Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.
Evolution by natural selection excludes God, because it attempts to explain everything in terms of naturalism. Every ad hoc explanation is offered and considered, as long as intelligent design is excluded. That is not objective science and is illogical.
Panspermia is dodging the question. If life was planted here by aliens, then the question remains,... where did the aliens come from. Did they evolved, or was intelligent design operative. You cannot simply add more time to keep the theory of evolution intact.
The overall theory of evolution encompasses all naturalistic explanations, known or unknown.
May I remind you that in the 1400's most scientists believed in the geocentric theory of the universe because of observation. Much like evolutionists today, they made an unfounded assumption, and convinced themselves that all of their obervations fit that assumption. If an observation was discrepant, then new theories were invented to explain the facts. There was no "conspiracy". The fact is, history has taught us that the majority of "scientists" can be dead wrong. Human nature has not changed.
There are enormous differences between apes and humans, not the least of which is intelligence associated with a three-fold increase in brain size.
Let's compare chimp and human.
Looking genome wide there are about 35 million single nucleotide that are different plus about 5 million indels (insertion/deletion=indel). Assume a 10 million year evolution, which is generous. 40 million nucleotide differences would have to have accumulated over a ten million year period. 40,000,000 divided by 10,000,000 gives you 4 nucleotides established genome wide per year for ten million years. This simply does not happen in nature and something infinitly more important. Evolutionists have been telling us that we are virtually identical to apes and the fact is that we are vastly different. For every 400 nucleotides in the human genome as compared to the chimpanzee genome there is one difference by even the most conservative estimate.
Although obvious phenotypic similaries exist between man and apes, evolutionists cannot explain any mechanism as to how we could be related.
That is simply untrue. There is no continuum between birds and reptiles, and no explanation for the evolution of the feather, either empirically or conceptually.
Evolutionists have stated this, but there is no evidence of such.
If you believe God has His hand in it, you're denyinig a pillar of evolutionary thinking... natural selection.
The analogy doesn't work because you can't gradually go from, for example, an amphibian to a reptile. One has a reproductive system involving aquatic eggs and complex metamorphosis, while the reptile lays terrestrial eggs which hatch fully differentiated offspring. You cannot gradually go from a reptilian lung to an avian lung. The two organs are vastly different, and visualizing functional intermediates is impossible. This is an insurmountable problem for gradualism. I agree that gradualism might work in some cases, but you can't use those examples to prove that it is universally plausible.
the same metamorphosis appears as in amphibians apears in reptiles, birds and humans. Humans, for example, have something resembling gills during development in the uterus. IT's just that reptiles use the hard egg and allow the ofspring to develop on inside the amnios as oposed to developing in the water.This creates independence from water.
"As a biologist, I firmly believe that when you're dead, you're dead. Except for what you live behind in history. That's the only afterlife" - J. Craig Venter
You obviously must grossly oversimplify a pathway to bear any semblance of credibility. The amniotic egg is totally different from a terrestrial egg. You cannot demonstrate a step by step sequence of one leading to another.
What is you point in eluding to the pharyngeal clefts of human embryos which "resemble gills?"
Springer... you have yet to respond to my post about creation in any form not fitting into the realm of science. You've clearly either not read it or are completely disregarding it.
Macroevolution does not rule out creation, as creation clearly defies all the laws upon which the theory of macroevolution is based. Creation operates outside the parameters of science. It's possible that God is playing a huge joke on us by creating the geological time scale and planting fossils in it.
Even so, no-one can deny that the scientific advances we've made in our attempts to uncover our pre-history have been amazing and the technology that has developed out of it has helped humanity in many ways.
It is a scientific attempt to understand the world and universe we live in. Period.
about panspermia, you're right. It just extends the question.
I don't remember a specific source, but there have been news of "freaks" who have retained gills developed while they were embryos and these never changed into parts of the face such as ears. And there's other cases of people who grew tails.
Mutations aren't limited to a base by base basis, there are ways in which the whole chromosome or large chunks of code changes.
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
The "tails" to which you refer are rudimentary and non-functional anomalies. No such thing would ever persist in the species by natural selection.
Human embryos do not possess gills at any stage of development.
You are correct... and all of these mutations to which you refer are harmful, not beneficial to the species.
Let's assume, for argument's sake, that evolution is science and ID is not. I am arguing against evolution. If I can prove evolution wrong, then ID obviously is the best viable alternative. What evolutionists do is refuse to accept scrutiny because any criticism of evolution is deemed "creationism" and thus "unscientific". If you want to call evolution "science", then you must accept scrutiny. Every time hostile evidence is presented, your defense is "it's not science".
Macroevolution by natural selection rules out intelligent design, by definition.
Creation is not "magic". Intelligent design operates within laws we don't understand. You seem to have no problem accepting abiogenesis, despite the fact that you have no clue what laws were in operation to cause self-assembly of DNA. Why is that within the realm of science and creation excluded?
There is nothing in the fossil record that proclaims evolution. The fossil record is evidence of intelligent design. The geologic column is imaginary and not supported by objective science.
If you're suggesting that evolution has helped humanity, you're really stretching.
No. Natural selection simply says that the environment in which an organism lives favors certain traits, so those traits are favored in the evolution of that organism. There's no reason to suppose that God didn't cause the environment to be that way, in order to cause that species to evolve. It's possible to envision that God was responsible for every step in the evolutionary process, but doing so doesn't deny natural selection. It just redefines our conception of how God works; magical "poof" is replaced by careful tinkering.
By the way, Springer, I'm sorry if this seems inapporpriate but I have to ask. Do you keep questioning my faith because you're interested to know what I believe or are you trying to get me to deny something?
Yes they do. I once saw an ultrasound of my little cousin when she was still in the womb, and she had gills.
Why? You yourself have said that God could've used evolution. So if it's possible for God to use it, why does it rule out God? That's like saying that a carpenter can use a hammer, so the existence of hammers proves that carpenters don't exist.
You seem to be trying hard to differentiate ID and old-fashioned creationism. From what I've seen of it, ID seems to be old-fashioned creationism in disguise. The reason I say that is because both say the same thing. Both claim that life was created in a non-evolutionary manner by an intelligent designer. The only difference is that creationism calls the designer God, and ID leaves him nameless. So, I ask you, what exactly is the difference between ID and creationism?
PS - Astus, I know how you feel. I've met plenty of people who say exactly that, that belief of evolution equals disbelief of God. Some have even called me a heretic for what I believe. But that's not important.
Implicit in the theory of natural selection is that all specializations of nature occured without any need for divine intervention.
I know that you have faith in God. All I'm suggesting is that you confess that intelligent design was required. If you believe in God, that belief must be based on some observation. I see all nature as proof of a supreme being.
I've been trying to allow you to save face. Human embryos do not possess gills at any stage of development. This is a myth that has unfortunately been propagated in the past by some evolutionists.
I'm arguing the mechanism of evolution, i.e., natural selection, is a fallacy. Yes, God could have used evolution. If he did, then evolutionists are dead wrong by supposing that random mutations and natural selection produced the diversity of species.
A belief in evolution may not preclude a belief in God, as long as you agree that God directed the origin of species and not random chance. The theory of Evolution submits that all species evolved without any requirement of God or intelligent design.
Supposing that natural selection produced life on earth is analogous to suppose that a hammer could construct a building without a carpenter.
I think creationism implies literal Genesis. Intelligent Design does not make any committment as to the nature of God... only that nature exhibits evidence of intelligent design. You speak of intelligent design as if it has something to apologize for. What is really being argued is neither "creationism" or ID per se. The only arguments that are offered are against evolution. Therefore, all arguments are within the realm of science, if you believe evolution is.
I'm not, by any means, discouraging arguments against evolution.
I was just hoping that we could clarify what entails a scientific argument, and that claiming any sort of "divine intervention" falls outside the realm of what we recognize as scientific laws at this time.
I suggest that if you want to continue "arguing" for creation/ID that you set forth parameters or laws within which your hypotheses can be tested.
I think that this thread really needs a drastic change in focus.
We should either go back to the original topic and discuss scientific ways in which it may have occured, or perhaps choose other possible scientific topics or arguments related to it.
Springer you've brought up a LOT of good points in your arguments, and unfortunately we've gotten distracted by metaphysical arguments. Lets talk about some of those topics, in detail, and try to stay scientific.
I don't think it's necessary any longer for you to state that you believe that if evolution is proved false, that ID is true. That's your belief and you're entitled to it. So how about this, line up all the issues of evolution that you can scientifically refute, and we can talk about them. I know you've brought up a lot of them already, but we haven't really spent a lot of time on them, because OTHER subjects keep popping up.
This is probably highly inappropriate, but it made me laugh so now I share it with all of you.
"A comet is, of course, frozen bodies of ice and dust formed over 4.6
billion years ago---or created 6,000 years ago, depending on whether or
not you're wrong."
What did the parasitic Candiru fish say when it finally found a host? - - "Urethra!!"
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 0 guests