the self replicating watch argument

[pitabread]

There is a difference between the phenomenon of evolution and the a priori assumption of exclusively naturalistic causes.

Is there, mark? Is there really?

Oh please won't you tell us more?

 

[doubtingmerle]

By the way, I'm a Creationist and never questioned that evolution is a natural phenomenon. Just that the cause and effect it details is an explanation for the origin of life. There is a difference between the phenomenon of evolution and the a priori assumption of exclusively naturalistic causes.

You are jumping into the middle of a conversation . We were discussing if it is a sin to say one believes evolution is true.

 

[mark kennedy]

You are jumping into the middle of a conversation . We were discussing if it is a sin to say one believes evolution is true.

That's not a sin, that's an opinion. It also depends on what you mean by the word, generally a working definition is in order. We don't all have the benefit of your exhaustive study.

 

[mark kennedy]

Is there, mark? Is there really?

Oh please won't you tell us more?

Be glad to, just define evolution.

 

[USincognito]

Is there, mark? Is there really?

Oh please won't you tell us more?

Batten down the hatches! Shtick in 3... 2...

 

[dad]

because you were answering my question asking you for a group of modern species that descended from one common ancestor on the ark. Is "bears" an answer or isn't it?

That depends on what you want to stuff into the category of what a bear is. I suspect polar, grizzly, and black bears may have come from one kind. Not sure about doggie bears and some other things you mention. We don't really know.

If the members on the ark were distinctly different kinds, one would think you would be able to identify one particular ancestral kind.

Why, and how would you go back and see what quickly evolved from what at the time of the ark?

 

[dad]

Scientists play the hand they were dealt.

They try to play, the problem is they only have a couple of cards.

They are not allowed to carry aces up their sleeve to convert their losing hand into a winner.

They have no aces! Lucky id they have a few deuces and a wild card!

And yet they still win.

They are actually about to go extinct. Evermore.

 

[mark kennedy]

Batten down the hatches! Shtick in 3... 2...

Never knew anyone who said nothing with such a flare.

 

[USincognito]

Never knew anyone who said nothing with such a flare.

I'd recommend you stop flaming. But that's up to you.

 

[mark kennedy]

I'd recommend you stop flaming. But that's up to you.

I thought you had a long standing appreciation for satire and sarcasm. You think it's a shtick to insist on an actual definition of the core term?

They try to play, the problem is they only have a couple of cards.

The epistemology that is modern science is exclusively focused on natural theology. I would think that makes the subject of the origin of life out of range. Unless of course you assume exclusively naturalistic causes.

They have no aces! Lucky id they have a few deuces and a wild card!

I don't know, the role of genetic variation does seem like randomized shuffle of the cards. But if you rely on chance you'll be a poor poker player. You have to play the odds and with highly conserved genes assuming there will be a royal flush, or even an inside straight is a long shot.

They are actually about to go extinct. Evermore.

I don't think natural science is the problem, I think it's the answer. I just think equivocating the Darwinian mutation plus selection with adaptive evolution is weak statistically.

 

[hecd2]

I don't think natural science is the problem, I think it's the answer. I just think equivocating the Darwinian mutation plus selection with adaptive evolution is weak statistically.

Why do you think that?

 

[mark kennedy]

Why do you think that?

I think they are starting to uncover molecular mechanisms that can modify the genetic code. That is very different then a genetic mutation that overwhelmingly disrupts the process. It is exceedingly rare for a genetic mutation to produce a beneficial trait but any change in the DNA is considered a mutation. It sounds like classic equivocation to me.

 

[hecd2]

I think they are starting to uncover molecular mechanisms that can modify the genetic code.

Could you give us some references to that?

That is very different then a genetic mutation that overwhelmingly disrupts the process. It is exceedingly rare for a genetic mutation to produce a beneficial trait but any change in the DNA is considered a mutation. It sounds like classic equivocation to me.

You do realise that most mutations are neutral (to fitness) at the time they occur? Some are obviously mildly or severely deleterious and will be selected against more or less strongly accordingly, and a small number are beneficial. But most of the variation on which positive selection works is neutral or mildly deleterious or beneficial. Read up on Motoo Kimura and the theory of genetic drift. This is all very well understood in terms of the statistics of how these mutations fix in a population (the science of population genetics). The idea that every heritable mutation is disastrous for the organism is just plain wrong.

 

[pitabread]

Batten down the hatches! Shtick in 3... 2...

 

[doubtingmerle]

They try to play, the problem is they only have a couple of cards.

.

I thought it was certain creationists who weren't playing with a full deck.

 

[doubtingmerle]

They are actually about to go extinct. Evermore.

Scientists go extinct? Quoth the raven, nevermore.

 

[doubtingmerle]

That depends on what you want to stuff into the category of what a bear is. I suspect polar, grizzly, and black bears may have come from one kind. Not sure about doggie bears and some other things you mention. We don't really know.

You were the one that suggested that "bear" was a name for one of the kinds Noah took on the ark, and that more than one bear species descended from that one pair. That indicates to me that there should be a clean break between bear-kind and not-bear-kind. But you seem to agree with science that "bear" is just an arbitrary term, that there is no clear break. What species are in the bear kind? The term seems to be meaningless if you cannot answer.

 

[dad]

The epistemology that is modern science is exclusively focused on natural theology. I would think that makes the subject of the origin of life out of range. Unless of course you assume exclusively naturalistic causes.

Creation had to be more than natural and physical, so they are dealing with just very partial cards in their deck.

I don't know, the role of genetic variation does seem like randomized shuffle of the cards. But if you rely on chance you'll be a poor poker player. You have to play the odds and with highly conserved genes assuming there will be a royal flush, or even an inside straight is a long shot.

Genes are just parts of the body that respond and live in and work according to the current nature. I doubt genetics as we know it was the same in days of old. Models based on assuming it was therefore become belief based models.

I don't think natural science is the problem, I think it's the answer. I just think equivocating the Darwinian mutation plus selection with adaptive evolution is weak statistically.

Maybe. But it sure is a lot simpler not needing to care how much evolving happened, since it was all different and fast and started from created kinds recently.

 

[dad]

I thought it was certain creationists who weren't playing with a full deck.

They have all the cards that count.

 

[dad]

Scientists go extinct? Quoth the raven, nevermore.

We can weigh your prophesy with God's and see which has more weight I guess.