Some random discussion on evolution...

[AV1611VET]

We are in the last days.

Don't sigh! That's our "blessed hope"!

Titus 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

 

[AV1611VET]

The ToE will self-destruct eventually. It's just a matter of time.

I say it'll get even stronger and culminate during the Tribulation.

 

[AV1611VET]

If a scientific theory causes you anxiety and dismay, the problem isn't the theory. It's definitely a 'you' problem.

If you can't look around and see evolution clashing with creationism and causing consternation, it's definitely myopia.

 

[Shemjaza]

Yes you are correct, they were already present which means that I used a bad example, my mistake. But nothing changes, since I can use only Cambrian animals to demonstrate that science contradicts the theory of evolution with regard to the creation powers of the evolution process.



These are not issues with the OP. These are issues with your beliefs about the enormous creation powers of the evolution process. The OP simply demonstrates what creation powers the evolution process should have had to account for the enormous novelty over a relatively short geologic time span(early Cambrian). Then it demonstrates that scientifically, the creation powers of the evolution process are zero. And the reason for the powerlessness of this process is simple. Namely, the evolution process boils down to what all natural processes boil down to: CHANGE. Or more specifically: interactions of forces and particles. These interactions happen constantly in both living and nonliving systems, but they don't produce new functional things. They don't produce new systems with logically connected, interrelated and interdependent parts, such as cars or organs. And the reason for that is also simple: the number of interactions outcomes that are biologically (mechanically) non-functional versus those that are functional is so huge that even if the interactions continue until the heat death of the universe (in 10^100 years) no new and distinct biologically (mechanically) functional outcome will emerge. So, that is the reason why the scientific method of experimentation and observation shows the complete powerlessness of natural processes (including evolution) to create new functional things. Your car, for example, is nothing but some specific arrangement of particles. And although nature is capable to rearrange particles and generate specific arrangement of particles no rational person would claim that nature can create a car. That is why we, rational people, claim that, although natural process of evolution is capable to rearrange particles and generate specific arrangement of particles (CHANGE) it cannot produce heart, kidney or wing. Experimental science repeatedly demonstrated that we are right.

I'm seeing assertions about the inability of the evolutionary process to produce change. Mutations trivially demonstrate that this is false.

Even over the course of human history we can see that mutations isolated and bred for in domestic plant and animals.

There's no such thing as a fox terrier or a corn cob in the natural world.

 

[Jimmy D]

But nothing changes, since I can use only Cambrian animals to demonstrate that science contradicts the theory of evolution with regard to the creation powers of the evolution process.

How so?

The OP simply demonstrates what creation powers the evolution process should have had to account for the enormous novelty over a relatively short geologic time span(early Cambrian)

What was the duration of the Cambrian explosion? Estimates seem to indicate it lasted about 20 million years and that's an unfathomably looooooooong time. Plus, it didn't happen in isolation....

The divide between the Ediacaran and Cambrian has been so heavily mythologized that scientists who study the two periods became divided too. “You have people working on the Ediacaran and people working on the Cambrian, and they don’t really come together,” says Wood. But at a recent conference in the U.K, “a lot of us realized that those boundaries had started to become blurred.”

"Evidence also indicates that New fossils, she says, showed that some Cambrian-defining traits were actually pioneered in the Ediacaran. For example, fossilized tracks and burrows suggest that animals were already on the move about 25 million years before the Cambrian explosion. Hard shells and skeletons had also appeared pre-explosion, and some of these had boreholes, which hint that their owners were killed by drilling predators. Mobility, armor, hunting: These innovations were part of “a crescendo that started in the Ediacaran,” Wood says.

Again I'm curious as to which novel features you don't think could have evolved during that time period? You are making unsubstantiated assertions, this couldn't have happened, that couldn't have evolved, but little else.

Like the majority of creationist apologetics it's unconvincing and vague.

 

[Contradiction]

.

 

[Shemjaza]

It seems that you are hallucinating. If you see things that are not there this is called hallucination. To know whether you are hallucinating, you can ask the people around you if they see the same thing. My statement about te inability of the evolutionary process to produce change is non existent. Moreover this is the quote from my last post: "..., the evolution process boils down to what all natural processes boil down to: CHANGE. " Hence, you have problems with perception of reality and you see things that are not there.

Okay, maybe you can try to respond without simplistic insults.

Evolution acts on changes that occur due to variations in a population of life forms.
Variations in populations of life forms come from mutations.

Both of these have led to significant changes even during the short period of human history. The Cambrian explosion happened over the course of history comparable to the entire history of the Order Primates.

So I think you need to clarify how your desire to be right actually matches up with the evidence.

 

[Jimmy D]

I am not making unsubstantiated assertions.

I beg to differ.

I am stating facts derived from scientific observation: the evolutionary process is powerless in creating new functional things.

There's one.

On the other hand, I use Cambrian simply to demonstrate what creation powers the evolution process should have had to account for the enormous novelty over a relatively short geologic time span.

You've demonstrated nothing. You've made vague claims and expressed incredulity.

I'll ask again, specifically what "novelty" are you referring to? You don't know do you? So your claims are worthless.

Finally, I provide logical explanation of why we observe powerlessness of this process. So, no assumptions, no assertions, no opinions. Just facts and logic.

Logic? All I see are logical fallacies.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Oh it's easily understandable. You're just seeing something in it that isn't there.
You've also never once shown complexity or design.

A galloping horse is pretty complex.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It's been over 150 years...

That house of cards is still being built. It will fall in time.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You are just making up stories.

How do you know it's improbable, let alone impossible?

Feel free to say that you believe it from a gut feeling, or as they say "personal incredulity", but if you think that's anything like a probability calculation or science, then you are talking nonsense.

Let's have your calculations.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I'm seeing assertions about the inability of the evolutionary process to produce change. Mutations trivially demonstrate that this is false.

Even over the course of human history we can see that mutations isolated and bred for in domestic plant and animals.

There's no such thing as a fox terrier or a corn cob in the natural world.

Wait a minute! Evolution is 'natural' but cross breeding by man isn't? Evolution claims to have produced more goofy critters than we ever could.

 

[Speedwell]

Let's have your calculations.

Of what, exactly?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Of what, exactly?

The odds against evolution.

 

[Shemjaza]

Let's have your calculations.

I don't need them. I'm not claiming that it's impossible.

Mutations exist in real time to create variation. And the genetic and fossil evidence demonstrates that how it happened historically.

In addition, I'm convinced that don't know all the facts to work out the probabilities.

It's your false narrative that we do know enough to demonstrate its impossibility. You back out up, or retract your mistake.

 

[Shemjaza]

The odds against evolution.

No such odds exist.

 

[Shemjaza]

Wait a minute! Evolution is 'natural' but cross breeding by man isn't? Evolution claims to have produced more goofy critters than we ever could.

Selective breeding is very rarely considered natural selection.

The mutations are natural, but the selection that led to domestic breeds was shaped by human decisions.

It's basically the same process, but with human design rather then raw survival odds being the driving selector.

 

[Speedwell]

The odds against evolution.

So what you want, then, is the probability that each new generation of a species will present a randomly distributed range of variants to the environment for selection, and that at least some of those variants will be equal or better in their ability to survive than those of the previous generation.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So what you want, then, is the probability that each new generation of a species will present a randomly distributed range of variants to the environment for selection, and that at least some of those variants will equal or better in their ability to survive than those of the previous generation.

Not quite. I want to know the odds of a simple organism giving rise to a complex organism, or a variety of dissimilar complex organisms.

 

[Speedwell]

Not quite. I want to know the odds of a simple organism giving rise to a complex organism, or a variety of dissimilar complex organisms.

So what you want is the probability that those variants which are equal or better in their ability to survive than the previous generation will be more complex than the previous generation as well. They are all dissimilar. That's why they are called variants.