape inherent to the finch. And then the alleles become fixed and you see a trait. So you find some species with large beaks and some species with smaller beaks. Its all chance. Its not because of the environment. They dont have big beaks because there are big seeds. They have big beaks because big beaks are possible and thats in their DNA.
No, we have hypotheses, and small amounts of evidence currently. The official position (and the intellectually honest one) is 'We don't yet know'.
You've previously made a ton of sweeping and unsubstantiated statements about abiogenesis, and how you believe it's impossible (and therefore goddidit).
Now, while it is true that we may very well never know exactly how life first formed on earth, that doesn't change the evidence for or veracity of evolution in the slightest.
I'm also sure that if somehow you could take off your creationist-goggles and objectively read the wiki on abiogenesis (and study the current hypotheses and their supporting evidence) you'd change your position to 'we don't yet know', rather than claiming that your creation myth is the correct one.
Strictly scientifically, I agree, we have no clue how life began.
OK, now we are even closer to mainstream biology.Right. At first I said they came from two populations. In other words, they were two species. But then mathclub proposed one species and I have to agree. It’s more likely the birds came from one population. They were one species. If there were two species, and every island was a unique environment, then they would have settled on the island where they could find food. But it doesn’t make sense to imagine every island was a unique environment, though some of the islands are larger than the others.
Basically, you are advocating Genetic Drift as the mechanism for the adaptive radiation (whether you know the term or not). OK... what problems are there with this?So if the birds settled on the islands, and there are 16 of them as well as many islets, and the islands are separated by water, then you would end up with 16 populations of finches. The birds of one island would breed with one another rather than travel to another island to breed. So it’s like statistical sampling - you have + or - away from the norm or common ancestor. Every population is a statistical sample + or - , drifting to a possible beak of a size and a shape inherent to the finch. And then the alleles become fixed and you see a trait. So you find some species with large beaks and some species with smaller beaks. It’s all chance. It’s not because of the environment. They don’t have big beaks because there are big seeds. They have big beaks because big beaks are possible and that’s in their DNA.
This is what I have been talking about. Fossils and DNA are having the presuppositions of Naturalism applied to them in order to come up with interpretations.
Of course someone operating under Naturalism will draw these kinds of conclusions because they are consistent with the way they view reality.
An equally intelligent and skilled scientist who does not think according to Naturalism can look at DNA and see evidence of a programmer at work.
~SNIP~
Is this what it boils down to? Let's get to the main point:
I think that science rests on methodological naturalism. Which it does. I freely admit that I am making a philosophical assumption. But the reason I do is because science works extremely well at analyzing and predicting events in this world. I'm not really arguing for philosophical naturalism that much (which I should have made clearer before), which would state that "only natural causes exist", but rather that science can only deal with natural causes. I'm sure we agree here.
You are free to ascribe to Gould's Non-Overlapping Magisteria if you want. If you want to believe in supernatural stuff, sure, knock yourself out. But don't misrepresent what science is: methodological naturalism. Science MUST assume that there are natural causes, otherwise it won't work.
Wow, okay, someone needs to re-take their biology class.
~SNIP~
Evolution IS the foundation of biology, and it has been there before genetics and everything has only strengthened it.
Modern biology is a sea of information that Darwin and his contemporaries would have never imagined. The fact that there are textbooks devoted to the glomerulus alone should tell you something.
Anyone who believes in the supernatural while also being a scientist must check their supernatural beliefs at the door when doing science. Science is methodological naturalism, not necessarily pure naturalism.
God "transcending the world" is some idea you guys have made up to make him exempt from observation.
Ah, so conspiracy theory time.
It's not an argument against God or in favor of Naturalism, I agree. I never said it was. It's an argument against dogma and religion.
Conspiracy theory again? Scientists write the textbooks. Are you just sad that creationism keeps getting excluded? Even the conservative judge presiding over Kitzmiller v. Dover said that ID wasn't science.
How about methodological naturalism? I'm making a big distinction now.
Hahahaha, the guy won a Templeton Prize. Yeah, I'll take what he says seriously.
I don't have time to get into this, but the ancient Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Chinese, Aztecs, etc. all did some pretty good science without Christianity. The ancient Arab world also did some amazing stuff.
I do believe that morals are true, just not absolute like you seem to claim they MUST be.
I also am open to seeing the evidence for design. I'm not like you - I refuse to say "design COULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED. IMPOSSIBLE!" like you said about abiogenesis.
Prophecy is grasping at straws if you're talking about Biblical prophecy.
The cosmological constant argument has been shown to be fallacious. "Information originating from a mind" needs a LOT more clarification, especially the word 'information'. I think that intelligence is a product of our biology.
From what I can see, you really don't have any arguments beyond what most apologists use. But I do want to follow up on them.
I have, and they've been refuted time and time again. Every idea they've put forth has been shown to be fallacious by real scientists.
I actively use evolution every day. That's why I think it's the bees' knees.
I can give compelling evidence for it using science. If you think science cannot be used, then the discussion is over.
So you admit that we have no clue how life began, yet you claim with utter certainty that life did not begin from "non-life"?
Well, we know this much:I agree that we do not have scientific knowledge of the beginning life. I never claimed otherwise. I said science demonstrates that non-life does not produce life.
From what we have learned to date, I think the more probable scientific conclusion is that, however life originated, it was not by abiogenesis.
As I also posted, science is not the sole source of knowledge.
Science is methodological naturalism, not strict and pure naturalism. Can we agree on that? Can your rant against the hideously evil naturalism end already?
An idiot programmer.
What we actually see in DNA is that all life is made up of the same type of code, and most of the biological system nuts and bolts are the same through every bit of life on this planet. Metabolism, nucleotide replication, maintenance of electrochemical gradients, protein synthesis...all the same. This is required for evolution, but not required for creationism. There is no requirement that the creator should make everything operate with the same metabolic pathways or protein synthesis methods.
Another important thing we see (which is more powerful evidence) is that there are similarities in the genomes of organisms in the non-functional parts of the genomes. Sure, you could argue about my above point about similarities in functional parts by calling the creator a copy/paste wizard, but you'll have to do some more explaining to dance away from this one. Take the retrovirus argument - retroviruses are viruses that insert themselves into the genomes of other organisms. Why do we share the exact same random pattern of retrovirus insertion with chimps?
Go here and tell me what the deal is, with your "non-naturalistic" eyes:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 4
Well, we know this much:
Life exists.
No verifiable, demonstrable evidence of a god exists.
So, wherever life came from science can't, at the moment, assume that it came from something without evidence. However, we do have evidence of amino acids in meteorites and being created in the Miller-Urey experiment.
I agree with this. However, science is definitely the best source of knowledge about the universe.
Talk Origins? And y'all complain about AIG?
Here you go:
"Large Scale" Function for Endogenous Retroviruses: Intelligent Design Prediction Fulfilled While Another Darwinist Argument Bites the Dust - Evolution News & Views
The Miller-Urey experiment was useful in showing us that organic compounds, including amino acids can be created from inorganic compounds.Miller/Urey was bunk. Even scientists who think abiogenesis is possible admit that the atmosphere composition the experiment used wasn't right.
It's more evidence than there is for a creator, that's for sure. If you have a good lead on where science might find the creator, then by all means, please divulge this information.Finding some amino acids on a meteorite is not evidence that life can arise from non-organic matter by natural processes.
"So, wherever life came from science can't, at the moment, assume that it came from something without evidence." ~sandwiches
Based on your claim here, assuming life arose from non-life by purely natural processes, is not science.
Miller/Urey was bunk. Even scientists who think abiogenesis is possible admit that the atmosphere composition the experiment used wasn't right.
The Miller/Urey experiment was hardly "bunk." It was the first experiment of its kind, and similar results have been repeated with mildly reducing atmopheres now thought to represent a more accurate model of early earth.Miller/Urey was bunk. Even scientists who think abiogenesis is possible admit that the atmosphere composition the experiment used wasn't right.
It is evidence that organic molecules are formed naturally through out the solar system. In other words, the building blocks of life are more common than we once thought.Finding some amino acids on a meteorite is not evidence that life can arise from non-organic matter by natural processes.
Life is part of nature and follows natural laws. There is no reason to think it did not come about via natural means. Therefore, the default is a natural process, unless there is evidence to suggest otherwise. In any case, if it came about through non-natural means, then science would not be able to explain it. Therefore, your last sentence makes no sense.Based on your claim here, assuming life arose from non-life by purely natural processes, is not science.
It's also quite scientific of you. Aren't they still looking??
It's also quite scientific of you. Aren't they still looking??
Originally Posted by MarkT 
Right. At first I said they came from two populations. In other words, they were two species. But then mathclub proposed one species and I have to agree. It’s more likely the birds came from one population. They were one species. If there were two species, and every island was a unique environment, then they would have settled on the island where they could find food. But it doesn’t make sense to imagine every island was a unique environment, though some of the islands are larger than the others.
OK, now we are even closer to mainstream biology.
Originally Posted by MarkT 
So if the birds settled on the islands, and there are 16 of them as well as many islets, and the islands are separated by water, then you would end up with 16 populations of finches. The birds of one island would breed with one another rather than travel to another island to breed. So it’s like statistical sampling - you have + or - away from the norm or common ancestor. Every population is a statistical sample + or - , drifting to a possible beak of a size and a shape inherent to the finch. And then the alleles become fixed and you see a trait. So you find some species with large beaks and some species with smaller beaks. It’s all chance. It’s not because of the environment. They don’t have big beaks because there are big seeds. They have big beaks because big beaks are possible and that’s in their DNA.
Basically, you are advocating Genetic Drift as the mechanism for the adaptive radiation (whether you know the term or not). OK... what problems are there with this?
1. The assumption that birds on one island will not fly to other islands in the chain and breed with the birds there. This flies in the face of the fact that the original birds flew an even greater distance to get to the island chain in the first place. You are also repeating the faulty assertion that like populations will only breed with likes populations when other populations are available to interbreed with.
2. The assumption that each island has one species and each is different from the other. If you look at the distribution of the species, this is simply not the case. See table here: Darwin's Finches - Page 2
3. The association of different beak types with specific food sources cannot be coincidental. Natural Selection provides a guiding mechanism to match bird beak size and shape to food sources. Genetic drift does not.
If theyre species, then theyre not supposed to be able to interbreed. But they do.
Youre right, they do fly to other islands from their home island. Which island that would be, I dont know. Birds flock dont they? They seem to know who belongs to their group and who doesnt. Its far more likely that they will breed among themselves, than they will breed with the birds from another island. Of course they do because they are all finches. But thats not the point. The islands are separated by water. Even 50 or 60 miles is enough distance between populations to give them a different appearance. Of course they are not tied to an island except maybe by an ancient memory. Darwin could even tell which tortoise came from which island just by looking at their appearance.
The distribution of birds today is almost irrelevant. When Darwin visited the islands, he remarked - I never dreamed that islands about 50 or 60 miles apart, and most of them in sight of each other, formed of precisely the same rocks, placed under a quite similar climate, rising to a nearly equal height, would have been differently tenanted; but we shall soon see that this is the case.
Its not coincidental. Its chance. If they have a certain type of beak, then they can break open the larger seeds.
A simple explanation is better.
If theyre species, then theyre not supposed to be able to interbreed. But they do.
Well, we see them in the fossil record. So, yeah.. they existed and died off.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?