Statements About Evolution

[Shemjaza]

No reason that WE know of, that is...

That's what inexplicable means.

Evolution is an explanation for the evidence found and common design does not provide one.

Of the same species?

No, different species... but that shouldn't be relevant to the common designer hypothesis.

 

[J_B_]

I'm impressed by @Kylie , @Mark Quayle , and their conversation here.

 

[Mark Quayle]

That's what inexplicable means.

Evolution is an explanation for the evidence found and common design does not provide one.

How not? If the creator made it that way, why not?

Seems to me that your conclusion (that common design doesn't provide an explanation for the evidence we see) assumes that the common designer had only efficiency, and that, according to our assessment, in mind. It ignores that the designer may well have had other purposes in mind.

Reminds me of a conversation on another forum about the reasons God might have had for the suffering of Job. One of the obvious (to me) reasons is "so that we would have this conversation!"), which shows us to be creatures and not on the same level with God.

No, different species... but that shouldn't be relevant to the common designer hypothesis.

Assuming, that is, as mentioned above, that the designer may have done so for reasons beyond our assumed notion of efficiency. One other reason, by the way, might seem distasteful to non-believers, and many believers, too, according to Scripture, is for the express purpose of letting those who don't want to know the truth, to deceive themselves. Don't take it personally —I'm pretty sure he does that to me too, until I open my mind (and heart) to the truth.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I'm impressed by @Kylie , @Mark Quayle , and their conversation here.

I'm impressed with @ Kylie's patience with me. If I was to undertake the task to which she has submitted herself, I probably would have written MQ off by now.

 

[Shemjaza]

How not? If the creator made it that way, why not?

Seems to me that your conclusion (that common design doesn't provide an explanation for the evidence we see) assumes that the common designer had only efficiency, and that, according to our assessment, in mind. It ignores that the designer may well have had other purposes in mind.

Reminds me of a conversation on another forum about the reasons God might have had for the suffering of Job. One of the obvious (to me) reasons is "so that we would have this conversation!"), which shows us to be creatures and not on the same level with God.

The point is not that there can't be an explanation, just that there isn't one presented.

The specifics of the evidence are consistent with the expected effects of evolution and deep time... but not necessarily consistent with design.

A nested hierarchy is a prediction of an evolutionary history and it is not a prediction for common design.

Assuming, that is, as mentioned above, that the designer may have done so for reasons beyond our assumed notion of efficiency. One other reason, by the way, might seem distasteful to non-believers, and many believers, too, according to Scripture, is for the express purpose of letting those who don't want to know the truth, to deceive themselves. Don't take it personally —I'm pretty sure he does that to me too, until I open my mind (and heart) to the truth.

What you are describing is being deliberately deceptive.

The evidence points a certain direction, and a sufficiently powerful manipulator could have put that in place, but it doesn't make that a reasonable conclusion.

This is a particular problem with associated with a hypothetical designer who is honest in intent and behavior.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The point is not that there can't be an explanation, just that there isn't one presented.

The specifics of the evidence are consistent with the expected effects of evolution and deep time... but not necessarily consistent with design.

A nested hierarchy is a prediction of an evolutionary history and it is not a prediction for common design.

Well answered, and a good point. Yet, currently —that is, we can't see deep time in a few hundred years of study— we can't see it going on.

I do give @Kylie credit for working on changing my mind about that.

What you are describing is being deliberately deceptive.

Yes, quite. Problem? He owes us nothing. His reason for creation is not for us to figure out how he did it, or even the particulars of the characteristics of what he created. (Not saying at all, that he minds us questioning and studying the matter.)

The evidence points a certain direction, and a sufficiently powerful manipulator could have put that in place, but it doesn't make that a reasonable conclusion.

This is a particular problem with associated with a hypothetical designer who is honest in intent and behavior.

It does make it a reasonable conclusion (for him!) and assuming that there is a creator, it opens up a whole line of thinking, (speculating, granted, so far as believers have gone with it), of particular joy and delight in the 'works of his hands'. We don't all, btw, jump to conclusions. I for one, am simply not convinced of the TOE, but I don't say God couldn't have done it that way, nor do I even say it necessarily voids the narrative of Genesis.

Your statement: "This is a particular problem with associated with a hypothetical designer who is honest in intent and behavior." seems to me to assume that we have the social and intellectual status with him as sentient beings to deserve that he deal altogether straightforwardly with us. I'm pretty well convinced, (from other routes and things I've seen, not particularly related to this thread), that God does indeed present us with honest evidences that we refuse to see, even as simply as Romans 1 describes, that this doesn't all come about by itself, or by accident, but by intent.

 

[Kylie]

I'm impressed with @ Kylie's patience with me. If I was to undertake the task to which she has submitted herself, I probably would have written MQ off by now.

You are coming at this with a genuine desire to understand it. I've seen many people who dismiss evolution and show that they have no desire in understanding it. At the end of the day, even if you don't accept evolution as true, you've still approached this with intellectual honesty, and I consider that a victory by itself.

 

[Shemjaza]

Well answered, and a good point. Yet, currently —that is, we can't see deep time in a few hundred years of study— we can't see it going on.

I do give @Kylie credit for working on changing my mind about that.

Modern humans can not see deep time, but they can certainly see multiple streams of evidence and draw conclusions from them.

Currently biology, geology and various types of physics converge on compatible conclusions about the past.

An issue I see with abandoning conclusions from evidence is that there isn't a reason to trust anything slightly more verifiable.

An omnipotent designer could just as easily created all of reality last Thursday and filled in the blanks with false memories and remnats.

Yes, quite. Problem? He owes us nothing. His reason for creation is not for us to figure out how he did it, or even the particulars of the characteristics of what he created. (Not saying at all, that he minds us questioning and studying the matter.)

This is a significant problem for discovering anything.

If ultimately you have a single source of information and you know that sometimes they will supply false or misleading information... how can you trust that other instances are being honest? Any circumstances and information can not be relied upon if there could be some unknown reason to lie or mislead.

It does make it a reasonable conclusion (for him!) and assuming that there is a creator, it opens up a whole line of thinking, (speculating, granted, so far as believers have gone with it), of particular joy and delight in the 'works of his hands'. We don't all, btw, jump to conclusions. I for one, am simply not convinced of the TOE, but I don't say God couldn't have done it that way, nor do I even say it necessarily voids the narrative of Genesis.

Your statement: "This is a particular problem with associated with a hypothetical designer who is honest in intent and behavior." seems to me to assume that we have the social and intellectual status with him as sentient beings to deserve that he deal altogether straightforwardly with us. I'm pretty well convinced, (from other routes and things I've seen, not particularly related to this thread), that God does indeed present us with honest evidences that we refuse to see, even as simply as Romans 1 describes, that this doesn't all come about by itself, or by accident, but by intent.

I'm an atheist so I can't really speak for believers who accept scientific evidence... but it strikes me that those who accept the world around them and try to understand their religion in that context are being more open minded than those who assume their personal interpretation and is correct and other conclusions about the physical world must be mistakes.

 

[Kylie]

How not? If the creator made it that way, why not?

Seems to me that your conclusion (that common design doesn't provide an explanation for the evidence we see) assumes that the common designer had only efficiency, and that, according to our assessment, in mind. It ignores that the designer may well have had other purposes in mind.

Reminds me of a conversation on another forum about the reasons God might have had for the suffering of Job. One of the obvious (to me) reasons is "so that we would have this conversation!"), which shows us to be creatures and not on the same level with God.



Assuming, that is, as mentioned above, that the designer may have done so for reasons beyond our assumed notion of efficiency. One other reason, by the way, might seem distasteful to non-believers, and many believers, too, according to Scripture, is for the express purpose of letting those who don't want to know the truth, to deceive themselves. Don't take it personally —I'm pretty sure he does that to me too, until I open my mind (and heart) to the truth.

The trouble with the designer argument is that you can use that to explain anything, no matter what it actually is. If they use similar body structures, that's the way the designer made it. If they use different body structures, that's the way the designer made it. Since the explanation would work no matter what we find, it really tells us nothing.

It's like if you came across what appeared to be the wreckage of a house after a tornado hit it. You would go in and you would see items flung all around the place. But I could say, "Oh, a person put it that way, there never was a tornado." No matter what the state of the house was, from neat and tidy to absolutely chaotic, the explanation "Someone just put it that way" would always work.

Yes, you could point out particular things that are exactly what we would expect to be left if it really was a tornado - signs of the swirling air currents left in dust, for example - but since the claim, "someone could have put it that way and made it look exactly the same as what a tornado would have left" can not be eliminated. So that claim is unfalsifiable, and as a result is pretty much useless.

But we see things in biology that seem like nonsensical design choices for a designer to make, yet are exactly what we'd expect to see if life forms evolved.

For example, you have in your body a nerve called the "Recurrent laryngeal nerve." I'm gonna call it the RLN from now on, because I'm lazy and don't want to write it out every time.

There is a nerve that comes from your brain down your neck and into your body called the Vagus nerve. The RLN comes off the Vagus nerve to go to your larynx and it's the nerve that allows you to properly use your vocal chords. Now, you'd think that the RLN would branch off from the Vagus nerve in your neck and go straight to your larynx, but it doesn't. It actually branches off much lower, loops under your aorta (the main artery coming out of your heart), and then goes back up.

In the case of the giraffe, this is a detour of 15 feet or so!

Yet, when we look at the fossils of our ancestors (the ancestors of all tetrapods), which were fish-like, the route would have been direct, traveling from the brain, past the heart, to the gills (as it does in modern fish). But over the course of evolution, as the neck extended and the heart became lower in the body, the nerve had to become longer. Remember, evolution mostly works by making small changes to what it already has. So evolution could easily make the nerve a little longer as the body form changed shape over many generations. But it would be pretty much impossible for it to completely create a new route for the nerve to take.

This is exactly what we'd expect to see if evolution was the case, but there's no reason for a designer to design it this way. It would be like a car designer putting the airbag in the steering wheel, the crash sensors in the front bumper, and then routing the electrical connections around the reversing camera at the back.

There's an interesting video looking at the RNL in a giraffe HERE. Be warned, it does contain video of a giraffe dissection.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You are coming at this with a genuine desire to understand it. I've seen many people who dismiss evolution and show that they have no desire in understanding it. At the end of the day, even if you don't accept evolution as true, you've still approached this with intellectual honesty, and I consider that a victory by itself.

That's a nice way to put it. Seems to me, as I've been told, if I really wanted badly enough to understand it, I'd look it up and study it enough to get a real comprehension. I don't want to know that badly. But thanks for explaining. I do want to know badly enough at least to listen.

 

[J_B_]

I'm impressed with @ Kylie's patience with me. If I was to undertake the task to which she has submitted herself, I probably would have written MQ off by now.

Yeah. There was a regular here at CF years ago who was actually quite abrasive, yet for some reason he was patient and civil with me. I'm not sure why. Regardless, I learned a lot.

You are coming at this with a genuine desire to understand it. I've seen many people who dismiss evolution and show that they have no desire in understanding it. At the end of the day, even if you don't accept evolution as true, you've still approached this with intellectual honesty, and I consider that a victory by itself.

I never once meant to misrepresent evolution, nor was I ever opposed to learning about it. But it was frustrating to be dismissed, which for one reason or another, happened time and again. It's hard to respect someone who misjudges your faith; it's hard to learn from someone you don't respect. I get very sarcastic when I'm frustrated, and was therefore guilty of twisting up many a conversation.

It would be nice if civil conversation were more common here - with people on all sides of an issue taking the time to both explain their side and patiently listening to the other side. I would enjoy that ... if I were ever to be worthy of it.

 

[J_B_]

That's a nice way to put it. Seems to me, as I've been told, if I really wanted badly enough to understand it, I'd look it up and study it enough to get a real comprehension. I don't want to know that badly. But thanks for explaining. I do want to know badly enough at least to listen.

I've gotten that comment as well. Right or wrong, I see something written between the lines. Taken literally it's a silly statement to make - that someone is willing to spend all kinds of time arguing with you and telling you you're wrong, and then when asked for clarification tells you to go read a book. But rather than take it strictly literally, I see it as a statement of exasperation - that the person either thinks I'm not trying hard enough to understand their argument, or that I'm not appreciating the mastery of it.

Maybe I'm projecting. I have felt that way myself in times past - stupefied by what was sometimes denied during the heat of debate. Now older and wiser, it rarely bothers me anymore.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The trouble with the designer argument is that you can use that to explain anything, no matter what it actually is. If they use similar body structures, that's the way the designer made it. If they use different body structures, that's the way the designer made it. Since the explanation would work no matter what we find, it really tells us nothing.

It's like if you came across what appeared to be the wreckage of a house after a tornado hit it. You would go in and you would see items flung all around the place. But I could say, "Oh, a person put it that way, there never was a tornado." No matter what the state of the house was, from neat and tidy to absolutely chaotic, the explanation "Someone just put it that way" would always work.

Yes, you could point out particular things that are exactly what we would expect to be left if it really was a tornado - signs of the swirling air currents left in dust, for example - but since the claim, "someone could have put it that way and made it look exactly the same as what a tornado would have left" can not be eliminated. So that claim is unfalsifiable, and as a result is pretty much useless.

Thoughts that come to my mind here:

(1) If the logic that 'first cause with intent exists' is valid on its own merits (that is, the cosmological argument), then, logically, all else must align with that, and cannot contradict it. The fact that "God" is unfalsifiable becomes, then, irrelevant. This may be unsatisfying, but so what. I have heard only worse, untenable, excuses for dismissing the cosmological argument. To my mind, if "God" was falsifiable, he wouldn't be God anyway. If he answered to form, he wouldn't be God.
(2) "God created/caused all things" doesn't deny what we see, and as far as I can tell, it doesn't even deny TOE. In fact, even "How old did God make Adam?" doesn't take the wind out of the sails of TOE. If God, first cause, exists, then his level of being is beyond or outside the reality we experience as "this". If God exists, then we really don't know much.
(3) If God exists, then it can be said that 'natural' is also 'miracle'. From our POV it makes little difference whether God created it 'already' billions of years old, or whether it actually took billions of years. And I think it can be both —that is, one from our point of view, and another from God's point of view.

But we see things in biology that seem like nonsensical design choices for a designer to make, yet are exactly what we'd expect to see if life forms evolved.

For example, you have in your body a nerve called the "Recurrent laryngeal nerve." I'm gonna call it the RLN from now on, because I'm lazy and don't want to write it out every time.

There is a nerve that comes from your brain down your neck and into your body called the Vagus nerve. The RLN comes off the Vagus nerve to go to your larynx and it's the nerve that allows you to properly use your vocal chords. Now, you'd think that the RLN would branch off from the Vagus nerve in your neck and go straight to your larynx, but it doesn't. It actually branches off much lower, loops under your aorta (the main artery coming out of your heart), and then goes back up.

In the case of the giraffe, this is a detour of 15 feet or so!

Yet, when we look at the fossils of our ancestors (the ancestors of all tetrapods), which were fish-like, the route would have been direct, traveling from the brain, past the heart, to the gills (as it does in modern fish). But over the course of evolution, as the neck extended and the heart became lower in the body, the nerve had to become longer. Remember, evolution mostly works by making small changes to what it already has. So evolution could easily make the nerve a little longer as the body form changed shape over many generations. But it would be pretty much impossible for it to completely create a new route for the nerve to take.

This is exactly what we'd expect to see if evolution was the case, but there's no reason for a designer to design it this way. It would be like a car designer putting the airbag in the steering wheel, the crash sensors in the front bumper, and then routing the electrical connections around the reversing camera at the back.

There's an interesting video looking at the RNL in a giraffe HERE. Be warned, it does contain video of a giraffe dissection.

Thus the expression, "Speaking from the heart"! (JK) Maybe this has something to do with why, when my heart skips a beat, my throat constricts or I cough. Or the actual physical pain I felt in my throat as a child at being at odds with my parents, by way of guilt?

Interesting. Thanks!

But I think, (I know, unfalsifiable), we can't know that there would be no reason for a creator to make it this way.

 

[Kylie]

Thoughts that come to my mind here:

(1) If the logic that 'first cause with intent exists' is valid on its own merits (that is, the cosmological argument), then, logically, all else must align with that, and cannot contradict it. The fact that "God" is unfalsifiable becomes, then, irrelevant. This may be unsatisfying, but so what. I have heard only worse, untenable, excuses for dismissing the cosmological argument. To my mind, if "God" was falsifiable, he wouldn't be God anyway. If he answered to form, he wouldn't be God.

The problem here is that if the argument is unfalsifiable, there's no way to show that it is valid.

(2) "God created/caused all things" doesn't deny what we see, and as far as I can tell, it doesn't even deny TOE. In fact, even "How old did God make Adam?" doesn't take the wind out of the sails of TOE. If God, first cause, exists, then his level of being is beyond or outside the reality we experience as "this". If God exists, then we really don't know much.

I meant, of course the idea that God created all the different organisms in the state they are in now.

There are many Christians who believe that God started things off and that evolution was a tool used by God to create variety (my husband is among them). But that idea is incompatible with the idea that God created horses as they are now, and cats as they are now, etc.

(3) If God exists, then it can be said that 'natural' is also 'miracle'. From our POV it makes little difference whether God created it 'already' billions of years old, or whether it actually took billions of years. And I think it can be both —that is, one from our point of view, and another from God's point of view.

I think the only valid way of looking at it is from the rock's point of view.

Thus the expression, "Speaking from the heart"! (JK) Maybe this has something to do with why, when my heart skips a beat, my throat constricts or I cough. Or the actual physical pain I felt in my throat as a child at being at odds with my parents, by way of guilt?

Interesting. Thanks!

But I think, (I know, unfalsifiable), we can't know that there would be no reason for a creator to make it this way.

True, but there are plenty of reasons why a creator wouldn't make it this way. And having it this way is entirely consistent with evolution. Evolution explains it easily, whereas the idea of a creator who designed it that way does not.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The problem here is that if the argument is unfalsifiable, there's no way to show that it is valid.

I don't know why not. Math is unfalsifiable, but we use it all the time. It is a logic that we trust, just as is the law of causation, which (in my opinion) demands first cause over all effects

I meant, of course the idea that God created all the different organisms in the state they are in now.

There are many Christians who believe that God started things off and that evolution was a tool used by God to create variety (my husband is among them). But that idea is incompatible with the idea that God created horses as they are now, and cats as they are now, etc.

That idea (that God created the species, but that the variety within each species is a result of observable genetic migration) isn't far from what seems to me to be the case. I had a Christian try to tell me that there is no way that all we see now came from the pairs of animals on the ark, in the few thousand years since then. I don't know why not.

I think the only valid way of looking at it is from the rock's point of view.

While the rock's point of view is inescapable to us at present, that is, that any other point of view is impossible for us to fully comprehend or use, it doesn't render them invalid.

True, but there are plenty of reasons why a creator wouldn't make it this way. And having it this way is entirely consistent with evolution. Evolution explains it easily, whereas the idea of a creator who designed it that way does not.

I don't know of any reason why the creator wouldn't make it this way. To my mind, the idea of the Creator designing it (as each after their own kind) is the simplest explanation.

 

[Shemjaza]

I don't know why not. Math is unfalsifiable, but we use it all the time. It is a logic that we trust, just as is the law of causation, which (in my opinion) demands first cause over all effects
.

Maths is based on axioms and physical conclusions drawn from mathematics can be falsified.

First cause as a conclusion from a law of causation is special pleading. "Everything has a cause" therefore "something doesn't have a cause" is locically incoherent.

That idea (that God created the species, but that the variety within each species is a result of observable genetic migration) isn't far from what seems to me to be the case. I had a Christian try to tell me that there is no way that all we see now came from the pairs of animals on the ark, in the few thousand years since then. I don't know why not.

You have a couple of problems with this.

We know how variation works and can measure mutation rates in non coding DNA. This means we can work out how much diversity there is in the species and if they have gone through a genetic bottle neck.

Humans and Cheetahs have and have much less diversity than other species... but still vastly more than two individuals in the last 10000 years.

Another problem is that there isn't a difference in the methods that demonstrate relatedness between individuals in the same species, individuals in similar species and individuals in significantly different species.

Finally the problem is that there are too many species of different environments to fit on the Earth at once, let alone all in a boat.

While the rock's point of view is inescapable to us at present, that is, that any other point of view is impossible for us to fully comprehend or use, it doesn't render them invalid.

Examining rocks and geology comes with evidence like radiometric dating which I can understand a conclusion like "it's not old, or was just made that way"... but in many cases geological dating comes with examining evidence for deep time by examining the evidence for millions of years of events.

The justification for ignoring the conclusions then again becomes deliberate deception.

I don't know of any reason why the creator wouldn't make it this way. To my mind, the idea of the Creator designing it (as each after their own kind) is the simplest explanation.

That doesn't explain why there are kinds of kind and remnants of common ancestry not even active in the animals.

If all the "kinds" of birds were separately created just to be birds and not descended from a dinosaur, why would they have genes for teeth?

Why do chimps and humans have the same inactive broken viral insertions on their genes?

Why does a mouse have more in common genetically with a human than it does with a marsupial mouse?

 

[Kylie]

I don't know why not. Math is unfalsifiable, but we use it all the time. It is a logic that we trust, just as is the law of causation, which (in my opinion) demands first cause over all effects

Maths is unfalsifiable? How do you figure? Seems easy enough to falsify the claim that 1+1=85,474,773.

That idea (that God created the species, but that the variety within each species is a result of observable genetic migration) isn't far from what seems to me to be the case.

And yet we see large groups of organisms that all share the same features, even when it isn't required. All mammals have the same structure in their ears, for example. And yet there's no reason why giraffes would need the same kind of ear as bats. The similarities between the ears suggest that giraffes and bats share a common ancestor.

I had a Christian try to tell me that there is no way that all we see now came from the pairs of animals on the ark, in the few thousand years since then. I don't know why not.

We can compare the similarities of DNA between two species and also see the rate that DNA changes at in those species. By comparing these two pieces of data, we can make a good estimate as to how long it has been since they shared a common ancestor. If all organisms alive today did come from a few representative species that were carried on the ark which then changed to become the wide variety we see today, we should see that all pigeons, say, shared a common ancestor at about the same time that all cats shared a common ancestor and all shrews shared a common ancestor. The genetic evidence would be there for all to see, and yet it isn't there.

I don't know of any reason why the creator wouldn't make it this way. To my mind, the idea of the Creator designing it (as each after their own kind) is the simplest explanation.

But what would a creator gain by forming the creation so it looks exactly like it would if it had evolved instead of been created?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Maths is based on axioms and physical conclusions drawn from mathematics can be falsified.

First cause as a conclusion from a law of causation is special pleading. "Everything has a cause" therefore "something doesn't have a cause" is locically incoherent.

Of course, the conclusions drawn from math can be falsified, or at least we hope to be able to falsify most of them. I'm not sure why you say this —is it to show the difference between math (which we can trust) and the 'special pleading' of invoking first cause? The comparison is between math (axiomatic) and causation (axiomatic).

What is special pleading —whatever can't be proven? But anyway, the law of causation does not say "everything has a cause"; it says, "all effects are caused." First Cause is not an effect. But I don't mean to exasperate you; I expect you meant to say that just because all effects are caused does not imply that there is anything that is not an effect. But that to me is logically vapid. It seems the kind of thinking that science has always shunned. You seem to me to be, like most atheists and others, to go to whatever degree is necessary to avoid the obvious here.

Nevertheless, I agree that proof of first cause would be nice. It would be nice to see the circle closed, such as is done with mathematical 'proving' of an equation by coming at it from another direction. The problem is, science and philosophy uses causation, math and other logical formats and laws as verification of theory all the time. Few of the notions involved in quantum theory can be verified physically. And much of what is verified physically can only be interpreted mathematically and by sequence of causation and other logical reasoning.

So why the shunning and even scorn involved in the question of First Cause? Is it really simply because there isn't any point in pursuing proof?

You have a couple of problems with this.

We know how variation works and can measure mutation rates in non coding DNA. This means we can work out how much diversity there is in the species and if they have gone through a genetic bottle neck.

Humans and Cheetahs have and have much less diversity than other species... but still vastly more than two individuals in the last 10000 years.

Another problem is that there isn't a difference in the methods that demonstrate relatedness between individuals in the same species, individuals in similar species and individuals in significantly different species.

Then maybe, and so it seems to me proper, we need a good definition of species. Obviously, it is not every variation that is a separate species. But I see no problem with all arachnids descending from a pair of spiders, or all canines from a pair of dogs, in the few thousand years it has been.

I don't know what 'non-coding DNA' is, as, I assume, opposed to 'coding DNA' and why it is relevant to mutation rates.

There is a phenomenon apparently common to modern science that assumes that things are now as they always have been, for example that radioactive decay rates have always been the same, and operate by the same principles.

Finally the problem is that there are too many species of different environments to fit on the Earth at once, let alone all in a boat.

Wait, what? Where are they? Ok, yes, that's cheap. But I really don't get your point. What species? Do you think the Ark theory, sans TOE, would imply that all diversity as we have now, plus extinct varieties, would be represented on the ark? Why should so many species have representation on that boat, when only one pair in a species might do the job, that diversifies into several of what we call species (again, I'm not sure where to define 'species', here), without calling it TOE?

This is a little humorous, here, you arguing against the migration of DNA and I for it! But at least I have the excuse that I don't know what I'm talking about!

That doesn't explain why there are kinds of kind and remnants of common ancestry not even active in the animals.

If all the "kinds" of birds were separately created just to be birds and not descended from a dinosaur, why would they have genes for teeth?

Why do chimps and humans have the same inactive broken viral insertions on their genes?

Why does a mouse have more in common genetically with a human than it does with a marsupial mouse?

Maybe the marsupial mouse isn't really a mouse.

I don't know. Maybe there is more that these have in common than ancestry. When I hear of some certain moth whose progeny goes blind and begins to not even produce eyes as a general rule, when left in the dark for enough years as a group, then when brought back out into the light begins to develop eyes, I can't help but wonder what's going on here. Certainly that's adaptation, but the genetic disposition is already there for it to happen.

Some fish grow teeth, some don't. I'm not sure any of this is meaningful for or against TOE or Creation Theory.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Maths is unfalsifiable? How do you figure? Seems easy enough to falsify the claim that 1+1=85,474,773.

Mathematical propositions are falsifiable, but math itself is not.

And yet we see large groups of organisms that all share the same features, even when it isn't required. All mammals have the same structure in their ears, for example. And yet there's no reason why giraffes would need the same kind of ear as bats. The similarities between the ears suggest that giraffes and bats share a common ancestor.

"Similarities suggest" doesn't seem to me to demonstrate even as much as "existence demands first cause". A common designer is (to me) easily as likely a reason for the similarities as TOE. But after your beginnings of the reasoning behind TOE and discussions with @Shemjaza in particular, I'm not even sure just what the TOE is, other than a naturalistic description of what we already know, taken to the extreme of a single common ancestor for all living things, as opposed to unvariegated single basic species examples, complete with potential for adaptation. If the ear of the bat works well for the bat, why shouldn't the giraffe have a similar construction?

We can compare the similarities of DNA between two species and also see the rate that DNA changes at in those species. By comparing these two pieces of data, we can make a good estimate as to how long it has been since they shared a common ancestor. If all organisms alive today did come from a few representative species that were carried on the ark which then changed to become the wide variety we see today, we should see that all pigeons, say, shared a common ancestor at about the same time that all cats shared a common ancestor and all shrews shared a common ancestor. The genetic evidence would be there for all to see, and yet it isn't there.

That seems to me to assume an awful lot. Why should genetic migration be at a consistent rate? Have things always been the same as they are now? Is all genetic adaptation equal in propagation rate and death of the unfit? (Lol, sorry, but it seems there's an awful lot you're going to have to show me to convince me.)

But what would a creator gain by forming the creation so it looks exactly like it would if it had evolved instead of been created?

Like I said before to someone, one obvious reason is so that we would wonder and talk about it. Also, so that those who want to ignore or deny him can find an excuse to do so. Also, so that the different species can adapt more than we might imagine that they can, to different environments. And I haven't much doubt there are many more reasons that I am not aware of.

 

[Shemjaza]

Of course, the conclusions drawn from math can be falsified, or at least we hope to be able to falsify most of them. I'm not sure why you say this —is it to show the difference between math (which we can trust) and the 'special pleading' of invoking first cause? The comparison is between math (axiomatic) and causation (axiomatic).

Mathematics is the logical study based on a series of axioms. These axioms can be used as a model of the real world and so maths is useful as a logical method of studying aspects of the world that can be approximated mathematically.

What is special pleading —whatever can't be proven? But anyway, the law of causation does not say "everything has a cause"; it says, "all effects are caused." First Cause is not an effect. But I don't mean to exasperate you; I expect you meant to say that just because all effects are caused does not imply that there is anything that is not an effect. But that to me is logically vapid. It seems the kind of thinking that science has always shunned. You seem to me to be, like most atheists and others, to go to whatever degree is necessary to avoid the obvious here.

This strikes me as rephrasing causation to remove the obvious contradiction but in fact simply makes the axiom false. Specifically that sources of causation need not be caused themselves.

Nevertheless, I agree that proof of first cause would be nice. It would be nice to see the circle closed, such as is done with mathematical 'proving' of an equation by coming at it from another direction. The problem is, science and philosophy uses causation, math and other logical formats and laws as verification of theory all the time. Few of the notions involved in quantum theory can be verified physically. And much of what is verified physically can only be interpreted mathematically and by sequence of causation and other logical reasoning.

Extreme edge science like quantum theory might be harder to demonstrate... but the mathematical analysis is based on data from the physical world, not simply conjecture.

So why the shunning and even scorn involved in the question of First Cause? Is it really simply because there isn't any point in pursuing proof?

Two reasons in my opinion.

One it seems to be an attempt to at an explanation without data and possible without the possibility of data.

Secondly I think people have a negative association due to it being commonly used without independent justification to simply insert the religious preferences of whoever is using it as a justification.

Then maybe, and so it seems to me proper, we need a good definition of species. Obviously, it is not every variation that is a separate species. But I see no problem with all arachnids descending from a pair of spiders, or all canines from a pair of dogs, in the few thousand years it has been.

It is actually difficult to define the edge cases.

One common method is by ability and inclination to reproduce, but that is not practical with extinct species.

It's interesting that you are comfortable with all arachnids being one set... but that represents more variety in genetics and structure than all primates or even all mammals.

The problem is that species is fundamentally a human label for a biological concept that doesn't have hard barriers.

Many people are happy with accepting that all cats or all canines being one group... but if you accept canines, why not bears as well?

This pattern can be demonstrated genetically to apply across all life and the fossil record support this diversification.

I don't know what 'non-coding DNA' is, as, I assume, opposed to 'coding DNA' and why it is relevant to mutation rates.

Non coding DNA doesn't directly "code" for the proteins that make up our bodies.

This means that mutations of this area are vastly less significant to the animals and can be passed on indefinitely.

There is a phenomenon apparently common to modern science that assumes that things are now as they always have been, for example that radioactive decay rates have always been the same, and operate by the same principles.

It is not simply an assumption, it is also supported by evidence.

As with all the physical evidence for events over deep time a sufficiently powerful and deceptive creator could have left false evidence, but it seems unjustified to assume it.

Wait, what? Where are they? Ok, yes, that's cheap. But I really don't get your point. What species? Do you think the Ark theory, sans TOE, would imply that all diversity as we have now, plus extinct varieties, would be represented on the ark? Why should so many species have representation on that boat, when only one pair in a species might do the job, that diversifies into several of what we call species (again, I'm not sure where to define 'species', here), without calling it TOE?

Dinosaurs, mega fauna mammals, synapsids, non human hominids and all manner of radically different plants and environments.

All these things leave evidence in the same places.

In my state there is evidence for giant salamanders, glaciers, continent sized river valleys, hibernating dinosaurs, volcanoes, saber toothed marsupials and giant birds.

These things can't all exist in the same place at the same time.

This is a little humorous, here, you arguing against the migration of DNA and I for it! But at least I have the excuse that I don't know what I'm talking about!

There's nothing wrong with mutation as a source of variation of DNA, there's just no justification for the speed and pattern of variation to create all modern and extinct animals in a few centuries.

Maybe the marsupial mouse isn't really a mouse.

It's not, but it lives in a similar environment and has similar habits, but is inexplicably more like a kangaroo internally.

I don't know. Maybe there is more that these have in common than ancestry. When I hear of some certain moth whose progeny goes blind and begins to not even produce eyes as a general rule, when left in the dark for enough years as a group, then when brought back out into the light begins to develop eyes, I can't help but wonder what's going on here. Certainly that's adaptation, but the genetic disposition is already there for it to happen.

That sounds like a gene that can be switched on and off by environmental factors... like grasshoppers turning into locusts.

It's a different phenomena to a trait being gained or lost to mutation.

Some fish grow teeth, some don't. I'm not sure any of this is meaningful for or against TOE or Creation Theory.

But we're talking about birds here... birds don't have teeth.

But dinosaurs did and some had feathers too. Evolution has an explanation for this situation, and Creation does not.