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.
Not wrong but perhaps the resolution was to low. Later developments are probably more correct but are less relevant at anything other than a scientific research level.
Just as Natural Selection is a very good explanatory tool as far as it goes at a more general level but doesn't look so good on the higher resolution findings of Evolutionary Development.
If Mr. Darwin got all this:
A capitol city in Australia, his face on a £10 note, and a day on the calendar.
Imagine what all he would have gotten if he had been right!
Variation though mutation, in fact.That would be variation and natural selection, the basis of all evolution. All biological forms are variants of previous biological forms.
A slightly different field of study perhaps, but relies on exactly the same sort of mythology.Which is a different field of study altogether. Evolution works no matter how life first arose.
Variation though mutation, in fact.
Now we enter the dogmatic mythological fairy tale zone of evolutionary indoctrination.
What!? Of course there is evidence. I have found that most creationists do not even understand the concept of evidence. And no, you are simply wrong No creationist has come even close to showing that any aspect of evolution is impossible. You should not give any credence to creationist sites. Most of them require that their workers to avoid the scientific method and they are not exactly honest. When it has been shown that you made a rather severe error the correct thing to do is to own up to it and correct yourself. They do not do this.There is no evidence for the just so story of Mt Impropable, or any other permutation of it, and in fact given the level of functional coherence necessary to bring about even small beneficial changes it has been very adequately demonstrated that it is physically impossible for such things to happen.
A slightly different field of study perhaps, but relies on exactly the same sort of mythology.
Anyway, if you don't have a functional self replicating population of biological organisms, you don't even get past first base on the evolutionary story.
Clearly Creationism doesn't work if Naturalism is the model to which we work.In regard to science he said "it works" something that no creationist can claim.
Clearly Creationism doesn't work if Naturalism is the model to which we work.
The scientific method is useful for simplifying the world in order to study it but in fact the explanation that recognises a Creator has far greater explanatory power and is clearly closer to the truth of the universe.
Then God shouldn't have admitted to it ... in writing.Sorry, but "God did it" is not an explanation, or a very very weak one at best.
Although mutation contributes to variation, it is not the sole cause. Mutations come along periodically, but variation on which natural selection acts occurs each time an individual reproduces.Variation though mutation, in fact.
That is baseless nonsense straight from a creationist propaganda mill. Please don't insult us with it.Now we enter the dogmatic mythological fairy tale zone of evolutionary indoctrination.
There is no evidence for the just so story of Mt Impropable, or any other permutation of it, and in fact given the level of functional coherence necessary to bring about even small beneficial changes it has been very adequately demonstrated that it is physically impossible for such things to happen.
That's the first thing you've got right--but since there is no "evolutionary story" which comprises both evolution and abiogenesis, it does you no good as an argument.Anyway, if you don't have a functional self replicating population of biological organisms, you don't even get past first base on the evolutionary story.
Maybe it was prophetic...Some pretty impressive veneration considering that the city of Darwin inherited its name from the earlier name of the location as Port Darwin and that happened before the publication of On the Origin of Species.
It might not be allowed but I am repeatedly confronted with dogmatic, evidence free assertions of faith in Methodological Naturalism from so called scientifically minded people.Please, no false charges. There is no "dogma" in science. That is simply not allowed.
Not a Creationist but a Structuralist (although I suspect that anybody that is not a dyed in the wool Darwinian Functionalist gets awarded the "Creationist" label), by the name of Denton, has shown that a number of the Taxa defining forms in the "tree of life" have no adaptive function, particularly in any transitional state and must have therefore been formed in a saltational manner so that Darwinian incremental functionalism fails. These forms include the Pentadactyl limb, avian feathers, whorls of the angiosperm flower, the shape of the Maple leaf, the Enucleate red cell, and a number of others.What!? Of course there is evidence. I have found that most creationists do not even understand the concept of evidence. And no, you are simply wrong No creationist has come even close to showing that any aspect of evolution is impossible.
Nevertheless naturalistic evolution cannot be a "fact" if biogenesis or any genesis of form happened through an intelligent agent.Now you seem to be conflating abiogenesis with evolution. The theory of evolution covers what happened after abiogenesis so your complaint is without merit.
Methodological naturalism is not a dogma in which one has "faith." It is merely a procedural tool. Are you sure you are not confusing it with metaphysical naturalism?It might not be allowed but I am repeatedly confronted with dogmatic, evidence free assertions of faith in Methodological Naturalism from so called scientifically minded people.
LOL! Anyone associated with the Discovery Institute merits a much less complimentary label than "Creationist."Not a Creationist but a Structuralist (although I suspect that anybody that is not a dyed in the wool Darwinian Functionalist gets awarded the "Creationist" label), by the name of Denton, has shown that a number of the Taxa defining forms in the "tree of life" have no adaptive function, particularly in any transitional state and must have therefore been formed in a saltational manner so that Darwinian incremental functionalism fails. These forms include the Pentadactyl limb, avian feathers, whorls of the angiosperm flower, the shape of the Maple leaf, the Enucleate red cell, and a number of others.
What would prevent the creator from bringing forth life directly and then instituting a naturalistic process to provide for evolution?Nevertheless naturalistic evolution cannot be a "fact" if biogenesis or any genesis of form happened through an intelligent agent.
It became the capital city in 1911, did it not?Some pretty impressive veneration considering that the city of Darwin inherited its name from the earlier name of the location as Port Darwin and that happened before the publication of On the Origin of Species.
Not a Creationist but a Structuralist (although I suspect that anybody that is not a dyed in the wool Darwinian Functionalist gets awarded the "Creationist" label), by the name of Denton, has shown that a number of the Taxa defining forms in the "tree of life" have no adaptive function, particularly in any transitional state and must have therefore been formed in a saltational manner so that Darwinian incremental functionalism fails.
And what pray tell would be the cause of the variation?Although mutation contributes to variation, it is not the sole cause. Mutations come along periodically, but variation on which natural selection acts occurs each time an individual reproduces.
I'm not sure to which mill you are referring but I am familiar with this sort of condescending blether when dogmatic evoltuionists are faced with something they can't give a proper answer to. I do hope you are not one of them.That is baseless nonsense straight from a creationist propaganda mill. Please don't insult us with it.
They both face the same problem however; that of a credible explanation for the functional coherence of novel biological forms.That's the first thing you've got right--but since there is no "evolutionary story" which comprises both evolution and abiogenesis, it does you no good as an argument.
All read an understood, so it follows that the splitters and lumpers need to eat some humble pie and stop looking so much like dogmatic beleivers in Materialism.Denton also argues for universal common ancestry and agrees that descent with modification is a fact. His argument is against gradualism and the neo-Darwinist modern synthesis - which was fine when he published in 1985. When he revisited 'Crisis' in 2016, it's not so fine - even those that are pressing most fiercely for the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis are fully comfortable with the factual validity of the existing elements of the structural framework of evolution. What they want is to broaden the framework to add new elements and to change the relative emphasis on certain developmental mechanisms.
I'm not a molecular biologist, but from my understanding of the debate about the EES, one side argues that certain elements (such as phenotypic plasticity, niche construction, inclusive inheritance and developmental bias) need to be more incorporated into evolutionary biology, and the other side is arguing that that already are, within the broad scope of gene-centered development. EES proponents also argue for inclusion of social/cultural factors and constructions in evolution, which the modern synthesis proponents seem to have a more difficult time accepting.
Personally, I think its another version of the spliiters/lumpers debate in paleontology, with both sides agreeing about 99% of the picture and failing to realise just how close their positions are in actual practice.
Yes, you are right, what rationalism coined merely as a procedural tool has become a metaphysical dogma.Methodological naturalism is not a dogma in which one has "faith." It is merely a procedural tool. Are you sure you are not confusing it with metaphysical naturalism?
Why pray tell? These guys are working very hard to explain a very simple position using scientific methods. Why the dogmatic "dees (sic) guys are the boogey man" approach? It doesn't look very rational or scientific.LOL! Anyone associated with the Discovery Institute merits a much less complimentary label than "Creationist."
Nothing, would prevent this except that there are numerous other saltational events that have occured along the way for which there is also not a pip of evidence for a natural process explanation. It would appear that given the demands of functional coherence these are best explained by the intervention of an intelligence.What would prevent the creator from bringing forth life directly and then instituting a naturalistic process to provide for evolution?
All read an understood, so it follows that the splitters and lumpers need to eat some humble pie and stop looking so much like dogmatic beleivers in Materialism.
The history of this whole debate lies in the struggle to throw out anything that might smell even slightly of the nemesis, but holding up good science out of the fear that God might get His foot in the door is simply anti-scientific.
Then God shouldn't have admitted to it ... in writing.
And if He wants the credit for it, I'll be more than willing to give it to Him, rather than Darwin.
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?