Why I do not accept evolution part one

[coffee4u]

I was talking about the "I don't like it because it's not in the Bible" excuse for being against certain things.

Talking about doctrine is completely different to things like electronics or physical things not yet invented at the time.

Computers and such are tools, they can be used for ill or for good. Physical items are neutral.

What 'certain things' are you thinking about anyway? I doubt I've ever said it.

 

[coffee4u]

Infer it from evidence... it's an important distinction.

Evolution is the conclusion, not the initial assumption.

And we have completely different conclusions.

 

[Shemjaza]

And we have completely different conclusions.

True.

But evolution has evidence. The alternatives I've seen presented, do not.

 

[Kylie]

Talking about doctrine is completely different to things like electronics or physical things not yet invented at the time.

I fear you are making the analogy too specific. Many times I've heard people claim that they are against something because it wasn't in the Bible. I don't see how you can justify that ideas don't count just because they aren't physical. I once knew someone who refused to fly because she believed they were unbiblical.

Computers and such are tools, they can be used for ill or for good. Physical items are neutral.

Again, special pleading.

What 'certain things' are you thinking about anyway? I doubt I've ever said it.

If man was meant to fly, he would have given us wings!

 

[coffee4u]

I fear you are making the analogy too specific. Many times I've heard people claim that they are against something because it wasn't in the Bible. I don't see how you can justify that ideas don't count just because they aren't physical. I once knew someone who refused to fly because she believed they were unbiblical.


Again, special pleading.

If man was meant to fly, he would have given us wings!

Special pleading for what?
Again, I've never said anything like that so it makes your argument kind of pointless.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Not quite.

The Bible talks of God creating animals fully formed from the water, then entirely different animals fully formed from the land. That is not in agreement with the scientific description.

So not everything at once- but in a specific order- the forms life takes, change over time- point being: that's a description of macro-evolution, if not by Darwinian processes. How exactly the change happened is still a question of course.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Using their commonly accepted definitions, both are observed and neither is speculated. Of course, you have a non-standard definition of at least one of those terms which allows you to make these silly assertions.

we can observe variety being bred in dogs

we cannot observe a single celled bacteria-like organism becoming a human being, through accidental copying errors.

It's a hypothetical extrapolation, like observing an apple falling from a tree- claiming the laws involved to be 'immutable' and so extrapolating them into a comprehensive explanation for all physical reality. It's understandable, a very tempting and intuitive thought experiment of course. And represented the Victorian age model of reality Darwinian evolution was born into- extrapolated from itself.

That is a truly awful analogy. It is wrong in so many ways it's hard to know which failing to pick on first. Let's start with the obvious point that DNA is not a man made computer programming language and only bears a passing resemblance to one if you try really hard to force it into that box.

Interesting point of view!- Tell that to Richard Dawkins and Bill gates:

"The machine code of the genes is uncannily computerlike. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular-biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer-engineering journal. . ": Dawkins

“DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.” Gates

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Okay if it is "evidently nonsense of a high order" present the evidence?

You arrive at the conclusion of intelligent design... what is the evidence that brought you to that conclusion?

That was Hoyle's characterization- I don't go that far. As above, I think Darwinian evolution is an entirely intuitive, elegant, logical and beautiful theory- just as classical/ Newtonian physics was.
The problem being that nature doesn't comply with our 'Occam's Razor' sensibilities!

If you dig up the Rosetta Stone- what evidence leads you to the conclusion of ID?

i.e. creative intelligence has entirely objective fingerprints that can be observed and established- as used by archaeologists and forensic scientists.

Anyone can declare anything to be truth or not truth, or science or not science.

However science has actual definitions... you need evidence. Many an accomplished scientist has strayed from actually performing science for personal reasons, they are only human.

However science has an inbuilt advantage. No matter how shocking or different to the accepted facts, if you can present coherent repeatable evidence then it's science.

I agree:'scientists can stray from science' and so there's the crucial distinction between 'science' the method and 'science' the academic opinion- which have often been diametrically opposed historically.

'science progresses one funeral at a time': Max Planck- meaning that scientists generally don't accept 'shocking/different' conclusions than they are comfortable with- you have have to wait a generation for new scientists to be open to them

The real problem is that genetic information can trivially be created by random mutations.

Sections of DNA can be changed or repeated in the reproduction process, this allows new functions.

No pre-loading required.

in a limited capacity- as above- randomly mutating the text parameters here can create interesting new combinations - because the system is specifically designed to allow for this capacity for variation

Randomly mutating the operating system will crash it- because is not. i,e, random variation is a specifically supported design feature, not a comprehensive design mechanism.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Let us accept that there are pre-determined limits to the variability permitted by random variation in DNA.

• What evidence do you have that these limits preclude evolution of the biosphere from a simple common ancestor?

well first that's a 'prove it ain't so' argument- extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

What evidence do we have that a bacteria like organism CAN produce the biosphere through accidental copying errors? So far we have been able to show bacteria evolving into- more bacteria, that leaves a tiny bit of a gap in terms of direct demonstration of the larger claim!

But it's still an information hierarchy problem- in an even simpler analogy- an old analogue radio has a capacity for variation- you can randomly turn the dials and get different signals and sound quality. But a trillion years of experimentation with these variations will never create a CD player- no matter how lucky you get.

• What evidence do you have that these limits are not subject to change as a consequence of certain, earlier random changes?

well that's one thing the theory relies on: that things must have worked differently in the past than we observe now- i.e. we whatever the mechanism, it's NOT the one originally posited- that slight variations as observed in nature- can be extrapolated out to explain all diversity of the biosphere- something else is going on.

Thus far, all I can see is you asserting that neither of these possibilities are valid, but offering nothing in support of the claim. It looks very much like the logical fallacy of Argument from Incredulity.

it's an argument in the affirmative:

DNA is a digital hierarchical information system, with the same inherent limitations on what random changes can and cannot achieve

I'm not saying we have no idea how such a system might be originated-
we do know, and we are using an example of that proven mechanism right now: creative intelligence. We just don't know how natural mechanisms could do the same.

 

[Brightmoon]

But you have no verifiable evidence of a creative intelligence, you’ve just made an assumption . This assumption might work in religion but they’re a no no in science

 

[Ophiolite]

well first that's a 'prove it ain't so' argument- extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I am not making an argument. I am questioning your assertion. I am making no assertion of my own. I am asking you to provide support for your assertion. Now please stop with the avoiding tactics. They may work on fools - lets work on the premise there are no fools here.

What evidence do we have that a bacteria like organism CAN produce the biosphere through accidental copying errors? So far we have been able to show bacteria evolving into- more bacteria, that leaves a tiny bit of a gap in terms of direct demonstration of the larger claim!

1. We have the mountains of evidence for evolution that fully support the production of the biosphere through mechanisms that include copying errors. You have produced no evidence to counter this other than your incredulity. Please ante up, or retreat.
2. You seem ignorant of the fact that the genes of bacteria A may differ more from bacteria B than your gens do from a nematode worm. If you insist upon speaking of bacteria as if they were all some sort of Biblical kind then you can hardly expect to have your views accorded any respect or attention.

But it's still an information hierarchy problem- in an even simpler analogy- an old analogue radio has a capacity for variation- you can randomly turn the dials and get different signals and sound quality. But a trillion years of experimentation with these variations will never create a CD player- no matter how lucky you get.

Good analogies can be used to educate, clarify and explain. They cannot be used to support, or prove a point. Bad analogies - of the type you have offered here - are a waste of electricity.

Once you have addressed these points with evidence, not empty assertion and silly analogies then I shall comment on your other remarks.

 

[Gene2memE]

Seen in fully functioning creatures that are already here.

Sure. That's all that we have to study.

However, I challenge your assertion that creatures are "fully functional". For instance, did you know humans (and bats and guinea pigs) have an error in their metabolic system that the ~6000 other species of mammal don't?

They haven't observed some other creature turn into a snake, they assume it.

Funny you should say that, I've got an amazing book recommendation for you: https://www.amazon.com/How-Snake-Lost-its-Legs/dp/1107621399

 

[Brightmoon]

Some

Some snakes lost their front legs and had hind legs for a while

 

[Bungle_Bear]

we can observe variety being bred in dogs

That's evolution in it's common definition.

we cannot observe a single celled bacteria-like organism becoming a human being, through accidental copying errors.

As I said, you have a non-standard definition of at least one of the terms.

Interesting point of view!- Tell that to Richard Dawkins and Bill gates:

"The machine code of the genes is uncannily computerlike. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular-biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer-engineering journal. . ": Dawkins

You obviously don't understand the difference between computer engineering and programming languages. Interesting coming from somebody who claims a background in coding.

“DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.” Gates

Bill Gates is not a geneticist. I'll go with the geneticists who say that the more we discover about DNA, the less like a computer language it looks.

 

[Kylie]

Special pleading for what?
Again, I've never said anything like that so it makes your argument kind of pointless.

Special pleading in that you claim that there's a difference between applying that reasoning to ideas and applying it to physical things, despite never actually backing up that claim. Special pleading - Wikipedia

 

[Kylie]

So not everything at once- but in a specific order- the forms life takes, change over time- point being: that's a description of macro-evolution, if not by Darwinian processes. How exactly the change happened is still a question of course.

Unfortunately, the order in the Bible doesn't work either, regardless of whether you go with the Gen 1 or Gen 2 account.

In the Genesis 1, the order is:

1. Plants on earth (Gen 1:11-12)
2. Animals in the water and birds (Gen 1:20-21)
3. Land animals (Gen 1:24-25)
4. Humans (Gen 1:26-27)

In Genesis 2, the order is:

1. Humans (Gen 2:7)
2. Plants on Earth (Gen 2:8-9)
3. Animals (all from the ground, none from the water this time) and birds (Gen 2:19)

According to science, the order was probably (very simplified):

1. Life formed in the oceans
2. Plants appeared on land
3. Insects appeared on land
4. Amphibians, reptiles and other land vertebrates appear at various times
5. Some mammals return to an aquatic environment to eventually become whales
6. Humans.

You can find a more detailed timeline of the development of life HERE. As you can see, neither of the accounts in the Bible matches what happened.

 

[Speedwell]

Why should it matter? That wasn't the point of ether of those stories.

 

[Kylie]

Why should it matter? That wasn't the point of ether of those stories.

I've seen plenty of people here who think it is.

 

[coffee4u]

Sure. That's all that we have to study.

Exactly. You see what is there and how you believe it got that way is the story woven around the facts. No matter how much it looks to be correct to you, it is still an assumption based on the facts. Assumptions can be wrong.

However, I challenge your assertion that creatures are "fully functional". For instance, did you know humans (and bats and guinea pigs) have an error in their metabolic system that the ~6000 other species of mammal don't?

The creation model has the creation made at its peak with all systems slowly gathering mistakes(mutations) and running down. Information gets spread and lost and pockets develop with certain genes. Completely opposite from evolution that believes in simple to more and more complexity.

By fully functional I mean people normally have arms, hands, eyesight, hearing etc and they can reproduce. They are not on their way to developing a wing or anything else half unfinished. Humans will not one day fly, given a million years we will still be human with 2 arms. Evolution should expect something new in that time if you truly believe every single species is evolving.

Funny you should say that, I've got an amazing book recommendation for you: https://www.amazon.com/How-Snake-Lost-its-Legs/dp/1107621399

I already know how the snake lost its legs.
Genesis 3
14 So the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this,

“Cursed are you above all livestock
and all wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[Tinker Grey]

@coffee4u,
Do you also know how the camel got its hump?