Why I do not accept evolution part two.

[Subduction Zone]

Plumbers can understand circulatory systems, especially if it's in the industrial realm. No, they don't repair them. But biologists are not necessarily surgeons either.

Assume what you like. I don't have time to answer every response I've got to my posts.

Dunning Kruger at its finest.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

You don't need to be an expert on biology to disbelieve evolution.

True. Anyone who understands biology accepts evolution. It's those who do not understand who reject it.

A biological closed loop system has to meet the same requirements as an electro-mechanical system., but in a far more difficult and demanding environment than most.

Nice assertion. Can you support it?

A biologist starts with an assumption that it must have evolved because that's what he's been told.

Hogwash. With so many people telling you that's not how it works you just make yourself look incapable of listening and learning. Dishonesty and ignoring others when they correct you is not a great way to debate.

Like many subjects, the initial view seems plausible. Evolution has the advantage that any alternative is not taught.

There is no plausible alternative to teach, so I don't see what your point is.

More objective observers can see the flaws.

There is nothing "objective" about religious dogma and blinkered thinking.

 

[Ophiolite]

A biologist starts with an assumption that it must have evolved because that's what he's been told.

Your misunderstanding of the nature of science and scientists is astounding. Since you won't bother trying to understand what I am writing here, this is composed for those with curiosity and a hunger to learn.

A biologist makes a start on becoming a biologist by acquiring a Bachelors or Masters degree. This is not based on the prospective biologist "being told" things, though there is some of that conventional teaching. Rather she or he is expected to learn things through observation, through experiment, through discussion, through critical study of the works of biology research, through sceptical questioning of hypotheses and of experienced biologists.
If they move on to conduct their own serious research their success will be determined by their ability to discover something new, or to generate a new perspective on old data. If they merely regurgitate established ideas they won't even get published.

So, the notion that biologists accept what they have been told is ludicrous. If that is true of anyone then either they are a feeble excuse for a scientist, or they have attended a farce of university.

 

[Kylie]

Plumbers can understand circulatory systems, especially if it's in the industrial realm. No, they don't repair them. But biologists are not necessarily surgeons either.

Assume what you like. I don't have time to answer every response I've got to my posts.

Is that the best you've got? Next time you have problems with your circulatory system, let's see if you call a plumber or a doctor.

And a nice excuse to get out of responding to my posts that are too difficult for you.

 

[pitabread]

You don't need to be an expert on biology to disbelieve evolution.

That much is obvious, given that there is a direct correlation between lack of understanding of evolution and its disbelief. Why do you think not understanding evolution makes it easier to disbelieve?

If evolution were really as flawed as you think it is, wouldn't the opposite be true?

More objective observers can see the flaws.

Do you apply the same standard to your own beliefs? Or do you reserve that only for things you personally disagree with?

 

[xianghua]

In all honestly, I don't think the question should be whether or not evolution exists; clearly evolution exists

if you refer to common descent i dont think so. for instance we cant prove that human share a common descent with banana. on the other hand we can prove design(see my signaure link for such evidence). thus design is the best explanation.

 

[Aussie Pete]

That much is obvious, given that there is a direct correlation between lack of understanding of evolution and its disbelief. Why do you think not understanding evolution makes it easier to disbelieve?

If evolution were really as flawed as you think it is, wouldn't the opposite be true?



Do you apply the same standard to your own beliefs? Or do you reserve that only for things you personally disagree with?

The problem with disbelieving evolution is the lack of opportunity for people to hear the alternative. Most educational institutions consign Creation to the realm of religion, which it is not. I was fortunate to be educated in an era when both were taught on an equal footing.

Josef Goebbels understood very well how easy people are to convince. "A lie told once remains a lie, but a lie told a thousand times becomes the truth." This is especially so when no alternative is presented. Anyone who dares to disagree is subject to insults, mockery, and downright libel in some cases. All this to defend a belief system that has little bearing on every day life.

Stating that I do not believe in evolution produces (to me) an amazing response. It's not only this forum. I've been on quite a few blogs and had the same reaction. You'd think I'd advocated for a return to slavery or bringing back public executions. I am not bothered. Just bemused.

 

[Aussie Pete]

True. Anyone who understands biology accepts evolution. It's those who do not understand who reject it.
Oh really? There are many scientist who reject evolution. Are so you saying that people with doctorates are too dumb to understand biology?

Nice assertion. Can you support it?

Do you know anything about closed loop temperature control systems? It would seem not. You want me to study biology. How about you studying temperature control?

Hogwash. With so many people telling you that's not how it works you just make yourself look incapable of listening and learning. Dishonesty and ignoring others when they correct you is not a great way to debate.

Pots and Kettles. Fakery, lies, forgeries, instant declarations later proven to be wrong (a bird in amber, oh actually its a lizard. Not much difference really).

There is no plausible alternative to teach, so I don't see what your point is.
Only implausible to you.

There is nothing "objective" about religious dogma and blinkered thinking.

Blinkered? Maybe, but I'm not blind. Unlike evolutionists.

 

[Ophiolite]

Stating that I do not believe in evolution produces (to me) an amazing response. It's not only this forum. I've been on quite a few blogs and had the same reaction. You'd think I'd advocated for a return to slavery or bringing back public executions. I am not bothered. Just bemused.

It is not your belief that brings these reactions. I have no problem whatsoever if you were to declare that you do not believe in evolution, that you accept the Word of God as expressed in Scripture and your faith assures you that you are correct. I think such a position, while it is not one I could accept, is one that I could fully respect.

What I cannot accept and what I will not respect is your insistence that the evidence does not support evolution. This is such a ludicrous, ignorant, unconscionable position that it is difficult to view it with anything other than revulsion. The evidence is there from anatomy, palaeontology, molecular biology, genetics, zoology, botany, microbiology, biochemistry, geology, ethology, et cetera, et cetera. We have close to two hundred years of observation and experiment and hypotheses formation/testing, in dozens of disciplines, conducted by tens of thousands of scientists (many of them Christians), producing millions of research papers, all building a well validated, painstakingly questioned (and answered) theoretical structure of outstanding elegance and conviction.

And you say "I don't believe the evidence". Yet you are bemused when some of us turn to you, shake our heads and say ridiculous.

 

[pitabread]

The problem with disbelieving evolution is the lack of opportunity for people to hear the alternative. Most educational institutions consign Creation to the realm of religion, which it is not.

You appear to be contradicting yourself.

First, if there really were an scientifically viable alternative, we'd expect something of at minimum equivalent (if not better) explanatory power and application.

However, when I asked you to explain how the diversity of species was created (among other things), your ultimate response was this:

The natural man does not accept or understand the things of God- they are foolish to him. I gave up trying to work out God about 49 years ago.​

Why I do not accept evolution part one (Post #33)

It doesn't look like there's an alternative explanation and you haven't been able to provide one.

Furthermore, your claim that Creation (notice you used a capital "C"?) is not a religion is further contradicted when you said this in the same thread:

What I am saying is that God's word is clear on the issue. Man was created at a particular point in time, complete and in God's image. There is no way that you can infer evolution from the Bible account in Genesis. Jesus Himself said that God made Adam and Eve. When? "From the beginning". That is not compatible with millions/billions of years of evolution.
​

Why I do not accept evolution part one (Post #17)

If belief in Creation doesn't constitute a religion, then why does it always appear dependent on a preexisting religious belief?

Unfortunately, there seems to be little consistency in your own claims between the two threads you've started.

 

[Speedwell]

Stating that I do not believe in evolution produces (to me) an amazing response. It's not only this forum. I've been on quite a few blogs and had the same reaction. You'd think I'd advocated for a return to slavery or bringing back public executions. I am not bothered. Just bemused.

If all you did was state that you did not believe in evolution, but said that you didn't really know much about it but wanted to know what the arguments if favor of it were, you would have gotten respectful treatment here.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

A biological closed loop system has to meet the same requirements as an electro-mechanical system., but in a far more difficult and demanding environment than most. A biologist starts with an assumption that it must have evolved because that's what he's been told. Like many subjects, the initial view seems plausible.

It does help that you can see every significant stage in circulatory system evolution represented in various currently living creatures... Much as one can see the various stages of the transition from water to land and back again represented (mud-skippers, epaulette sharks, etc., and hippos, sea otters, seals, dugongs, etc.).

 

[Larniavc]

You don't need to be an expert on biology to disbelieve evolution.

No, you MUST not be an expert to disbelieve evolution.

 

[Aussie Pete]

If all you did was state that you did not believe in evolution, but said that you didn't really know much about it but wanted to know what the arguments if favor of it were, you would have gotten respectful treatment here.

Well, I do know something about it, I know at least some of the arguments for it and I remain utterly unconvinced. I do not care whether I'm respected. My experiences with atheist evolutionists is that they have zero respect for anyone who dares to question evolution. They include:

Michael Behe, "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution"
Michael Denton, medical doctor and molecular biologist, , "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" (1985).
Benjamin R. Vowels, Ph.D., Microbiology, UC Davis;
ROBERT JENKINS, Ph.D. Biology, Ithaca College
DAVID WILCOX, Ph.D. Biology, Eastern College

Do you want the rest of the list? 480 in total, and that is far from a comprehensive list.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, I do know something about it, I know at least some of the arguments for it and I remain utterly unconvinced. I do not care whether I'm respected. My experiences with atheist evolutionists is that they have zero respect for anyone who dares to question evolution. They include:

Michael Behe, "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution"
Michael Denton, medical doctor and molecular biologist, , "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" (1985).
Benjamin R. Vowels, Ph.D., Microbiology, UC Davis;
ROBERT JENKINS, Ph.D. Biology, Ithaca College
DAVID WILCOX, Ph.D. Biology, Eastern College

Do you want the rest of the list? 480 in total, and that is far from a comprehensive list.

Your first two sources have not only been thoroughly debunked, the authors have been shown to be less than honest.

Worse yet for you your first source accepts evolution. He just believes in magic evolution.

When all you have are failed sources and a terrible attitude is it any wonder that those who accept reality do not treat you with very much respect?

 

[pitabread]

Well, I do know something about it, I know at least some of the arguments for it and I remain utterly unconvinced. I do not care whether I'm respected. My experiences with atheist evolutionists is that they have zero respect for anyone who dares to question evolution. They include:

Michael Behe, "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution"
Michael Denton, medical doctor and molecular biologist, , "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" (1985).
Benjamin R. Vowels, Ph.D., Microbiology, UC Davis;
ROBERT JENKINS, Ph.D. Biology, Ithaca College
DAVID WILCOX, Ph.D. Biology, Eastern College

Do you want the rest of the list? 480 in total, and that is far from a comprehensive list.

The list you are referring to seems mostly cribbed from the Discovery Institute's "Dissent from Darwinism" list, among other random sources.

Unfortunately the majority of said list does not really affirm actual skepticism of evolution, given how weak the actual statement from the DI is:

We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.​

This is such a benign statement that arguably every biologist on the planet would agree with it. It in no way supports the idea that any of those signatories are necessarily creationist or intelligent design proponents.

There are also other issues with said lists including the fact that a lot of signatories don't even have relevant credentials. Just scanning through the list, I see engineers, law professors, chemists, astronomers, etc. How are any of these people's opinions about biology relevant exactly?

When you start cutting out the chaff, you'll find the actual list of relevant individuals is a lot smaller. And then you can deal with their criticisms on a case-by-case basis.

Using Behe as an example, I actually give him credit for trying to come with an argument against evolution (irreducible complexity), but unfortunately it turns out that irreducible complexity is not synonymous with un-evolvable. Thus Behe's arguments have been repudiated under examination and fallen by the wayside.

This is the case with pretty much all of intelligent design/creationism arguments over the past 50+ years. If proponents of said beliefs want to actually replace evolution in biology, they need to bring something equivalent or better to the table.

They've never done that.

 

[Speedwell]

Well, I do know something about it, I know at least some of the arguments for it and I remain utterly unconvinced. I do not care whether I'm respected. My experiences with atheist evolutionists is that they have zero respect for anyone who dares to question evolution. They include:

Michael Behe, "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution"
Michael Denton, medical doctor and molecular biologist, , "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" (1985).
Benjamin R. Vowels, Ph.D., Microbiology, UC Davis;
ROBERT JENKINS, Ph.D. Biology, Ithaca College
DAVID WILCOX, Ph.D. Biology, Eastern College

Do you want the rest of the list? 480 in total, and that is far from a comprehensive list.

How about "evolutionists" who are not atheists? How much respect do they have for you?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Blinkered? Maybe, but I'm not blind. Unlike evolutionists.

Another unsupported assertion. That's very weak debating.

Where's the evidence for circulatory systems having the same requirements as electromechanical ones?

 

[ruthiesea]

Fact: the theory of evolution meets all of the criteria of a valid scientific theory.
Fact: there is nothing in the theory that says that G-d does not exist.
Fact: scientist try to disprove (invalidate) theories using valid scientific methods. Thus far, all of the evidence supports evolution and it has not yet been invalidated.

Either you believe in G-d or you do not. Either way, evolution is a valid theory and does not interfere with my belief in G-d.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

None of this addresses my point in the context of your original claim about a radio always being a radio.

The point is about limitations of variability in hierarchical information systems, the radio being merely a simple proof of principle.

Where a range of variation is inherently limited by the system that supports it
Maybe a better example, since it involves digital information:

You can throw random values at the text parameters here, some will work better than others, but you have a reasonable shot at a viable outcome, because the system specifically limits the options to viable ones

Within this software architecture, 'random mutations' work fine, and can even be used to search for optimal configs- as your experiments also demonstrate. But of course you understand why you can never write a new program this way- you can't simply extrapolate these minor variations into a 'macro' change into a new software application

Now try throwing random values at the source code in your operating system-

the chances of improving your operating system are not zero, they are just vanishingly small- because the options are not constrained to viable ones, so there are an infinitely greater number of ways to crash the system rather than improve on it.

This is exactly the same with DNA- it's a hierarchical digital information system which is uncannily computer-like. sure you can throw random values at eye color control genes, they are set up that way- but you simply cannot extrapolate these superficial variations into macro evolutionary ones.


in short; biological adaptation is a design feature, not a design mechanism