Why no evidence FOR creation/ID?

[Tayla]

Google Scholar is an easy to use search engine.

Thanks, I was unaware of this tool.

 

[tas8831]

It doesn't matter the specific mechanism by which mutations occur (and I know there are various of these).

Then one has to wonder what the impetus for several of your previous posts was.

The point is that, according to materialism, these mutations are not directed by an intelligent and powerful entity (God).

If by materialism, you mean empirical science, yes.

In other words, they are random, meaning, they are not directed. Natural selection filters out which have survival value.

Right.

So why all the gibberish about electrons being in the wrong spot and all that?

 

[Speedwell]

It doesn't matter the specific mechanism by which mutations occur (and I know there are various of these). The point is that, according to materialism, these mutations are not directed by an intelligent and powerful entity (God). In other words, they are random, meaning, they are not directed. Natural selection filters out which have survival value.

False. In science, "random" means "unpredictable."

 

[tas8831]

I'm trying to not be too technical, partially because I want to zero in on the essential ingredients and partially because I don't have a PhD on these topics.

The point is whether randomness is sufficient to generate the raw material (mutations) which natural selection operates upon. So far in my research, science answers, "of course it is, because materialism requires it." Not a very convincing argument.

That is because "randomness" is not the mechanism.

I don't care one way or another about materialism. But your not being convinced of something is not evidence that your unsupported alternative has merit.

 

[Tayla]

In reality, the genomes (or parts of genomes) have been sequenced from parent to offspring, and the resulting mutations are not in a planned or coordinated distribution

I suggest that instead of just simply assuming that you non-biological arguments have merit that you take the time to search for possible confounding or falsifying evidence.

I have read many technical articles on the topic. What they never say is, "mutations via random processes is sufficient to explain all of biological life." What they say instead is that it's too complex to demonstrate. As I understand it, this question is currently assumed as being true because the assumption of materialism requires it to be true.

 

[tas8831]

I have read many technical articles on the topic. What they never say is, "mutations via random processes is sufficient to explain all of biological life."

Why would you expect a technical article to present such a claim? I have read many apologetics essays, and not one has said "Jesus made mutations."

What they say instead is that it's too complex to demonstrate. As I understand it, this question is currently assumed as being true because the assumption of materialism requires it to be true.

Sounds made up.

In all these technical articles you've read - please show me 2 that state "mutations via random processes must occur and explain all life because materialism requires it."

 

[Tayla]

All I'm saying is that, according to materialism, mutations are random, as opposed to being directed by an intelligent and powerful entity (God).

And yet there are those who take the position that evolution is guided by God. There is a middle ground with this issue.
I have to ask: do you take issue with the use of the word random?

I am assuming that the randomness of the quantum mechanics wave function collapse (where the particle will appear, for example) is the source of all truly random phenomena. I'm not sure what you are asking with your question of randomness.

What is the middle ground?

 

[Speedwell]

I have read many technical articles on the topic. What they never say is, "mutations via random processes is sufficient to explain all of biological life." What they say instead is that it's too complex to demonstrate. As I understand it, this question is currently assumed as being true because the assumption of materialism requires it to be true.

That sounds like a fib to me. You are going to have to provide some citations.

 

[tas8831]

I am assuming that the randomness of the quantum mechanics wave function collapse (where the particle will appear, for example) is the source of all truly random phenomena. I'm not sure what you are asking with your question of randomness.

Pretty sure it has been explained to you that the 'random' in 'random mutation' refers to the fitness effects...

 

[Tayla]

My concerns are with the manner in which you think they occur.

I think the only relevant question is that changes to the genes are not directed by an intelligent powerful entity (God). They are true "accidents" from whatever mechanism. As such, they are random. They are not caused by some purposeful intention inherent in a design created beforehand. They just happen unexpectedly.

 

[Speedwell]

Pretty sure it has been explained to you that the 'random' in 'random mutation' refers to the fitness effects...

It won't make any difference. He wants to make the theory of evolution into a statement of metaphysical materialism and will ignore any explanation to the contrary.

 

[Speedwell]

I think the only relevant question is that changes to the genes are not directed by an intelligent powerful entity (God). They are true "accidents" from whatever mechanism. As such, they are random. They are not caused by some purposeful intention inherent in a design created beforehand. They just happen unexpectedly.

That's not what "random" means.

 

[tas8831]

I think the only relevant question is that changes to the genes are not directed by an intelligent powerful entity (God).

There is no evidence that they are, that is true.

They are true "accidents" from whatever mechanism. As such, they are random. They are not caused by some purposeful intention inherent in a design created beforehand. They just happen unexpectedly.

No, we expect them. We just have no real way of knowing where they will occur or whether they will affect fitness/phenotype. There are some ways to 'narrow it down' - mutations are more common in certain regions of the genome, for example. But these regions are very large.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I am assuming that the randomness of the quantum mechanics wave function collapse (where the particle will appear, for example) is the source of all truly random phenomena. I'm not sure what you are asking with your question of randomness.

I don't know enough about quantum mechanics to comment on it, but I know that random in evolutionary theory means that we don't know what part of the DNA is or will be affected by changes in environment.

What is the middle ground?

And the middle ground is what I said in the very post you replied to: And yet there are those who take the position that evolution is guided by God.

 

[Speedwell]

We just have no real way of knowing where they will occur or whether they will affect fitness/phenotype.

That's what "random" means. That is all that it means.

 

[USincognito]

I'm trying to not be too technical, partially because I want to zero in on the essential ingredients and partially because I don't have a PhD on these topics.

There's a PhD geneticist who posts here and he's always willing to answer sincere questions.

The point is whether randomness is sufficient to generate the raw material (mutations) which natural selection operates upon. So far in my research, science answers, "of course it is, because materialism requires it." Not a very convincing argument.

Science says no such thing, but if this is an allusion to having a problem methodological naturalism (as opposed the "materialism" then you're going to have a bigger problem with science than just genetics.

 

[dad]

Been away for a while, come back and see the same 'arguments' against evolution.

And it is always... ALWAYS... 'arguments' against evolution.

NEVER arguments FOR creation/ID.

Analogies to human activity, bible verses, 'problems' with evolution - none of these, not one of them, is evidence FOR creation or ID.


It is almost as if creationists have admitted to themselves, subconsciously, that they cannot actually offer any positive supporting evidence FOR their mere beliefs, and are content to simply attack 'the other.' This is true, whether the creationist is a one-line snark master, or a verbose citation and quote bombing autodidact.

The evidence for creation screams out all around us. In the stars, in hummingbirds, in flowers, in a baby.

The issue is that people chose to ignore it. To lift up science, and say that by science, and with science, and according to the little rules of science only...we should be able to (or want to) give arguments for creation is nothing more than worshiping some little god.

 

[tas8831]

The evidence for creation screams out all around us. In the stars, in hummingbirds, in flowers, in a baby..

Goofy emotionalism is not at all impressive in an adult.

 

[tas8831]

That's what "random" means. That is all that it means.

Sad that it has to be repeatedly spelled out for some.

 

[dad]

Goofy emotionalism is not at all impressive in an adult.

The heavens declare the glory of God, and His handiwork. Better to enjoy the wonders than to be dead as a doornail to them.