If Evolution were true...

[mathclub]

But my point is still we don’t find living transitional species. Take the human line, for example. We don’t find living members of Neanderthals, Homo erectus, Homo habilis, Australopithecus afarensis, etc. The same is true of every creature that is presently living. We don’t find their ancestor species alive and well. I would expect to see the branch - some species that did not go extinct.

I never really understood what you meant by living transitional species, but now I guess I do.

Once again the problem is you don't understand how evolution works.

The simple answer is that the examples you have given (homo erectus, homo habilis) have evolved into modern humans, so they no longer exist and we would not expect to see them still alive today.

Here is the slightly more complicated and accurate answer. The very reason that animals evolve is because the new versions of a species (ie those chosen by natural selection) have evolved that way because they are better equiped to survive and/or thrive in that environment. Therefore any animals that haven't got the new traits will either have to evolve in a different way in order to compete or they will die off. This is because they can not compete with the 'newer improved versions' of their species that are better equiped through genetic mutations. Sometimes they do evolve in a different way, and this is how different species begin. And sometimes those individuals within a population who do not have the beneficial mutations can not compete and they will die off.

If evolution were true, you would NOT expect to see any of the 'transitional' species living today, otherwise the whole thing would be pointless and illogical.

 

[mathclub]

Take Darwin’s finches.

My explanation - Two populations of finches arrive from the mainland in search of food. The members of population A have a large beak. The members of population B have a small beak. Population A finds island 1 has a good supply of food. The nuts are hard to crack, but it has a large beak so it works out well for the members of population A. Population B also finds island 1, but its’ beak isn’t large enough to crack the nuts. So it moves on to island 2. The food there is acceptable. Some members from population A also arrive at island 2, but they are beaten back by the more numerous population B. The members of population B defend their territory. Birds are territorial.

That’s my explanation of what Darwin found. The difference in the size of the beak determined where the birds ended up. But I guess that’s not the way Darwin tells it. According to evolution, the bird’s beak evolved by natural selection while they were on the island. I don’t think that’s true. My explanation is simpler and it doesn’t involve natural selection.

your explanation is possible. However it does involve a lot of reaching.

For a start there are 14 or 15 species, not 2. So you would need 14 or 15 groups of birds that are all different species and all have different traits to all fly the 600 miles out into the ocean to a random group of islands 'in serach of food', and all happen to find an island each that suits their traits perfectly. And somehow all of their ancestors on the mainland would die out, leaving them as the unique example of their species in the world. And for some reason all 14 or 15 species are closer related to each other than to any other examples of their wider family in the whole world. So it must be a MASSIVE stroke of luck that the 14 or 15 species of finch most closely related all flew out and all found an ecosystem that suited them perfectly and all the other members of all 14 or 15 species that stay behind on the mainland died out.

I honestly hope you can think about this for a bit and realise how much of a stretch that all is.

But most importantly, Darwin has mountains of evidence and research to back up his explanation. Everything from dna to the fossil record to comparitive anatomy to geographical distribution to experiments to observations from the animal kingdom and more. Other scientists have also spent decades studying these birds after darwin and come to the same conclusion. This is why his idea is accepted. Not just cause it's a good idea and good explanation, but because he has the mountain of evidence to prove it.

What evidence and/or proof do you have to support your explanation??

 

[AV1611VET]

That's disgusting.

Doctors deserve the "primary credit", not God.

God didn't give us doctors, God didn't pick people up and zap medical knowledge into their minds. God didn't spend 10+ years of their life learning and studying to become a doctor. God hasn't collectively spent millenia studying and examining the human body, and discovering ways to treat it when it goes wrong.

God didn't give us doctors, we gave ourselves doctors.

You can take that nonsense that it's thanks to God more than medical science and shove it.

That's disgusting.

 

[MoonLancer]

That's disgusting.

the truth is always disgusting to you AV

 

[rjc34]

But my point is still we don’t find living transitional species. Take the human line, for example. We don’t find living members of Neanderthals, Homo erectus, Homo habilis, Australopithecus afarensis, etc. The same is true of every creature that is presently living. We don’t find their ancestor species alive and well. I would expect to see the branch - some species that did not go extinct.

Did we already explain this to you? (Well, at least I did...)

 

[Split Rock]

I would explain it by creation of course. But if you want to hear my explanation, then I’m going to have to make some observations.

So, God created fish. Waited hundreds of millions of years. Then created fishapods. Waited hundreds of millions of years. Then created amphibians. Waited hundreds of millions of years. Then created reptiles. Waited hundreds of millions of years. Then created mammal-like reptiles. Waited hundreds of millions of years. Then created mammals, etc.?

Animals don’t mate indiscriminately. They discriminate. Individuals who don’t look right are kicked out. So when we look at populations, we see homogeneity. One sparrow looks like another sparrow to us. Maybe not to another sparrow - they know who belongs - but that’s not important. They look alike to us. We see homogeneity. We also see it in populations of humans - Japanese, Chinese, etc.

So, how do you explain the simple fact that when two populations of humans come together, they always interbreed? Why are some european men attracted to oriental women? Why are some oriental men attracted to scandanavian blondes? etc., etc.?

Mutations act on populations. A long neck may be beneficial. If it is, then this trait will work its way through the population until every member of the population has a long neck. Some populations will have short necks. Mutations act on pre existing fully functioning structures. There are structures analogous to birds and man, but you don’t see winged men. Mutations can not account for wings, or for any foreign structures for that matter.

Mutations act on individuals. Natural selection acts on populations. I already explained how dinosaurs evolved wings. Wings are, afterall, just adapted forearms. So, yes, evolution does work on what is already there. That is why there are no men with wings sticking out of their backs.

However, mutations occur.

Yes, that is where variation comes from.

Take Darwin’s finches.

My explanation - Two populations of finches arrive from the mainland in search of food. The members of population A have a large beak. The members of population B have a small beak. Population A finds island 1 has a good supply of food. The nuts are hard to crack, but it has a large beak so it works out well for the members of population A. Population B also finds island 1, but its’ beak isn’t large enough to crack the nuts. So it moves on to island 2. The food there is acceptable. Some members from population A also arrive at island 2, but they are beaten back by the more numerous population B. The members of population B defend their territory. Birds are territorial.

I see some obvious problems with your explanation:
1. There are multiple species of finches, not just two.
2. None of the species found on these islands are found on the mainland.

That’s my explanation of what Darwin found. The difference in the size of the beak determined where the birds ended up. But I guess that’s not the way Darwin tells it. According to evolution, the bird’s beak evolved by natural selection while they were on the island. I don’t think that’s true. My explanation is simpler and it doesn’t involve natural selection.

Your explanation is unfortunately wrong. There are many examples where remote island chains feature closely related species that are not found anywhere else including the nearest mainland. The Honeycreepers of Hawaaii are another example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaiian_honeycreeper

As to your question, from a creationist point of view, there is no problem. The Bible states fish and things that live in water were created first.

But there are many things that "live in the water" that only came later. Marine reptiles like mosasaurs and cetaceans like Blue Whales are some examples. Even fish are relatively late comers to ocean environments according to the fossil record. How many fossils of fish are there in the Burgess Shale of British Columbia? Burgess Shale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But my point is still we don’t find living transitional species. Take the human line, for example. We don’t find living members of Neanderthals, Homo erectus, Homo habilis, Australopithecus afarensis, etc. The same is true of every creature that is presently living. We don’t find their ancestor species alive and well. I would expect to see the branch - some species that did not go extinct.

You keep saying this, but ignore the explanations you have been given for this.

 

[Split Rock]

Actually you would not expect to find fish first if evolution is correct. The only reason you know fish came first is because you have the fossil record. If you didn't have the fossil record, you could not make that prediction from evolution alone.

Phylogenetic analysis also places the fishes earlier than tetrapods.

 

[WretchedMan]

~SNIP~

You are in the position of telling us that it is impossible. Worse, you are not doing so based on the difficulties, but because someone else told you it was impossible and you believed him, so when challenged, you have nothing to offer to back up your claim. Is it any wonder that the stubborn kids are stil digging, and that some of them have found some of the difficulties, and the ways around them? Yes there may be bigger difficulties ahead, perhaps even one that can't be gotten around. But we have no evidence what that "prime" difficulty could be, and even less that it is absolute.

Since you obviously know so much about me and how I established my position on this topic, why don't you further enlighten us all and reveal who this mystery person is who told me what to think, which I, of course, dutifully and unquestioningly obeyed.

What a ridiculous post.

There is a rationalistic explanation now ("The dirt two feet down is almost the same as the dirt one foot down, which is almost the same as the dirt at the top, so its reasonable to assume that the dirt three feet down is the same."). When we get three feet down we will know if it is true or not, but it is reasonable now.

Does an analogy really require an entire essay? Other than to say that I'm ignorant about science and have nothing to base my understanding on other than someone else's say-so, what was your point with all of this?

 

[WretchedMan]

I could say is that why most people in US prisons profess to being religious, but I won't, we know that religions thrive in areas where the educational standards are low which is where most people in prisons started out, they are usually religious only because they are badly educated.

Think that if it makes you feel superior. I don't see what it has to do with absolute morality, but hey, you've got it figured out for me I'm sure.

Where is the 'reason' in believing in the supernatural?

What is the reason for not believing there is something beyond the natural?

Thought, logic, morality, information, mathematics are all examples of things that exist independent of the physical universe, i.e. they are supernatural. It's really not that alien a concept.

The rest is also pure unadulterated rubbish, why is it rubbish? because without proof you could just as easily put it down to the FSM or any other imagined being, which is what all gods are, figments of someones imagination, please feel free to prove me wrong, but please no 'god is god because god says he's god' nonsense.

So, you have proof that life arose from non-life by purely naturalistic processes and proof there is no God out there? Why are you relegated to internet forums? You should be on your world tour receiving awards and accolades from the academic and scientific community.

It is disingenuous to act like atheism or naturalism is rooted in cold hard scientific evidence. You cannot divorce philosophy from your position and still maintain anything resembling your belief system.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

So, you have proof that life arose from non-life by purely naturalistic processes and proof there is no God out there? Why are you relegated to internet forums? You should be on your world tour receiving awards and accolades from the academic and scientific community.

1. Cool your jets, man. Your posts are full of venom. For a Christian, you surely aren't giving off a demeanor of love, which is something I thought you guys were supposed to do.
2. If "you guys haven't fully proven abiogenesis yet" is a reason you believe in God, I would love to see your reaction when they finally figure it out. People used to be like: "you guys haven't explained why it rains, so God must be responsible" or "you guys can't explain the diversity of life, so God must be responsible". The God of the Gaps will leave you with nothing once the gap is filled.

But yeah, we don't have a complete or perfect understanding of abiogenesis. But we have a lot of plausible ideas which are picking up steam. I don't lose sleep over the fact that we don't know for sure (actually, I find it very exciting), and it sure doesn't make me run to repent of my sins.

It is disingenuous to act like atheism or naturalism is rooted in cold hard scientific evidence. You cannot divorce philosophy from your position and still maintain anything resembling your belief system.

Dude, naturalism is philosophy, and it's the philosophy that science is built on. No one would argue otherwise. Science is built on the assumption that the natural world obeys physical laws. And guess what? There has never, ever been any indication that this is not the case. So even if naturalism is fundamentally flawed, it doesn't matter, because the universe behaves like a natural universe would, and science is the method of understanding this.

The only deity that I can possibly conceive of existing is either a deist or pantheist god. But I have no evidence of either, so I refuse to claim either exist. The theist god, who should be interacting with the world by definition, has never been observed doing anything. So why should anyone believe in it?

 

[OllieFranz]

Since you obviously know so much about me and how I established my position on this topic, why don't you further enlighten us all and reveal who this mystery person is who told me what to think, which I, of course, dutifully and unquestioningly obeyed.

What a ridiculous post.



Does an analogy really require an entire essay? Other than to say that I'm ignorant about science and have nothing to base my understanding on other than someone else's say-so, what was your point with all of this?

I did not say that you are ignorant about science (Which, even if I had, would not have been an insult; it would have been a statement of fact about whether or not you had learned certain facts. If you had never been exposed to them you could not know them no matter how intelligent and intuitive you are. But since I don't know what you have or haven't learned, I did not say that.)

What I did do was present three or four ways of looking at a statement about the world (in my example, the feasibility of digging a hole or tunnel to China) and compare the style and apparent nature of the approach you took to the issue to them. The one that was closest was the one where you tell the child it can't be done without even trying to explain why you believe it is impossible. I was hoping that if you did have a basis for your claim you would tell us what it is.

 

[sandwiches]

Thought, logic, morality, information, mathematics are all examples of things that exist independent of the physical universe, i.e. they are supernatural. It's really not that alien a concept.

So, mathematics exists outside our brains? Where?

 

[VehementiDominus]

So, mathematics exists outside our brains? Where?

Actually, I have to agree with him on that.

1 + 1 is 2, no matter what.

Whether it's the number of electrons in an atomic shell, or F=MA, mathematics exists regardless of whether or not we're here.

We just assign names to the values.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Actually, I have to agree with him on that.

1 + 1 is 2, no matter what.

Whether it's the number of electrons in an atomic shell, or F=MA, mathematics exists regardless of whether or not we're here.

We just assign names to the values.

Math really isn't empirical though by itself

 

[sandwiches]

Actually, I have to agree with him on that.

1 + 1 is 2, no matter what.

Whether it's the number of electrons in an atomic shell, or F=MA, mathematics exists regardless of whether or not we're here.

We just assign names to the values.

It doesn't matter that 1+1 is always 2. This concept does not exist outside of an information-processing machine. Concepts and abstracts are by their very definitions bound to thoughts, thinking, brains, or other information processing machines such as calculators and computers, which are all physical and natural.

 

[Greg1234]

2. If "you guys haven't fully proven abiogenesis yet" is a reason you believe in God, I would love to see your reaction when they finally figure it out.

And I'd like to see your reaction when we finally not figure it out...wait...what? Oh right. Materialism isn't falisifiable. Come to think of it, I'd like to see your reaction when we finally find a visible explanation for magnetic fields.

People used to be like: "you guys haven't explained why it rains, so God must be responsible"

Use that belief as motivation.

or "you guys can't explain the diversity of life, so God must be responsible".

No, God is responsible so chance cannot build a man. Test it here. Random Mutation Generator

The God of the Gaps will leave you with nothing once the gap is filled.

Unfortunately, we're still trying to get past Genesis 1.

But yeah, we don't have a complete or perfect understanding of abiogenesis.

Doesn't matter. Darwinism mechanisms are impotent.

Dude, naturalism is philosophy, and it's the philosophy that science is built on.

If science had built it's philosophy on visiblism, it would get far, but would eventually run into problems, then absurdity would reign. If science had built itself on the idea that only things on earth exist, it would get far, but itvwould eventually run into problems then absurdity would reign. If science had built itself on purely terrestrial processes it would get far, but then it would encounter problems. The only thing I see getting pushed back is the myopia attempting to be induced on observation time and again. Visiblism would be torn down, adherents to earthism would have no recluse but in the security of insults, naturalism's number is up. That's you.

No one would argue otherwise. Science is built on the assumption that the natural world obeys physical laws. And guess what? There has never, ever been any indication that this is not the case.

Spoken like a true materialist

 

[WretchedMan]

I would love to see some examples of the "interesting results" that scientists are making in the absence of naturalism. I am a scientist myself, so this would be quite interesting to me, since I know of no such examples.

I'll give a couple here from people that accept universal common descent and naturalism, whose religious affiliations are unknown to me, and who are either professionally or academically involved in relevant research disciplines.

While these individuals accept the naturalistic origin story they utilize an engineering and design perspective in their research. They talk of naturalistic 'evolution' being the origin of what we see in nature, but then the naturalism is out the window and it's all engineering from that point.



A few things first:

1) These are not people that hold my position in any way that I am aware of.

2) They have not carried out this research in an attempt to show the signs of design and engineering in nature, that I am aware of.

3) Though this is not their intent, I do believe the type of work they, and many others, are doing contributes to the growing mountain of evidence in support of life being the result of design by an intelligent, purposeful being and not the result of purely naturalistic processes.

YouTube - ‪Geckos inspire experimental adhesive‬‏

YouTube - ‪TEDxCaltech - Angela Belcher - Engineering Biology to Make Materials for Energy Devices‬‏

 

[WretchedMan]

WretchedMan,

You may not reject science, but neither do you understand it. It is true that many scientists do not always operates under an assumption of naturalism. They don't when they are in church praying, and naturalism may not be on their minds when they are playing with their grandghildren, especially when they think of them as little miracles. But if they are not operating under an assumption of naturalism when they are "on the job," then whatever it is they are doing, it is not science.

Science is the name we give to the practice of trying to understand the rules under which nature normally operates. A chess rulebook does not include every chess game that has been played, and every chess game yet to be played, and yet we know if a game is chess or not because of whether it follows the rules. Moves that do not follow the rules are possible, and we can even describe circumstances in which they occur, but the games they occur in are not chess. In fact, there is literature aplenty discussing various forms of "fairy chess" and that literature treats those games every bit as seriously as it does chess. But it is not chess, and comprehensive statements about chess may or may not be true about these other games.

I started the last paragraph mentioning the rules "nature normally operates on." In other words, naturalistic rules. That is not to claim that nature can't operate under other non-naturalistic rules nor is it to claim that it has never operated under non-naturalistic rules. The existence of science (or a "belief" in science) does not deny any existence the Divine, the miraculous, or even the influence of the spiritual in nature, but it does, by necessity, ignore them. Any model of the universe that requires non-naturalistic influences is not science.

If you are going to act like my positions are no more refined than a two year old's, just don't bother responding to me. I've no interest in your rambling condescension or 'Blue's Clues' style science lectures.

 

[WretchedMan]

Who talks about "naturalism"?

it just one of those words that creos think is a magic word to make science go away.

Whether they talk directly and intentionally about Naturalism is irrelevant. It is a substantial part of their paradigm and it shades how they think and interpret observations. It is philosophy, not science and it is there whether a 'creo' points it out or not.

 

[visa]

Forgive me for saying this but in what way does it benefit us to believe or even know that everything is designed if we don't know and will never know who the designer is/was? just saying everything is designed doesn't help us one bit.
We can call this designer whatever we like and it will still be of no consequence if we can't see or find him/she/it.

Saying it's a God means nothing, what's a God? where is this God? who called it a God? and who found out that this God designed everything? the very idea of putting things down to an imaginary being just because we don't know how it all came about is ludicrous in the extreme, it's something a child would do, how did that happen? the boogy man did it.