Understanding Evolution

[Oncedeceived]

Ok, here's why you are very, very wrong. Pay attention and learn.

Here's the original statement you made to which I took objection:



LOGICAL. You argued that it was LOGICAL to attribute the appearance of design to actual design.

Now, if you are going to argue LOGIC, you are basing your argument upon a LOGICAL FORM. This is the framework which determines the validity of your argument and will apply to all cases that fit into that framework!

So, to determine that your argument fails LOGICALLY, all that needs to be done is to find an example which fits that framework, but that is found to be FALSE!

And I did. And I can cite many more.

So, keep your laundry list of biological functions that you would want to trot out one after the other. The simple fact is that your claim that it is LOGICAL that the appearance of design should always imply actual design has been trashed with scarcely raising a finger.

Back to your drawing board I'm afraid.

Now Euler you must try to understand that when we are discussing in a certain context that the context within that discussion must be addressed when raising an objection. The context of the appearance of design was a specific case and not in general. The case in discussion was the appearance in living things and the fine tuning of the universe. They are both very specific features that have specific complexity that due to that specific complexity are considered to have the appearance of design. This appearance of design is due to the appearance that an agent with intent for a purpose set it up. My claim that it is more logical to assume that this appearance in these features of an agent with intent for a purpose is more logical to be an actual agent with intent for a purpose than it is for this specified complexity of life and the fine tuning of the universe to be a product of illusion.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Birds will be birds will be birds. "The current TOE says that it is a bird, the offspring will also be birds and all of the descendents will also be birds. "

Yes, what is the problem?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why? you don't seem to need to provide evidence that there was intelligent design involved,
you think all you and other believers need to do is say it's true and it automatically becomes true.

Belief in anything without evidence to support it is gullibility.

That is completely false. You can't claim that the evidence of design is an illusion and in the same breath claim that there is no evidence of design. Do you see the problem there?

 

[Oncedeceived]

*sigh*, the same result can have different causes/potential causes. I feel pain in my foot. I could have stubbed it, an animal could have bit it, my foot could have "fallen asleep", but in the end I am in extreme discomfort no matter the cause. Plus, even if I experience one of these things, it doesn't mean the others didn't have the potential to occur. Hence, even if you absolutely proved a deity created life on earth, that wouldn't mean in and of itself that life can't exist unless a deity creates it.

Why not?

 

[Oncedeceived]

After the post above I am about to explain something to a creationist.

Mindless yes, [to have a mind there needs to be a brain and without evidence to show there is a brain there is nothing guiding life on earth] without goals and purpose no, the goals and purpose are the eventual continuance of the species, some will change and die while some will change and survive.
If however you feel the need for there to be a brain guiding life on earth please knock yourself out and imagine one.

Jay why do you feel the need to belittle others?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Which is the result of misunderstanding of the subject matter.

In reality, the only difference between micro and macro is the amount of generations.

There are no special mechanisms involved that only appear in one and not in the other.

It's inches and miles.

Yes, I understand the concept.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Nested hierarchies and the way it corrolates perfectly cross-field. Viewed from the premise that life shares ancestry, then fields like genetics, geology, comparative anatomy, paleontology, etc etc etc all play nicely together.

Life sharing ancestry doesn't necessarily mean macro-evolution. Neither does geology, comparative anatomy or paleontology.

We don't find kangaroo's outside of australia.
We don't find mammals with feathers.
We don't find reptiles with hair.
We don't find trilobyte fossils next to rabbit fossils.

So? It means life unfolded in a set way with certain features defining certain creatures.

Instead, everything we find accross all these fields falls exactly into the nested hierarchy that we would expect if evolution were true.

Evolution is true. That is not the issue.

This is why the sum of all parts is so powerfull.

WE only have a small part of sum but evolution again is not the issue.

Geneticists aren't paleontologists. And if one of them is wrong about its field, then it will conflict with the findingds of the other. So these are independent researches working in their particular corner of the scientific enterprise.

Yes it is, but that doesn't provide that macro-evolution actually explains it.

But they don't conflict. Instead, they confirm eachother.
And the same goes for the other fields.
Every field that can be added to the mix, gives exponential support for the theory that unifies the fields.

Evolution is oftenly called "the most supported theory in all of science". Do you know what? Well... now you do... It's because it has explanatory power not only in its own field of biology, but also because it is confirmed and supported accross the scientific community.

Yes, like I said, we find evolution happening and happened in the past.

Because it makes predictions SO WIDE that it crosses into other fields. And those fields only confirm the predictions.

So yes, answering "the sum of all parts" to your question is perfectly legit answer.

That is indeed what makes evolution so ridiculously undeniable.

No one is questioning evolution as defined. It is macro-evolution that is in question.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The environment, the competition.

Natural selection is the "guiding" mechanism.

Natural selection does not guide. It selects.

 

[bhsmte]

Natural selection does not guide. It selects.

How is selection of certain traits, not guiding the direction the species goes?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Because we can see it working.

Because there is nothing in our genome that differs from chimp dna that couldn't have been accomplished by the mechanisms that we know of.

There are 40 million differences in our genome and you are making the claim that nothing in our genome that differs from chimp DNA couldn't have been accomplished by the mechanisms that we know of? How could you possibly know that?

We know it in the same way that you know that a car popped a donut in the streets when all you can see are the tire tracks.

Your simplistic analogy is evident of your view of the issue. You simplify a very complex and unknown element and make it seem so simple it is silly but it is silly to compare the two.

 

[bhsmte]

Natural selection does not guide. It selects.

Lets say I am the coach of a football team and I have players trying out for my team and I am assessing which ones I want to keep.

Lets say I select all of the fastest players vs the bigger slower but stronger players. Wouldn't I be guiding the direction of my team by how I select the players?

 

[JayFern]

Jay why do you feel the need to belittle others?

I'm not, you are belittling yourself by believing such nonsense.

Once, if you really wanted to know about evolution you would read about it for yourself but you don't, why is that?
we both know why, because you know full well that if you saw for yourself what evolution was about you might stop being a creationist and that you could never allow, why do creationist parents stop their children from learning about evolution? because they know it kills creationism that's why.

You want first and foremost to believe what you believe and if anything even comes close to stopping you doing that it must be squashed and dismissed before it can do any damage, if creationists had open minds they would never be creationists..

 

[Dizredux]

Paul

Non random processes can occur absent intelligent design. Like the perfectly round shape of the moon, for example.

Like evolved life forms, for example.

Once

Prove it.

Once

Don't talk down to me. Its rude. I know the theories on planet formation.

Then pray tell why do you make such a demand as "prove it"? The universe is set up where certain things are going to happen whether God is involved or not, whether we believe it or not. Gravity will make water flow downhill, gravity and chance determine the shape of moons and planets and so on. These things are simply physics and can be accurately predicted. Evolution is going to happen if the situation is correct (three factors). Again whether or not God has direct involvement or set up the system that way, these things are going to happen so to ask Paul to "prove" that intelligent design was *not* involved is just plain foolish.

Paul said:

Non random processes can occur absent intelligent design. Like the perfectly round shape of the moon, for example.

Like evolved life forms, for example.

Water flows downhill due to gravity. The path that water can be accurately predicted by simple typology. This alone validates Paul's statement that non random processes can occur absent intelligent design.

It is his claim that non-random processes can occur absent of intelligent design in the case of life forms and the shape of the moon. IF he makes the claim he needs to provide the evidence that there was no Intelligent design involved.

How does one provide evidence that no intelligent design is involved in any physical process? You can't.

Study the logic book you bought.


Dizredux

 

[justlookinla]

Which is the result of misunderstanding of the subject matter.

In reality, the only difference between micro and macro is the amount of generations.

There are no special mechanisms involved that only appear in one and not in the other.

It's inches and miles.

No, the only difference between micro and macro is not the amount of generations. The basic difference between micro and macro is that micro never produces a new life form as per the evidence, but with macro the unsubstantiated claim is made that new life forms are created entirely and only by naturalistic mechanisms. One is based on evidence, the other on guesses and suppositions.

 

[justlookinla]

Birds will be birds will be birds. "The current TOE says that it is a bird, the offspring will also be birds and all of the descendents will also be birds. "

Yes, what is the problem?

Didn't claim there was a problem. But if that's the case, the first life form from long long ago was a bird. And we're birds. Every life form is a bird. Trees are birds!!

Amazing isn't it?

 

[justlookinla]

Natural selection does not guide. It selects.

This.

 

[selfinflikted]

No, the only difference between micro and macro is not the amount of generations. The basic difference between micro and macro is that micro never produces a new life form as per the evidence, but with macro the unsubstantiated claim is made that new life forms are created entirely and only by naturalistic mechanisms. One is based on evidence, the other on guesses and suppositions.

What, then, is the barrier? What prevents speciation? If you accept "micro-evolution" then please explain what the mechanism is that prevents speciation.

 

[selfinflikted]

This.

Semantics.

 

[justlookinla]

What, then, is the barrier? What prevents speciation? If you accept "micro-evolution" then please explain what the mechanism is that prevents speciation.

Surely you're not comparing speciation to humanity being created from a single life form of long long ago, are you?

In speciation, birds are birds, moths are moths, ect.

 

[selfinflikted]

Surely you're not comparing speciation to humanity being created from a single life form of long long ago, are you?

You said...

No, the only difference between micro and macro is not the amount of generations. The basic difference between micro and macro is that micro never produces a new life form as per the evidence, but with macro the unsubstantiated claim is made that new life forms are created entirely and only by naturalistic mechanisms. One is based on evidence, the other on guesses and suppositions.

So, I'm asking: What is the barrier - the physical mechanism that stops speciation.