The Fossil Record Proves Speciation, Not Evolution of Lifeforms Observed

[Speedwell]

In this sense, people are assuming that everything can be explained by naturalistic and materialistic processes.

So far it has proved to be a reasonable assumption. My suspicion is that all natural phenomena will be found to have natural causes.

In other words, everything we see will more than likely be repeated the same if it happened again including humans.

Is that the problem you see? That evolution doesn't necessarily produce humans? You're right. Evolution is contingent. If you wound back the clock and started over you would be very unlikely to get the same collection of species we have today, even with EES. But why is that a problem?

 

[stevevw]

I doubt it, but so what?
I doubt it, but so what?

It will have a big impact in how change happens in living things and reconceptualize it from random and blind to pre-existing, directed and self-organised.

They are being considered. That is why there is debate within evolution about them.

There is scientific support for the EES so it is more than being considered. Like anything that will change a traditional view there is hesitation and resistence. The Modern Synthesis is a theory and all theories are not 100% true but are the best explanation to fit the observation at that time. The Modern theory is now being shown to not fit the observations more and more and processes in the EES fits better. Other research has been slowly showing how the mechanisms in the Modern theory are unlikely to account for the level (complexity and variety) of change we see.

What "end results" are those?

Predetermined end results and not just any result. Inherent in the Standard theory is that sick and dysfunctional living things are produced just to get a small range of functional and fine tuned creatures. That would not make sense for a creator God who has the power to design life. One of the common claims made by the world view of evolution is that it is imperfect and therefore this shows that it is not the case of design.
It makes more sense that living things are the end result of development-programms and determined set of codes, laws that are meant to produce certain outcomes and that the sickness and dysfunction we see is the result of mutations which are primarily harmful to that. So the genome is deteriorating form what was once more perfect. I find it hard to understand how someone can support Neo-Darwinism becuase they claim it is science yet it contradicts a creator God in that it is blind and random. Processes like the EES are also science.

I would not rely on Morris for a description of the beliefs of those who he regards as evil apostates. In fact I would not rely on Morris for anything at all. If he said grass was green and the sky was blue I would look out the window and check before I agreed with him.

That would be a logical fallacy based on association. It does not matter who the person is Wikipedia is pointing out there are different views for thiestic evolution more than what Morris states. In this case Morris is pointing out two positions "Orthogenesis" (goal-directed evolution), "nomogenesis" (evolution according to fixed law). There are many people who agree with the idea of goal directed evolution and evolution according to fixed laws. In fact I would say most of thiestic evolution would fall into one of those two camps.

The "Darwinian" version of evolution has been obsolete for a hundred years.

I mean the Neo-Darwinian version. But it may be a good point to say that the Neo-Darwinian version may be deleted as well by discoveries from the EES and the like.

No, I am not saying that. What I am saying is that I don't care. Whatever the resolution of the current debate within evolutionary biology, evolution will still be a naturalistic process resulting in the diversity of life we see around us.

So how do you think God is represented in evolution. Is it directed and/or conforms to certain codes, programs and laws instilled by God. Or do you think it is just a blind and random process that can produce almost any possibility but somehow produces all that we see through natural selection.

 

[stevevw]

Mostly they're just wary of Evangelicals trying to use things like EES as a "wedge" for their magic Bible-God.

But you cannot use the EES as a substitute for magic. It is based on scieentificprocesses. But on that note at what point did the magic happen from God. Did he just start with however existence came into being or did he spark the first ingredients for life (Chemical evolution) or puff into existence the first single celled organism. At some point He had to step beyond the scienctific materialist view and use supernatural creation. That is the part I think thiestist find hard to agree on and support.

 

[stevevw]

So far it has proved to be a reasonable assumption. My suspicion is that all natural phenomena will be found to have natural causes.
Is that the problem you see? That evolution doesn't necessarily produce humans? You're right. Evolution is contingent. If you wound back the clock and started over you would be very unlikely to get the same collection of species we have today, even with EES. But why is that a problem?

That is what the current understanding of evolution is and this is the point I am making that it does not make sense in Gods creation. If the random and blind processes of the Standard theory are a method God intented through his creation and if it will not produce humans if rewound and started again then this is illogical for a creator God who intended for us to happen. However you believe God created man through the literal story of creation or through evolution it was intentional and directed towards producing certain outcomes.

That is a big gamble God is taking if he used a blind and random process that would not produce humans again. It also makes no sense to a creator God to intentionally produce sick and dyfunctional life as is said to be the result of blind and random evolution. It makes more sense that things were intended and directed towards certain outcomes. Process like the EES which are more about programmed and self organised processes give direction to evolution which makes more sense as a hallmark of Gods creation IMO.

 

[Speedwell]

That is what the current understanding of evolution is and this is the point I am making that it does not make sense in Gods creation.

It makes sense to me.

If the random and blind processes of the Standard theory are a method God intented through his creation and if it will not produce humans if rewound and started again then this is illogical for a creator God who intended for us to happen. However you believe God created man through the literal story of creation or through evolution it was intentional and directed towards producing certain outcomes.

You keep saying things like "blind and random" and "sick and dysfunctional" over and over as if they meant something. Either you are ignorant of evolution or just being snarky.

That is a big gamble God is taking if he used a blind and random process that would not produce humans again.

Evolution has shown a tendency to converge on certain traits in a particular environment. For example, several distinct evolutionary lines have developed flight. It is entirely possible that evolution also converges on intelligence. All that God required was a creature of sufficient intellectual capacity to develop self-aware intelligence. Perhaps God's gamble was not so big after all.

It also makes no sense to a creator God to intentionally produce sick and dyfunctional life as is said to be the result of blind and random evolution. It makes more sense that things were intended and directed towards certain outcomes. Process like the EES which are more about programmed and self organised processes give direction to evolution which makes more sense as a hallmark of Gods creation IMO.

No, I'm afraid you are not going to find God's greasy fingerprints on anywhere on the machinery.

 

[Speedwell]

So how do you think God is represented in evolution.

As Telos--Aristotle's Final Cause.

Divine providence imposes necessity upon some things; not upon all, as some formerly believed. For to providence it belongs to order things towards an end. Now after the divine goodness, which is an extrinsic end to all things, the principal good in things themselves is the perfection of the universe; which would not be, were not all grades of being found in things. Whence it pertains to divine providence to produce every grade of being. And thus it has prepared for some things necessary causes, so that they happen of necessity; for others contingent causes, that they may happen by contingency, according to the nature of their proximate causes.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae​

a

 

[stevevw]

It makes sense to me. You keep saying things like "blind and random" and "sick and dysfunctional" over and over as if they meant something. Either you are ignorant of evolution or just being snarky.

No, I am merely describing the Modern theory (Neo-Darwinism) which is based on Natural selection and mutations as the supporters do. If evolution is unpredictable and has a tendency to produce a sick and dysfunctional life then God was taking a big gamble. It is described by top evolutionists like Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins as blind, mindless and purposeless.

And, indeed, this is what I teach—that natural selection, and evolution in general, are material processes, blind, mindless, and purposeless.
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpres...tion-material-blind-mindless-and-purposeless/

Mutations are random. Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs."
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/mutations_07

Evolution also produces sick and dysfunctional life because it is based on random mutations as stated above which also produce harmful mutations for which higher life like ourselves have a tendency for.
Multicellular species experience reduced population sizes, reduced recombination rates, and increased deleterious mutation rates, all of which diminish the efficiency of selection (13). It may be no coincidence that such species also have substantially higher extinction rates than do unicellular taxa (47, 48).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1876435/

Evolution has shown a tendency to converge on certain traits in a particular environment. For example, several distinct evolutionary lines have developed flight. It is entirely possible that evolution also converges on intelligence. All that God required was a creature of sufficient intellectual capacity to develop self-aware intelligence. Perhaps God's gamble was not so big after all.

Convergence is an evolutionary assumption based on the Natural selection. Becuase we see a lot of convergence it is assumed that it is because of natural selection. But convergence is being found more and more and even right down to the molecular level despite the relationship between creatures and the environments they occupy. So more assumptions are made and more power is given to selection. A better explanation is being found through development processes such as development bias and plasticity where certain forms are produced more than others.

SET explains such parallels as convergent evolution: similar environmental conditions select for random genetic variation with equivalent results. This account requires extraordinary coincidence to explain the multiple parallel forms that evolved independently in each lake. A more succinct hypothesis is that developmental bias and natural selection work together4, 5. Rather than selection being free to traverse across any physical possibility, it is guided along specific routes opened up by the processes of development5, 6.
https://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-1.16080

This is why I say that it is the central driving forces of evolution (natural selection and random mutations) are what the EES is disputing and if found to be correct will impact on a major part if not all of the Standard theory and have repercussions on how we see things like convergent evolution.

No, I'm afraid you are not going to find God's greasy fingerprints on anywhere on the machinery.

Then why would Paul state

Romans 1:20 (NIV) “ For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.”

I disagree and believe that Gods finger prints should be seen all over the place and science should be a tool that reveals that even more right down to the quantum level. What intrigues me though is if you say Gods fingerprints are not on anything then who says that God was involved at all. How can the science be reconciled to a person's faith if there is no evidence for God.

 

[VirOptimus]

No, I am merely describing the Modern theory (Neo-Darwinism) which is based on Natural selection and mutations as the supporters do. If evolution is unpredictable and has a tendency to produce a sick and dysfunctional life then God was taking a big gamble. It is described by top evolutionists like Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins as blind, mindless and purposeless.

And, indeed, this is what I teach—that natural selection, and evolution in general, are material processes, blind, mindless, and purposeless.
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpres...tion-material-blind-mindless-and-purposeless/

Mutations are random. Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs."
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/mutations_07

Evolution also produces sick and dysfunctional life because it is based on random mutations as stated above which also produce harmful mutations for which higher life like ourselves have a tendency for.
Multicellular species experience reduced population sizes, reduced recombination rates, and increased deleterious mutation rates, all of which diminish the efficiency of selection (13). It may be no coincidence that such species also have substantially higher extinction rates than do unicellular taxa (47, 48).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1876435/

Convergence is an evolutionary assumption based on the Natural selection. Becuase we see a lot of convergence it is assumed that it is because of natural selection. But convergence is being found more and more and even right down to the molecular level despite the relationship between creatures and the environments they occupy. So more assumptions are made and more power is given to selection. A better explanation is being found through development processes such as development bias and plasticity where certain forms are produced more than others.

SET explains such parallels as convergent evolution: similar environmental conditions select for random genetic variation with equivalent results. This account requires extraordinary coincidence to explain the multiple parallel forms that evolved independently in each lake. A more succinct hypothesis is that developmental bias and natural selection work together4, 5. Rather than selection being free to traverse across any physical possibility, it is guided along specific routes opened up by the processes of development5, 6.
https://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-1.16080

This is why I say that it is the central driving forces of evolution (natural selection and random mutations) are what the EES is disputing and if found to be correct will impact on a major part if not all of the Standard theory and have repercussions on how we see things like convergent evolution.

Then why would Paul state

Romans 1:20 (NIV) “ For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.”

I disagree and believe that Gods finger prints should be seen all over the place and science should be a tool that reveals that even more right down to the quantum level. What intrigues me though is if you say Gods fingerprints are not on anything then who says that God was involved at all. How can the science be reconciled to a person's faith if there is no evidence for God.

Now you are mixing religion and science again. Thats an auto-loss.

 

[stevevw]

Now you are mixing religion and science again. Thats an auto-loss.

I don't have difficulty in being able to handle two opposing views/ideas at the same time. I provide the scientific support for what I say (that is why the first 4 points do not mention religion and are supported with science links. When I discuss religious concepts that is a seperate and a different thing and am expressing my personal view. A bit similar to how scientists with a religious faith. I have never claimed that my religious views are scientific fact and state this is my belief. It may seem like a hard concept for you to understand but people are capable of doing this.

 

[stevevw]

As Telos--Aristotle's Final Cause.

Divine providence imposes necessity upon some things; not upon all, as some formerly believed. For to providence it belongs to order things towards an end. Now after the divine goodness, which is an extrinsic end to all things, the principal good in things themselves is the perfection of the universe; which would not be, were not all grades of being found in things. Whence it pertains to divine providence to produce every grade of being. And thus it has prepared for some things necessary causes, so that they happen of necessity; for others contingent causes, that they may happen by contingency, according to the nature of their proximate causes.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae​

Then surely there is more to it than the blind, mindless and purposeless material process of evolution.

 

[VirOptimus]

I don't have difficulty in being able to handle two opposing views/ideas at the same time. I provide the scientific support for what I say (that is why the first 4 points do not mention religion and are supported with science links. When I discuss religious concepts that is a seperate and a different thing and am expressing my personal view. A bit similar to how scientists with a religious faith. I have never claimed that my religious views are scientific fact and state this is my belief. It may seem like a hard concept for you to understand but people are capable of doing this.

No, its clear (as it always has been) that the only reason you oppose the ToE is your religious belief.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, its clear (as it always has been) that the only reason you oppose the ToE is your religious belief.

How many reasons does he need?

 

[VirOptimus]

How many reasons does he need?

I give up, how many?

 

[Speedwell]

No, I am merely describing the Modern theory (Neo-Darwinism) which is based on Natural selection and mutations as the supporters do. If evolution is unpredictable and has a tendency to produce a sick and dysfunctional life then God was taking a big gamble. It is described by top evolutionists like Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins as blind, mindless and purposeless.

Dawkins is an atheist; he doesn't believe in divine purpose--which is an unfalsifiable proposition not part of the theory of evolution anyway.

Then why would Paul state

Romans 1:20 (NIV) “ For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.”

Because it's true. It's just not science--science is not the only way of knowing.

I disagree and believe that Gods finger prints should be seen all over the place and science should be a tool that reveals that even more right down to the quantum level. What intrigues me though is if you say Gods fingerprints are not on anything then who says that God was involved at all. How can the science be reconciled to a person's faith if there is no evidence for God.

Because faith is what you believe without necessarily having scientific evidence. Traditional Christians don't require scientific evidence of God. That seems something only Fundamentalists require.

 

[Speedwell]

Then surely there is more to it than the blind, mindless and purposeless material process of evolution.

How do you know it's purposeless? Because Dawkins, and atheist, says so?

 

[Ophiolite]

How many reasons does he need?

One good reason would be sufficient. Objecting to evolution because one's faith is deficient is not a good reason.

 

[AV1611VET]

One good reason would be sufficient.

"Good" meaning you agree with it?

Objecting to evolution because one's faith is deficient is not a good reason.

How about objecting to evolution because one's faith is solid then? still not a good reason?

 

[Speedwell]

"Good" meaning you agree with it?

How about objecting to evolution because one's faith is solid then? still not a good reason?

No, it's not his faith which is deficient, it's his theology.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Post shows detailed adherence to Darwinism/Neo-Darwinism information. And unknowing that the fossil record shows evolution never happened. Zero evidence evolution occurred.

Great job making claims and not refuting a single sentence from my post. Spectacular.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Then surely there is more to it than the blind, mindless and purposeless material process of evolution.

-_- it's not blind, traits which favor survival and reproduction are more prone to persisting than traits that don't. All natural processes are mindless, but that doesn't make them entirely random and nonsensical. Purpose is subjective; I view natural processes as more of a consequence than purposeful events, but someone could equally view the purpose of evolution as "to produce organisms better able to survive in their environments" if they wanted to. That is, after all, what it does to populations of organisms. But even if you want to view it as purposeless, that doesn't mean it can't have consistent or useful outcomes.