What about the differences between chimps and humans?

[renniks]

Well then, there you go, get to it. We are only claiming that no one has done it yet. Show us where science points to God.

Just keep in mind that I don't personally know how this could have occurred does not qualify as evidence for God.

Design always points to a designer. Why would the natural world be an exception?

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Design always points to a designer. Why would the natural world be an exception?

Even if that might be true, you have not demonstrated design yet. And it looks designed to me because I can't figure out how else it got here is still the I don't personally know.

Keep trying.

 

[dlamberth]

Design always points to a designer. Why would the natural world be an exception?

Because for creativity of nature a designer is not required.

 

[Vap841]

Design always points to a designer. Why would the natural world be an exception?

It’s possible, but if you take the classic example of Mt Rushmore the thing is that when you get even the loose dirt under a microscope you learn that that also looks like impressive design and organization, which can make you ask yourself well what if reality itself is simply always at a default level of organization? Even if things rust, and even if entropy wins against the whole universe what if reality itself is always in recycle mode? We can only speculate that the universe after heat death will recycle into some type of rebirth, but we can definitely see examples of rebirth within the universe, yes people die but people are also being born, yes stars die but new stars are also forming.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Here's another logical conclusion. The fundamental assumption underlying science is that the universe is determined. Physical laws control and we can come to know them.

Determinism isn't an assumption of science, it's a hypothesis that has been tested and, in general, confirmed. But as quantum mechanics has shown, it's possible that stochastic randomness is fundamental and determinism is emergent.

The logical extension of that assumption is that "randomness" merely implies ignorance: a thing cannot be determined and random. Yet "randomness" is fundamental component of Darwinism and all its derivatives. As to the diversity of life, the better scientific answer is, "We don't know, yet".

In science generally, and the biological sciences in particular, 'random' really means 'unpredictable' in the given context; so while the movement of particles that cause mutations may be in principle deterministic, it is not in practice possible to predict their interactions. They are, for all practical purposes in the given context, random. So yes, it implies ignorance - often the ignorance of not being Laplace's Demon.

But this doesn't invalidate our understanding of processes that use random inputs; statistics and the law of big numbers ensures that. The toss of a coin has an unpredictable outcome, but toss it a million times and the statistical outcome is FAPP definite. The temperature and pressure in a room depends on the individual unpredictable motions of billions of molecules, but we can confidently apply the gas laws.

Unpredictable mutations provide the mechanism of genetic variation in evolution, but by using a variety of mathematical and empirical methods and comparisons with real-world populations, we have developed statistical toolkits for modelling evolution - they won't tell you specifically how organisms will evolve, but they'll tell you the amount of genetic change and the amount of influence from various inputs to expect, how fast populations will grow or shrink in certain circumstances, and so-on.

There is no doubt about the basic principle of evolution - a population, in which random heritable variations influence the reproductive success of individuals, will evolve, it's algorithmically inevitable. The details of how this plays out in the real world are being explored and refined continuously.

 

[Frank Robert]

If there's such an intelligence it would have to be possible to observe it somehow through science.

Then it should be a piece of cake for creationist scientists to figure it out.

The idea that science can't point us to God is silly.

Why is it silly that deities can not be falsified?

 

[o_mlly]

The environment is involved - mutations are the main source of heritable variation and, while the environment can affect the mutation rate, it has most effect in its role in natural selection, by determining which variants are most successful. It's worth bearing in mind that for a given individual, the environment includes other creatures, including its own kind.

If we allow that a given environment includes co-existing creatures then environment is the only force that drives diversity in living creatures. Correct? That is, mutations in offspring are instrumental but not causal.

Species is not a well-defined scientific term - the interbreeding definition is more of a convenient rule of thumb. Populations may be considered separate species when they are sufficiently different to justify being treated separately in some context.

Morphological changes are not the whole story - there may be little morphological variation between species, and there may be significant differences in things like diet and behaviour without significant differences in external morphology. I would think genetic variation would be the key determinant.

It appears we agree that "species" is an invention rather than a discovery. As such, the term is arbitrary and of little value in a rigorous scientific endeavor. I agree that the movement to molecular biology will produce greatly improved classifications of living beings.

I don't know the detailed differences between them, but IIRC, they're both West African. The Fongoli area tends to be hotter and dryer than the rainforest, so more physiologically stressful in that respect, and the Fongoli chimps show significantly different physiological stress markers as a consequence. They also seem to be significantly more creative and flexible in their behaviour, e.g. culture & tool use, and notably sanguine about fire. I don't know whether they can interbreed productively with rainforest chimps, but given their different behaviours and physiological responses, I would suspect that they're considered to be a subspecies of the West African chimp. Their genetics will indicate their lineage.

It occurred to me that their more flexible, creative behaviour might be an adaptation to the more challenging environmental extremes of their range, echoing similar evolutionary developments in the early ancestors of humans as they moved onto the savannah...

As it appears we agree that "species" is not a scientific categorization but a rather fluid term of convenience so we can dismiss the search for evidence of "speciation" in nature.

Examining the various evolution theories, which do you think meets best the requirements for a scientific hypothesis, ie., is testable, is falsifiable, and has predictive power?

 

[o_mlly]

Determinism isn't an assumption of science, it's a hypothesis that has been tested and, in general, confirmed. But as quantum mechanics has shown, it's possible that stochastic randomness is fundamental and determinism is emergent.

Determinism is the sine qua non presumption of science. Every scientific hypothesis depends on the truth that nature is determined. If untrue then the scientific endeavor would collapse. I do not know of any particular hypothesis that lists as one of its assumptions that "nature is deterministic"; it's presumed universally.

Quantum mechanics suggests that the ultimate material world may very well depend on consciousness of it. If true then the "mind over matter" will resolve to Descartes' insight and replace Laplace's demon. Evolution theories will be just one area that quantum studies will eventually affect. The physicists, I think, will follow the molecular biologists into the field and improve our understanding of life on the planet. I will call the ultimate necessary consciousness that directs mutations, "God"; others will simply refer to it as "the Cosmic Consciousness".

 

[Frank Robert]

It appears we agree that "species" is an invention rather than a discovery. As such, the term is arbitrary and of little value in a rigorous scientific endeavor.

You appear fixated on species needing to be an exact measurement to be of scientific value.

 

[renniks]

Because for creativity of nature a designer is not required.

Nonsense.

 

[renniks]

Then it should be a piece of cake for creationist scientists to figure it out.

They have.

 

[Frank Robert]

They have.

As usual, vacuous claims without substance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They have.

No, They really have not. In fact they do not have any scientific evidence for their beliefs at all. All they have are arguments from ignorance, strawman arguments, and outright lying.

 

[renniks]

No, They really have not. In fact they do not have any scientific evidence for their beliefs at all. All they have are arguments from ignorance, strawman arguments, and outright lying.

Says random internet guy. Why would I believe him?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Says random internet guy. Why would I believe him?

Because unlike you I can support my claims. You can't.

Tell us how they have it figure out. I know that you can't.

 

[renniks]

Because unlike you I can support my claims. You can't.

Tell us how they have it figure out. I know that you can't.

It's nothing you would be willing to understand, because you are steeped in your belief system. But evolution theory doesn't work with what we know about DNA.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's nothing you would be willing to understand, because you are steeped in your belief system. But evolution theory doesn't work with what we know about DNA.

Please do not project your flaws upon others. I am willing to consider anything supported by scientific evidence. The problem is that creationists have none.

 

[AV1611VET]

I am willing to consider anything supported by scientific evidence. The problem is that creationists have none.

That says it all right there.

Tell me, did Peter (not Jesus, Peter) walk on water? and if you say NO, are you doing it with respect to science, or in spite of it?

 

[Phred]

I don't have to. Because belief doesn't have to be proven. If you are gonna call something science, you need hard evidence, however.

You claimed that evolution was improbable. But you don't know how. I know exactly how the evidence shows life evolved. I know how it shows natural selection was the method by which it happened. We have more evidence than can be contained in a host of museums. And yet you still continue to spew these lies. Now, I asked you to explain how you figured out which god existed. Not that a god existed. It's a simple question. Since you've conquered an improbable question in your own life please, let us in on the method.

You won't though. Because you never did. Someone told you and you just went with it and you've been merrily screaming that it's truth ever since. You are in no position to tell anyone that they should be more discerning. Are you?

 

[Phred]

That says it all right there.

Tell me, did Peter (not Jesus, Peter) walk on water? and if you say NO, are you doing it with respect to science, or in spite of it?

We've been over this a million times. There can be no evidence. Peter or Jesus. I say no human being ever "walked on water" since that's not possible. Physics tells us you can't. Viscosity and such. That's science. Now you want to argue about whether we can know if someone 2,000 years ago did. Since nobody can, the answer is simple.

No.